I would say we are increasingly in a society were popular sentiment is hostile to this category of explanation.
It doens't hurt to popularize it.
It's almost like Man finally accepted that it is part of Nature, isn't?
It's sad, as Biologists we wasted so much time memorizing archaic data, experimental designs, mechanisms often based on the observations (Evolution and inheritance via genetics) of aristocrats who dropped out of Society (Darwin) or Monks (Mendel) with no real formal 'scientific education' instead of going out and falling in love with Nature and trying to utilize it's methods into our 21st calamity and increase it's use cases.
Irony and reminder of Man's infinite folly when it comes to Nature: Father of modern theory of Evolution (Charles Darwin) also practiced incest.
That is a non sequitur. The article is same constraint lead to same outcomes. Humans as we know don't forage. If we did, there would be a Great extinction of edible species, followed by a famine.
Darwin had no hard proof inbreeding is a problem. We do now. He acted rationally based on his data.
Here's the paper page: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6526/292 and sci-hub came up empty.
EDIT found a PDF download link here: https://osf.io/fw9ge/download
1. Foraging Behavior
====================
1.1 Meat diet
1.2 Fish diet
1.3 Food storage
1.4 Day range
1.5 Migratory distance
2. Reproductive Behavior
========================
2.1 Age at first reproduction
2.2 Polygyny
2.3 Patrilocality
2.4 Exogamy
2.5 Divorce
3. Social Behavior
==================
3.1 Paternal care
3.2 Population density
3.3 Group size
3.4 Distribution range
3.5 Social classes> For example, when obtaining food, there are environments where humans get a significant proportion of their calories from hunting. In these locations it was shown there are much larger proportions of carnivorous mammals and birds than elsewhere.
I would have expected that the hunting-niche filled up, so that it was rather anti-correlated. One species eats more meat another eats less.
For sexual behavior, I suppose I could see the geography (how big island in particular - is that where they find these "human populations who obtain most of their food by foraging in the environment where they live") playing a part. If people have to travel by water to find a mate that could change things.
There is almost a palpable brackish area where trust meets distrust.
I've always been a resilient cooperator, so I hope I can withstand the waves that are washing over me.
Some people adapt to their surroundings, and others blunder blindly forward in spite of any danger. If the ones pushing the boundary of safety to reap great rewards do well, others will emulate them.
If that fruit is poisoned though, the ones watching will be more cautious.
Are you the type of person who will cut down the strange fruit, and build a future of trust, safety, and dignity for all? I hope I am.
Even if it was the right choice, these sorts of things have a dizzying array of unintuitive results and even the academics involved are still working out a lot of the implications. In particular, we don't have a good understanding of how applicable these results (and the wider predictions of HBE) are to non-foraging human societies.
I think we do know of plenty of anti-patterns (ie concrete monstrosities, lack of local walkable amenities) so urban planning is still a Good Thing. If done right.
The only question is what behavior we’re trying to achieve and how we’re manipulating the environment to achieve it.
Perhaps a sustainable ecosystem is more likely to thrive if those at the top follow the same model patterns of interaction.
.. and perhaps, the fact that there's an evolutionary biological precident suggests that we were in step with a sustainable model for longer than we've been out of step.
Otherwise here is an old but free book which lays out a sustainable path to grow healthy humans and planet by working with nature:
https://archive.org/details/permaculture1adesignersmanualbyb...