The possible future of humanity

…that is, if we don’t annihilate ourselves first. I find this as amusing as those books on future advances published in the 1960s.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm

What!!! Only two sub speicies what a drag. I was hoping for eight or more by the 31st century.:moogle:

Hmm… this is going to cause huge wars between the “giants” and “goblins” which will probably lead to the end of humanity.

We’re not going to evolve significantly in 100 000 years, not with 20 year generations. It’s going to take longer than that at our level of complexity it seems to me.

Hmm… this is going to cause huge wars between the “giants” and “goblins” which will probably lead to the end of humanity.
This is kind of funny considering your name.

What future? It sounds more like a miserable nightmare.

Indeed.

This is… definitely going to take time. I’m just happy I won’t be around to see it. Especially if they’d look like… that thing there.

Resumes eternal mission of being a random pest and worshipping Nulani

Those predictions are completely stupid and unfounded. Read sentences like

men will exhibit symmetrical facial features, look athletic, and have squarer jaws, deeper voices and bigger penises.
Yeah he may dream about it, but it won’t become reality :stuck_out_tongue:
Or propositions that we will become giants? That’s stupid too. Due to better nutrition we’ll finally reach a specific height but that won’t rise any further genetically, because it’s just not required anymore. Height doesn’t count in an industrialised world.
And he bases his claim that we’ll divide into 2 species on the ground that we’ll be more choosy about our sexual partners. Why should we be more choosy than today?

This doesn’t take into account that <i>even now</i> scientists are learning to modify DNA to correct genetic defects. The question is not so much what defects humans will have accumulated, as what weird ways humans will be modifying themselves by then.

The entire article seems misguided regarding ‘de-evolution’. For instance, the fact that we don’t use the full power of our chewing muscles does not mean we’ll gradually lose our jaws. This would only happen if people with smaller jaws reproduced more effectively than people with normal jaws.

And how arbitrary to set the human ‘evolutionary peak’ at the year 3000! No one knows what technological advances, wars, and societal changes will occur in even the next 50 years.

The premise of this article seems to be that technology and society will remain the same as humanity evolves, yet even then its ideas about ‘de-evolution’ are sketchy.

What I want to know, is how to write stuff like that and get paid. I wanna be your mellontologist.

There is no science in this article. One can’t make most of those predictions. Why would one of the species be “goblin like” and “dim witted”?

And there is no predicting our technology will cause that damage to us, too. That is too far fetched of an extrapolation on the growing dependency we have of it. It might be that we peak it next decade and don’t get much more advances or dependence too. Or we might get back to the stone age after some cataclysm. There is no guessing our technologic future like that.

For a more interesting article on human evolution, you guys should read If Humans Were Built to Last, by by S. Jay Olshansky, Bruce A. Carnes and Robert N. Butler. It is not like this one which says “humans will be/might become like this”, but rather shows interesting anatomical points which, if different, could help us living longer, or at least more comfortably in our last years of life. It’s just that all the features suggested, if put together on a person, would make it look like an alien.

Reminds me of Strong Bad saying “Today’s forecast is total crap” in that ‘newscaster’ front page.

When you look back in history, for most of the history of civilization their were two “sub-species” - the laborers and rulers.

The scientists are just now saying that the chasm will become so drastic that there are real genetic differences. It might be possible.

Pff. Everyone knows we’ll become Eloi and Morlocks by 802,701.

I plan to die long before that, sorry. Curtis, ain’t a ruler a labourer with whole lotta [STRIKE]Rosie[/STRIKE] money?

Virtual reality will go a long way.

But historically the rulers are the ones who ended up with genetic defects from inbreeding.

Well, that may be true, but they also tended to be much taller(due to better nutrition), have better hygiene, and smarter(better education). So it kind of fits in with the “better-looking/smarter” rulers and ugly dumb underclass theory that the authors of this article came up with.

Except that as you just said, they tended to be taller and smarter because their environment was better, not because of their genetics.

That’s a tricky issue, though.

Were they better-looking and smarter because they were rich? Or did their ancestors initially get rich because they were better-looking and smarter, and then pass those genes to their descendants(who maintained the genes through inbreeding).

Just from my own limited study of genetics versus environment, I think genetics has a lot more to do with it. There may actually be a lot of truth in the idea of social darwinism, horrible as it may sound. Especially where you see these numerous twin studies where the one was poor but ended up almost exactly like the one who was raised in a middle-class environment. Or the numerous examples where an orphan whose parents were messed up is raised in a middle-class home, yet becomes messed up and gravitates towards lower-classes.

Keep in mind, I actually support things like welfare and affirmative action. You need to do everything possible to ensure equal opportunity. But you shouldn’t force it. Humans naturally organize themselves in certain ways, and acknowledging that fact doesn’t make you an elitist.

What about ugly but extremly bright people, and great looking people who are as dumb as a pot?