two sub speicies of humans.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Future humans (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6057734.stm)

This is a horrible idea, that humans might evolve into two types of human.

What is the evidence for any of this?

[Jazzratt]

This rests on too many assumptions for my liking. Mainly that our dependence on technology will cause it to come about. Although I can't really confirm or refute this, being that I'm no genetiscist and I don't have any access to the detials of the claim.

From most of what I know though this sounds extremely unlikley.

[RedAnarchist]

Evolution doesn't work that fast, so this sounds very inaccurate and probably very untrue. What is more likely is that this is one of those "wierdly interesting" articles that buries news.

[Sentinel]

This speculation, whether accurate or not, relies on our society not evolving beyond capitalism.

As the future society will be communist, there would not be upper and a lower class 'sub species' like described here. Also, genetical engineering and cybernetics (available to all ) are likely to make us look like whatever we prefer, rather than what natural evolution would make us like..

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I can't bring myself to give a fuck about the humans of 100,000 AD

[Whitten]

technological evolution is about to overtake biology. It will happen in 100 years if there isnt a revolution. The rich will have their genetic enhancements, better children, extended longevity, technological enhancements in their body/brain etc.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 10:14 PM
technological evolution is about to overtake biology. It will happen in 100 years if there isnt a revolution. The rich will have their genetic enhancements, better children, extended longevity, technological enhancements in their body/brain etc.
That sounds unfourtnatley true. Which is why a revolution is needed.

[FatFreeMilk]

The world is probably going to end (either naturally or as a result of our own negligence)before any of these evolutionary changes could even take place.


People would become choosier about their sexual partners, causing humanity to divide into sub-species, he added. This isn't very logical either because lots of people don't pick their partners soley based on how good they look, just look at your parents :o I'm kidding. Bad joke.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 08:21 PM
Future humans (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6057734.stm)

This is a horrible idea, that humans might evolve into two types of human.

What is the evidence for any of this?
It's already happened. Ever heard o fthe X-men?

[RedAnarchist]

Someone should contact the guy who did it and ask them if they actually conidered the fact that it is very likley that there will be a revolution sometime in the next millenium?

[Fitzy]

If things stay the same as they are now then this guys prediction will prove correct. Think about it, beautiful people on average make more money, taller people on average make more money. Plus genetic manipulation will become available to the rich.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Think about it, beautiful people on average make more money, taller people on average make more money. Plus genetic manipulation will become available to the rich.

What the hell are you talking about?

I dont think its possible to profile people by height or beauty to determin how much money they will make.

[Fitzy]

Its a statistical fact.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Fitzy, you should elaborate. Most people don't know about that fact (althought it is true) and you should specify what your opinion on the matter to avoided being called things. Just my thoughts.

That is an article that says someone did a study. That is not enough information to make a judgment, and I doubt I would agree with the findings.

[BreadBros]

Evolution doesn't work that fast, so this sounds very inaccurate and probably very untrue. What is more likely is that this is one of those "wierdly interesting" articles that buries news.

I think its based on the idea that the increasing rate of technological advancement will cause human beings to behave in increasingly different ways at a greater speed, increasing the chances of change.


This speculation, whether accurate or not, relies on our society not evolving beyond capitalism.

As the future society will be communist, there would not be upper and a lower class 'sub species' like described here. Also, genetical engineering and cybernetics (available to all ) are likely to make us look like whatever we prefer, rather than what natural evolution would make us like..

The article doesn't talk about these future upper and lower species as evolving out of economic classes. Rather it talks about them as evolving out of personal decisions to mate with the best looking people, which does not rely on a capitalist society, and in fact may be more evident in a communist society since the variable of choosing mates on wealth will become irrelevant.

The article posits some interesting things:


However, Dr Curry warns, in 10,000 years time humans may have paid a genetic price for relying on technology.

Spoiled by gadgets designed to meet their every need, they could come to resemble domesticated animals.

[...]

Social skills, such as communicating and interacting with others, could be lost, along with emotions such as love, sympathy, trust and respect. People would become less able to care for others, or perform in teams.

Physically, they would start to appear more juvenile. Chins would recede, as a result of having to chew less on processed food.

There could also be health problems caused by reliance on medicine, resulting in weak immune systems. Preventing deaths would also help to preserve the genetic defects that cause cancer.

Further into the future, sexual selection - being choosy about one's partner - was likely to create more and more genetic inequality, said Dr Curry.

The logical outcome would be two sub-species, "gracile" and "robust" humans similar to the Eloi and Morlocks foretold by HG Wells in his 1895 novel The Time Machine.

"While science and technology have the potential to create an ideal habitat for humanity over the next millennium, there is a possibility of a monumental genetic hangover over the subsequent millennia due to an over-reliance on technology reducing our natural capacity to resist disease, or our evolved ability to get along with each other, said Dr Curry

Although I've never considered myself a primitivist, I think a lot of these ideas underly primtivist thought - that somehow technology will diminish the human characteristics many people find most fulfilling and create a sterile, cold world where human emotion and interaction plays less of a part.

