Are we genetically programmed for Bitcoin economics?

[Adrian-x]

"One side is accused of supporting ethnic cleansing; the other of being intellectually naive. Geneticists and economists are struggling to collaborate on research that explores how our genes influence and interact with economic behavior. Top economists are publishing a paper that claims a country's genetic diversity can predict the success of its economy. To critics, the economists' paper seems to suggest that a country's poverty could be the result of its citizens' genetic make-up, and the paper is attracting charges of genetic determinism, and even racism. But the economists say that they have been misunderstood, and are merely using genetics as a proxy for other factors that can drive an economy, such as history and culture."

Economics and genetics meet in uneasy union
So as it turns out according to economists ( by economist I presume they mean Keynesians) the West is genetically predisposed for economic success,  and the monetary problems beginning to surface can be overlooked as we live in a world where genetics predict economic prosperity.

So can using Bitcoin alter your genome?   

[SgtSpike]

Where did it say that economic success alters your genome?  Or why would using Bitcoin alter your genome?

If anything, I'd say our genome predisposes us to be prime candidates for using Bitcoin.  I mean, we're generally a group of intellectuals, and that's, in part, due to our genetic makeup.  At this point, a decently high level of intelligence is needed to fully grasp, understand, and utilize Bitcoins.

Genetic diversity is a logical predecessor to economic prosperity.  Certain genetic makeups create people with certain talents, skills, and abilities.  Having a variety of these talents, skills, and abilities is key to building up a fully capable economy.  Managers and high-level thinkers are needed to make decisions just the same as people to dig holes in the ground or serve coffee are needed.  Countries without diverse genomes could be viewed as places with too many managers and not enough coffee servers, or too few manages and too many coffee servers.  With that sort of lopsided disposition to certain skillsets, economic growth can be stifled.

[Adrian-x]

It didn't say it alters you genome, I was just trolling.

But much like the hair on an arctic fox changes white when it gets cold and turns brown when it gets warm, our environment can alter your genes.

To your point of diversity, I agree that is the cause of economic success, but I don't believe it is genetic. (That thinking was surpassed with predetermined birth classes ) My heritage is one of pioneers and innovators (dowers), but when I look around I don't see many dowers anymore, just mainly a society of coffee servers and managers.  (Douglass Adams comes to mind - so I will throw in hairdressers as well)

[SgtSpike]

It didn't say it alters you genome, I was just trolling.

But much like the hair on an arctic fox changes white when it gets cold and turns brown when it gets warm, our environment can alter your genes.

To your point of diversity, I agree that is the cause of economic success, but I don't believe it is genetic. (That thinking was surpassed with predetermined birth classes ) My heritage is one of pioneers and innovators (dowers), but when I look around I don't see many dowers anymore, just mainly a society of coffee servers and managers.  (Douglass Adams comes to mind - so I will throw in hairdressers as well)

So you don't think black people are generally better runners than white people?

[Adrian-x]

So you don't think black people are generally better runners than white people?

Correct, scientific evaluation shows: that 98 out of the top 100 runners, grew up at higher altitudes (like Kenya), there foot and calf mussels development, without artificial support, (no shoes). They specialized in running before age 7 (a as a primarily form or transportation) running on average 5km to and from school every day.  As professionals once competitive they train in high altitude running camps running 60% more than there western counterparts, every day.  By contrast Western competitive runners don't  commit until after age 14 and live a some what sheltered existence.

No genetic advantage,  but an environmental advantage  one that will be eliminated when they get the benefits of cars and shoes. (BTW most still regard a cow as money a status symbol)

[SgtSpike]

So you don't think black people are generally better runners than white people?

Correct, scientific evaluation shows: that 98 out of the top 100 runners, grew up at higher altitudes (like Kenya), there foot and calf mussels development, without artificial support, (no shoes). They specialized in running before age 7 (a as a primarily form or transportation) running on average 5km to and from school every day.  As professionals once competitive they train in high altitude running camps running 60% more than there western counterparts, every day.  By contrast Western competitive runners don't  commit until after age 14 and live a some what sheltered existence.

