Tibetans developed genes to help them adapt to life at high elevations

"Researchers have long wondered why the people of the Tibetan Highlands can live at elevations that cause some humans to become life-threateningly ill – and a new study answers that mystery, in part, by showing that through thousands of years of natural selection, those hardy inhabitants of south-central Asia evolved 10 unique oxygen-processing genes that help them live in higher climes."

Original: Genetic Evidence for High-Altitude Adaptation in Tibet

Abstract:

"Tibetans have lived at very high altitudes for thousands of years, and they have a distinctive suite of physiological traits that enable them to tolerate environmental hypoxia. These phenotypes are clearly the result of adaptation to this environment, but their genetic basis remains unknown. We report genome-wide scans that reveal positive selection in several regions that contain genes whose products are likely involved in high-altitude adaptation. Positively selected haplotypes of EGLN1 and PPARA were significantly associated with the decreased hemoglobin phenotype that is unique to this highland population. Identification of these genes provides support for previously hypothesized mechanisms of high-altitude adaptation and illuminates the complexity of hypoxia response pathways in humans."

Man, I got all excited at the prospect of playing some innovative Tibetan games until I realized I had misread the thread title.

This is partly why the Tibetans successfully went without a military for almost a thousand years. I heard that Chinese women often leave the occupied Tibetan region to give birth over concerns of the high number of birth defects that occur.

bodhisamaya Wrote:This is partly why the Tibetans successfully went without a military for almost a thousand years. I heard that Chinese women often leave the occupied Tibetan region to give birth over concerns of the high number of birth defects that occur.

Which 1000 years would that be? Everything I've read suggests Tibet has had a military throughout recorded history, including 'warrior monks'/a period of a Tibetan 'empire'.

I heard it in a video lecture from Robert Thurman but I will have to go back and look it up later to see if that was accurate.

It's probably a result of all the romanticizing that goes on about Tibet.

The Pen & Teller's Bullshit episodes about the Dalai Lama are probably somewhat closer to the truth.

I read that the Tibetan empire once reached as far as Xian and they have had wars with Bhutan, nepal etc. I believe there has at different times also been disunity between east and west Tibet. It's worth bearing in mind that much of what you hear about Tibet is just ignorant China bashing by westerners holding a much romanticised view of Budhism or propaganda from the exiled ruling class. Tibet was basically a feudal theocracy stuck in the middle ages. I wager that if the revolution hadn't spread to Tibet from China, the Lamas would be overthrown eventually anyway. That's not to say I approve of China's handling of Tibet.

By the way I'd reccomend you all to visit Tibet. It's a really great place to visit.

bodhisamaya Wrote:This is partly why the Tibetans successfully went without a military for almost a thousand years. I heard that Chinese women often leave the occupied Tibetan region to give birth over concerns of the high number of birth defects that occur.

Tibet has had at least one military conflict per 200 years for a thousand years:
Internal conflict > Mongolian invasion > Internal conflict > Tibet invades Bhutan > Internal conflict > Invasion by Nepal > British invade a few times > scuffles with Qing

OK, I was off by 650 years, give or take a month. I looked up his interview and Tibet was demilitarized for 350 years. Still, a fairly impressive feat. Robert Thurman is considered the foremost American expert on Tibetan History and teaches at Columbia University.
"...The Tibetans succeeded in transplanting that same cultural pattern into the Mongolian nations, which then became what I call "fully monasticized" and very demilitarized. This was kind of a miracle because the Tibetans and the Mongolians were two of the most ferocious, imperialistic, military nations in the world, and then, just as the rest of the world was gearing up to become imperialists, they turned into very peaceful monks. Both nations ended up being chewed up by the Russians and the Chinese precisely because they were demilitarized, but for three and a half centuries—right up until the Chinese conquest of Tibet in 1950—the Tibetans were unique, and they continue to be potentially unique."

Ah ok, I agree about the uniqueness of the Tibetan situation. Whilst they were "very demilitarized", they still maintained a military, albeit a tiny one. For example, the Nepalese invaded in 1791. In response, the Qianlong (chinese) emperor sent 17,000 troops to help the small Tibetan force repel the Nepalese.

Internally, though, the Tibetans lived monastically and were pretty peaceful for that time.

This book covers it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/sep...ianreview8
Edit: also Warren Smith has sensitive coverage of most Tibetan history in his books, especially as it relates to the neighbouring nations.

[ファブリス]

I saw a great BBC documentary here in "Little Lhassa", which showed black and white footage of the Tibet between 1900 and 1950. It was very impressive, you could tell Tibet was truly an autonomous and highly organized empire.

They fought the British when they came to force a treaty. According to the documentary and notes from British colonel who led the expedition the Tibetan "soldiers" just walked into gunshots and didn't offer much resistance.

Somewhat related rare color footage of Tibet from 1930-1950 (taken down from YouTube *booooh*).

What about slavery in ancient Tibet? Looks like a controversial topic actually.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_...ontroversy

Israel Epstein wrote that prior to the Communist takeover, poverty in Tibet was so severe that in some of the worst cases peasants had to hand over children to the manor as household slaves or nangzan, because they were too poor to raise them.[74] On the other hand, Laird asserted that in the 1940s Tibetan peasants were well off and immune to famine, whereas starvation was common in China.[75]

I haven't yet read anything that says the Tibetans just decided, culturally, to give up warfare and demilitarize very much. More like, they always, even during that latter few centuries, had various wars and conflicts, internal and outward, then ended up with a reduced military, a class of warrior monks, and relying on their conquerors/the Mongol/Chinese militaries or somesuch during those later periods.

I'm just going by Google, though. But if that Thurman was trying to suggest that somehow Tibet's culture was nonviolent at any point, I think historians would disagree. I read the place that excerpt was taken from, and he tries to paint those who accuse him of 'Shangri-La-icizing' Tibet as being prone to condescension, but I don't think that's entirely accurate. He definitely gives me the impression he's trying to gloss over Tibet's conflicts and make their history out to be this story of a peaceful, Enlightened culture that managed to withstand violent external pressures. Even where he places emphasis on 'monks rather than soldiers' seems disingenuous, given that, at at least one point, the warrior monk class outnumbered the military.

I think any time I see an 'expert on Tibet' using that expertise to make political points or to write about the 'example of Tibet' or whatnot, alarms should go off and the proverbial 'thinking caps' should go on. ;p