[TC]

It seems absurdly improbable. Species diverge to fill different adaptive nieches; you wouldn't expect one to diverge into a simply less well adapted version, rather you'd expect the less attractive ones to simply be reduced in number each generation as they'd have less change of reproducing; meaning a single better looking species rather than a better looking species and a crappy looking species.

[BreadBros]

How would they have less chance of reproducing? Part of what the article says is that technology will allow increasing numbers of people to live despite genetic defects and the such. If there is a large swath of society that has difficulty finding good-looking mates its not too far-out to imagine they would mate amongst themselves and pass on their genes.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I agree with TC. However, what I found most interesting about this theory was this:


The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative and a far cry from the "underclass" humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures.
"Uppler class" imeaning rich, i.e. able to afford the new technology (such as genetic manipulation, as mentioned earlier)


Spoiled by gadgets designed to meet their every need, they could come to resemble domesticated animals.
...
Social skills, such as communicating and interacting with others, could be lost, along with emotions such as love, sympathy, trust and respect. People would become less able to care for others, or perform in teams.

Physically, they would start to appear more juvenile. Chins would recede, as a result of having to chew less on processed food.

There could also be health problems caused by reliance on medicine, resulting in weak immune systems. Preventing deaths would also help to preserve the genetic defects that cause cancer.

Further into the future, sexual selection - being choosy about one's partner - was likely to create more and more genetic inequality, said Dr Curry.

The logical outcome would be two sub-species, "gracile" and "robust" humans similar to the Eloi and Morlocks foretold by HG Wells in his 1895 novel The Time Machine.

"While science and technology have the potential to create an ideal habitat for humanity over the next millennium, there is a possibility of a monumental genetic hangover over the subsequent millennia due to an over-reliance on technology reducing our natural capacity to resist disease, or our evolved ability to get along with each other, said Dr Curry.

This implies that the upper class, who were originally described as "tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative" would spoil themselves with these gadgets, causing the effects described above and weakening themselves as a species, while the ""underclass" humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures", not being able to afford such technology, would have had to rely on their own strength to survive, and therefore the underclass species could only grow stronger as a species while the upper class grows weaker. Of course there must then come a time when the underclass is stronger than the upper class, and so becomes the dominant species.

[BreadBros]

"Uppler class" imeaning rich, i.e. able to afford the new technology (such as genetic manipulation, as mentioned earlier)


Actually I think the article is stating that the genetic divergence would arise out of sexual characteristics/attractiveness and reproduction, not out of genetic manipulation. Therefore upper-class in this sense means "more attractive" but not necessarily wealthier.


This implies that the upper class, who were originally described as "tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative" would spoil themselves with these gadgets, causing the effects described above and weakening themselves as a species, while the ""underclass" humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures", not being able to afford such technology, would have had to rely on their own strength to survive, and therefore the underclass species could only grow stronger as a species while the upper class grows weaker. Of course there must then come a time when the underclass is stronger than the upper class, and so becomes the dominant species.

I think he was referring to the technology as being universal and the divergance coming out of sexual characteristics, not out of lack of access to technology. It seems contradictory to state that the underclass would evolve out of lack of dependency on technology yet was able to survive in greater numbers because of the benefits of health tech.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 10:55 PM
It seems absurdly improbable. Species diverge to fill different adaptive nieches; you wouldn't expect one to diverge into a simply less well adapted version, rather you'd expect the less attractive ones to simply be reduced in number each generation as they'd have less change of reproducing; meaning a single better looking species rather than a better looking species and a crappy looking species.


Comrade, the only way we'll get rid of ugly people is through socialist revolution.

You should know that. ;) Besides, you should know that for every ugly man there is an ugly woman. It's insideous.


BreadBros:


Actually I think the article is stating that the genetic divergence would arise out of sexual characteristics/attractiveness and reproduction, not out of genetic manipulation. Therefore upper-class in this sense means "more attractive" but not necessarily wealthier.

No, I think the author is extrapolating from the current sociological fact that the rich are taller and thinner than the proles who are shorter and obese.

It's one of those little historical turn-arounds that in the 18th and 19th centuries, being fat was a symbol of wealth whereas in the 21st century it's a symbol of poverty. And there's enough evidence of this on daytime tv.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Actually I think the article is stating that the genetic divergence would arise out of sexual characteristics/attractiveness and reproduction, not out of genetic manipulation. Therefore upper-class in this sense means "more attractive" but not necessarily wealthier.
I didn't say that the genetic divergence would arise from genetic manipulation, I simply gave genetic manipulation as an example of a luxury resulting from advanced technology that only the wealthy could afford.

Also, any "upper class" in society is always going to be wealthier, it's commonsense. Either they are actually going to be a stronger species and so are going to be better at working and accumulating resources, or they are simply going to be viewed as superior, in which case they are given more opportunities to accumulate said resources.



