Rob Jarvis commentary on the article at – https://theconversation.com/inequality-now-extends-to-peoples-dna-124444
What it suggests is that ‘class polarisation’ is a consequence of a form of self-selection resulting from the increasing locational mobility of population. This being the consequence of the genetic predisposition/suitedness that mobile individuals have towards seeking new experiences, when they are also genetically predisposed to doing well educationally. They also tend to display other genetically based traits whose indicator genes overlap with those of educational achievement.
However the article is mobility-centric in its observations and inferences. It does not explore the genetic verses socio-economic causes of the ‘degeneration’ of ‘remaining populations’ and implies it their gene pool is thereby ‘weakened’. They also do not explore the selection bias of employers towards placing into leadership/high-skill development paths those individuals who exhibit ‘leadership morphologies’ – tall, slim, athletic, visually presentable according to the cultural stereotype.
The long-term consequence of urban migration influenced by this phenomenon is also not explored. Perhaps we can, and by now should, expect genetic regression to the mean to result in polarisation of genetic types into urban ghettoes and the reverse migration of retiring high-level employees back into rural areas. This latter then exports genetically driven social polarisation from the cities back to the countryside.. and provides the reverse migrants with an accessible supply of low-skill service providers at low wages. But who will not pass their genes back into the rural communities they enter. Those rural communities and families, now genetically depleted in terms of the present day cultural norms required for social success, will have to rely upon increasingly unlikely genetic regressions to the mean, and beyond, to maintain their genetic ‘strength’. All the time being subject to the perpetual migration of their ‘best’ to the urban areas. Meanwhile no flow to rural areas will occur of less genetically favoured individuals born in the cities urban areas. Fewer, and even no, jobs exist there, most of the vacated houses have been gentrified and priced out of their financial means and their occupants actively resist the development of low-cost housing that might threaten their own prices and rural enjoyments.
But can one rubbish the basis of the articles’ inferences, and those above, claiming that it is by being genetically open to new experiences and having good ‘educational genes’ one is led into urban migration from rural populations?
It totally ignores the semiotic basis of behaviours interacting with socio-economic opportunity when presenting in areas of industrial and commercial concentration. Perhaps it is just the best option, and that brighter people are identified as those who make ‘more beneficial’ survival choices.
The choice of where to seek work, and even the need to work for others, can be seen as the consequence of concentration of ownerships of properties and resources in the hands of an increasingly small proportion of the wider community. In other words what is presented as a consequence of the operation of the ‘laws of nature’ is in fact a manifestation of the greed and avarice of the Few over the Many!
This in itself being a consequence of the processes of macro-scale technological developments always having become monopolised by a few people due to the institutional property ownership norms of every society. This has been the case since the “Large and Clever” guys realised that they could always have their own way with and could then pass their ‘ownership’ advantage on to their, perhaps, smaller and less smart offspring by introducing “the rule of law”, on top of and obscuring their darker methods. But still reinforcing the genetic component by offspring only being allowed to marry within the property owning group, and those ‘fit’ outsiders who have ‘gatecrashed’ it.