No genetic advantage,  but an environmental advantage  one that will be eliminated when they get the benefits of cars and shoes. (BTW most still regard a cow as money a status symbol)

Fascinating, I hadn't heard of that.  I'll put hold on my previous statements for the time being.

[benjamindees]

Let's see, Americans are self-selected from those who traveled half way around the world, surviving with little or nothing, from both East and West.  Of course we're better at economics.

[cedivad]

Let's see, Americans are self-selected from those who traveled half way around the world, surviving with little or nothing, from both East and West.  Of course we're better at economics.

Best troll ever.

At least, I hope so.

[Pteppic]

So as it turns out according to economists ( by economist I presume they mean Keynesians)

What has Keynes got to do with anything? You do know that not all economics is macroeconomics, right?

[Adrian-x]

So as it turns out according to economists ( by economist I presume they mean Keynesians)

What has Keynes got to do with anything? You do know that not all economics is macroeconomics, right?

Sure, sorry I didn't mean to offend. Let me explain my comment, the fundamental principles of economics are derived from logic, and that logic is best expressed in the Austrian principles of economics. The principals generally described as Keynesian are more of a social science a type of dogma.

I inadvertently compared dogma and logic and over generalized, I am sorry if I upset you.   

While I am a designer (a commercial artist), every action I take, is affected by macroeconomics, and without prejudges I can totally understand other fields of economics unrelated to macro economics being influenced by macroeconomic dogmas. 

I hope I don't seem fundamentalist but given the luxury of history, general knowledge, deductive reasoning, I can't reconcile genetics and economics without the use of dogmas. 

[Pteppic]

Sure, sorry I didn't mean to offend. Let me explain my comment, the fundamental principles of economics are derived from logic, and that logic is best expressed in the Austrian principles of economics. The principals generally described as Keynesian are more of a social science a type of dogma.

I inadvertently compared dogma and logic and over generalized, I am sorry if I upset you.   

While I am a designer (a commercial artist), every action I take, is affected by macroeconomics, and without prejudges I can totally understand other fields of economics unrelated to macro economics being influenced by macroeconomic dogmas. 

I hope I don't seem fundamentalist but given the luxury of history, general knowledge, deductive reasoning, I can't reconcile genetics and economics without the use of dogmas. 

Let's take an example. In my wonderfully orthodox, mainstream economics studies I learned about the theory of optimal currency areas. I know that theories and new discoveries don't appear in isolation, so there is a possibility that this theory is influenced by Keynesianism, even founded on it (although to be honest, I doubt it in this case). The point is that even if the connection exists, it is irrelevant. The theory should stand or fall on its own successes and failures.

But I guess there is more than one way of looking at it. You might argue that if it is founded on Keynesianism and Keynesianism is wrong, then how can it be right. I would argue that if a theory seems to fit the facts and it is useful, then why would you reject it?

I just can't see that it takes a fundamentally Keynesian outlook to get some genetic diversity data and some GDP per capita data and draw a pretty graph. And even if it did, I can't see that a Keynesian background has any bearing on the correlation between the two.

[mobodick]

So you don't think black people are generally better runners than white people?

Correct, scientific evaluation shows: that 98 out of the top 100 runners, grew up at higher altitudes (like Kenya), there foot and calf mussels development, without artificial support, (no shoes). They specialized in running before age 7 (a as a primarily form or transportation) running on average 5km to and from school every day.  As professionals once competitive they train in high altitude running camps running 60% more than there western counterparts, every day.  By contrast Western competitive runners don't  commit until after age 14 and live a some what sheltered existence.

