ABSTRACT
Editors' Sunmary: In contrast to the previous two chapters which emphasize an evolutionary approach, Jere Haas takes a secular approach to attempt to demonstrate human biological adaptation to high altitudes through differential states of well-being as responses to environmental stress. Be skillfully weaves together two theoretical approaches. The first is a research strategy designed to sort out the multiple stresses at high altitude (hypoxia, cold0 limited food, intense UV radiation) and corresponding human responses (Baker 1976). The second approach involves an, application of Mazess' (1975a,b, 1978) adaptive domains concept to structure the analysis of human responses to altitude. As Haas notes, individual adaptive domains such as child growth and neurological functioning can be studied in an interacting mode and evaluated in terms of whether individuals are conferred relative benefit within a stressful environment. The requirement that relative benefit be demonstrated before adaptation as a state is claimed requires individual sampling and population comparisons. It is rooted in darwinian theory and avoids the weak judgments about adaptations made by cultural ecologists as cited by Dyson-Hudson and Smith in Chapters 1 and 2.
Haas stresses that proper evaluation of individual adaptive domains must take into account the interactions between environmental factors—particularly variations in diet—and biological factors that affect individual responses. Despite the fact that human responses to high altitude have been extensively studied by human biologists, a great deal more research is needed to document how these affect human adaptability and adaptation.