I think he was referring to the technology as being universal and the divergance coming out of sexual characteristics, not out of lack of access to technology. It seems contradictory to state that the underclass would evolve out of lack of dependency on technology yet was able to survive in greater numbers because of the benefits of health tech.
But health tech is necessary for survival, so it is likely that it will be provided to the underclass either out of obligation or out of the self-interest of the upper class, whereas the technology that the author predicts will be the downfall of the upper class entails luxuries that will only be available to society's wealthier, as described above.

[Entrails Konfetti]

I don't see that happening, one or the other of those sub-species would die out. Think about it.

[Severian]

Highly unlikely it could happen that way, along class lines.

No social division has ever kept humans from...procreating....with each other. Even the rigid castelike divisions of the past, or strict racist segregation and laws against "interracial" sex.

The more fluid class divisions of modern capitalism are much less likely to do so. Even if you assume - as a economics prof does, naturally - that those divisions are eternal.

That's the main condition for the divergence of difference subspecies or even species - keep populations from breeding with each other. Geographic separation's the most common way - and that's over for humanity.

I was looking for an "April 1" date on the article, especially when it ends up endorsing the conclusions of a 19th-century science fiction writer.

But maybe it's a bit of unintentional self-satire on the idiocy of London School of Economics types.

[Entrails Konfetti]

One thing I noticed today is that most of the very good looking people, are particularly stupid. Also, alot of ugly people make up with their sense of articulation and ways to process knowledge.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Well i looked into that thing about tall people earning more as a statistical fact while revleft was down.

It turns outs its true, but not for biological reasons but social reasons.

from the article i skimmed (it was academic and boring) tall people have greater confidence which is gained from their stature while at school, college and Uni. They are seen to be closer to an adult than their peers and people naturally treat them with more respect sooner.

well it was somthing like that.

[Hiero]

I have no problem being a goblin. Haven't any of you seen Lord of the Rings?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I have no problem being a goblin. Haven't any of you seen Lord of the Rings?

Yes and most of them got killed by the elves & humans.

[LuXe]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 17, 2006 09:13 pm
I can't bring myself to give a fuck about the humans of 100,000 AD
QFT

[The Bitter Hippy]

i think the fact that this study was commissioned by the Bravo TV channel (for those of you lucky enough not to have heard about it, it is the TV extension of a typical tabloid/lad's mag. Lots of cop shows, lots of soft porn) eliminates all credibility for the actual findings of the study.

However, the debate about bourgeios use of gene therapy to increase longevity and intelligence is a real danger, but also an opportunity.

The bougeiosie has survived in the developed capitalist countries by hiding within the "middle classes". Once they drop the middle classes (who are getting steadily less wealthy in proportion to the bourgeiosie) and let them merge with the "true" proletariat, which they necessarily must in order to progress with gene therapy (which is certain to be hideously expensive), the contrast will become great enough that it can no longer be ignored.

[RebelDog]

As many have already alluded to on this thread this study relies totally on the assumption that class structures will still exist 100,000 years from now. If the human race can survive 100,000 more years of class division and the violence that inherently comes with it then a miracle would have to have taken place. We have come close to nuclear destruction in the last 50 years. Class systems cannot stay in place if humans are to get through the next 100 years nevermind 100,000. The author has left out this fact in order to come to a desired result in my opinion. By his pen humans evolve but political systems stay rigid and in place forever it would seem against all emperical and historical data. One so blinkered should not have the word scientist attributed to him.

[Forward Union]

i think the fact that this study was commissioned by the Bravo TV channel (for those of you lucky enough not to have heard about it, it is the TV extension of a typical tabloid/lad's mag. Lots of cop shows, lots of soft porn) eliminates all credibility for the actual findings of the study.

The original article started off "Women of the future will have perfect breasts" :lol: :lol:

[Dimentio]

More likely, in 2100, humans would yet again generally look like medieval peasants, given the collapse of the global biosphere caused by the price system. They will live in metallic ruins or ecologic gardens, fight each-other and eat non-diverse food. Healthcare would be very expensive, and a new wave of diseases would balance the population.

Have anyone of you seen the movie "Beowulf" with Christopher Lambert? The movie was shit, but it clearly shows how a post-industrial society could work.

[Physco Bitch]

I don't now about more eveidence... but i would like to now what this guy is on.
This kind of thing could (and may do) happen, but i don't think that we are going to split into two sub humans because of class. It is no suprise that the rich will end up elegant and beautiful and the poor ugly and stupid. Why can't it be the other way round - or a god mix of both? After all there are the same amount of stupid rich people as there are stupid poor people. I could be convincede that this will happen, because humans do naturally evolve over time and when we do there usually ends up being to species before the one takes over and kills the other lot off. With our technology and how we rely on it - i ended up the other day thinking of something like this and after having a chat with some mates - we decided the funniest evoloution would be for humans to turn into small bodies and huge thumbs through all the txts messaging that gets done now a days. I now it is stupid and we weren't thinking of it as a serise possiblity - but it would be a funny way for us to end up.

[anarchista feminista]

the idea of this is just plain weird, and scary.