No genetic advantage,  but an environmental advantage  one that will be eliminated when they get the benefits of cars and shoes. (BTW most still regard a cow as money a status symbol)

Why do you exclude a genetic component at the sight of a social component?
I think that is a silly notion. Any enviromental influence will put a pressure on a population of genes. They will change and adapt, but slowly and over many many generations.
There are many high-altitude areas on the globe, and yet the kenians are some of the best runners around. Why is the top 10 of marathon runners composed of only men from kenia and ethiopia? Shouldn't they have stiff competition from people living in the alps or the andes or something?
I think your explanation is incomplete and i find it unsatisfactory as an answer.

In te end i firmly beliefe that you cannot separate 'nature' from 'nurture'.
Everyone is the result of genes expressing in an environment. Genes being, of course, nature, and the environment being nurture.

So if we would take, let's say ,100 native european people and we let them grow up in kenia and according to normal kenian life i bet this group will have a lower running capability than 100 randomly selected kenian native men.
It's propably going to be a small shift in the distribution but that is how most genetic differences between humans from different locations express themselfs.
The differences may be small, but sport is very competitive. A small advantage in some metabolic process can give you the boost you need to win the run.

[Lethn]

So as it turns out according to economists ( by economist I presume they mean Keynesians) the West is genetically predisposed for economic success,  and the monetary problems beginning to surface can be overlooked as we live in a world where genetics predict economic prosperity.

I'd never thought I'd find someone more racist than the Nazis.

[mobodick]

So as it turns out according to economists ( by economist I presume they mean Keynesians) the West is genetically predisposed for economic success,  and the monetary problems beginning to surface can be overlooked as we live in a world where genetics predict economic prosperity.

I'd never thought I'd find someone more racist than the Nazis.

Did it ever occur to you that what we call 'economy' in the west is a system very much formed by the culture of the west? It suits westeners well because it was created by the westeners for the westeners.

[Wekkel]

I once read a book that looked at geological aspects of the world compared to the most prosperous economies. In essence, a central theme of the book is that, for instance, Europa has the advantage of lots of rain and benign winters, and therefore had an advantage over rougher area's in the world.

I really recommend it if you want food for thought on this topic.

The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor

[bb113]

Where's the data? Oh its not published yet. It will be in the future published.

Then I'm not sure why we are talking about it right now. Maybe it has something to do with upcoming US elections. Anyway, nature actually publishes some of the worst research reports around in that it is usually impossible to tell what was actually done to generate the data. Reviewers don't care.

I would also bet that a good look at this data would be inconclusive to a critical audience, (a vague concept of diversity is correlated with vague concept of economic success...). Also the claim of "strong evidence" (present in the Nature News article) will be based on a small p value arrived at via sampling to a foregone conclusion.

[Spekulatius]

[ecoexperiment]

Did it ever occur to you that what we call 'economy' in the west is a system very much formed by the culture of the west? It suits westeners well because it was created by the westeners for the westeners.

I like this answer.  It fits the closest to what I've read about specialization in cultures/communities.  The less time people have to spend trying to obtain their basic needs the more able a culture or community is able support their specialization.  Specializations like professional artist or economist.  It's pretty difficult to find time to create a mortgage backed security when it takes you 3 hours every day to get enough water for your family to survive.  There aren't many factory workers in china who play the future markets in their spare time!

[molecular]

"One side is accused of supporting ethnic cleansing; the other of being intellectually naive. Geneticists and economists are struggling to collaborate on research that explores how our genes influence and interact with economic behavior. Top economists are publishing a paper that claims a country's genetic diversity can predict the success of its economy. To critics, the economists' paper seems to suggest that a country's poverty could be the result of its citizens' genetic make-up, and the paper is attracting charges of genetic determinism, and even racism. But the economists say that they have been misunderstood, and are merely using genetics as a proxy for other factors that can drive an economy, such as history and culture."

hm, maybe a successful economy just attracts people from all over the world and therefore increses that countries genetic diversity?

[RodeoX]

I don't think the time frame for our economic reality has been long enough. I would expect at least a few thousand years to note a genetic divergence.
But I do think there is evidence for many animals to have a sense of "fairness" that is genetic. Interesting topic OP.