Human Species 'May Split In Two'

[Rasputin]

Human species 'may split in two'

Humanity may split into two sub-species in 100,000 years' time as predicted by HG Wells, an expert has said.
Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics expects a genetic upper class and a dim-witted underclass to emerge.

The human race would peak in the year 3000, he said - before a decline due to dependence on technology.

People would become choosier about their sexual partners, causing humanity to divide into sub-species, he added.

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.

Race 'ironed out'

But in the nearer future, humans will evolve in 1,000 years into giants between 6ft and 7ft tall, he predicts, while life-spans will have extended to 120 years, Dr Curry claims.

Physical appearance, driven by indicators of health, youth and fertility, will improve, he says, while men will exhibit symmetrical facial features, look athletic, and have squarer jaws, deeper voices and bigger penises.

Women, on the other hand, will develop lighter, smooth, hairless skin, large clear eyes, pert breasts, glossy hair, and even features, he adds. Racial differences will be ironed out by interbreeding, producing a uniform race of coffee-coloured people.

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.

Receding chins

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.

He carried out the report for men's satellite TV channel Bravo.

[zubin]

This assumes that human culture will be so degenerate as to not provide mechanisms for equality and collective prosperity. I find no basis for this prediction (in fact it seems to me like a misinterpretation of evolution and an arbitrary, inaccurately based and cruel social darwinism).

[zubin]

An other assumption that it makes is that attraction is due to different genes, which though many psychologists and laypeople believe is true, is probably a very exaggerated finding. There's a lot of evidence that a person's confidence brings sexual attraction.

[indian_blues]

i think this is scrap..total nonsense. human race will be exterminated by themselves in the near future...thats sure.

[Rasputin]

i think this is scrap..total nonsense. human race will be exterminated by themselves in the near future...thats sure.

Why you are so sure about that ?

[golgol85]

This is bogus, but funny to think of. Those who are pretty or handsome do have an edge over those who are not as good looking when it comes to just about everything. Lack of social skills will drag people backwards rather than forwards. I think Hari has a point though, the fate of the world looks grim.

[nedamm]

[zubin]

This is bogus, but funny to think of. Those who are pretty or handsome do have an edge over those who are not as good looking when it comes to just about everything. Lack of social skills will drag people backwards rather than forwards. I think Hari has a point though, the fate of the world looks grim.

grim, but what about improving?

[zubin]

I was also just curious about your definition of pretty/handsome.

[golgol85]

why would there need to be improvement when we have been on such a downward spiral? I am an optimistic person, but i still feel that we need to be realistic, if people from different countries decided to care about eachother then there is hope of improvement, otherwise grim wont even begin to explain what will happen when all the countries start attacking eachother due to lack of cooperation.

As for my definition of beautiful and handsome, i am speaking in strictly aesthetic terms here. I am not talking about inner beauty or thought or values. Personally, i feel that inner beauty is more important than outer beauty, because even the most gorgeous man becomes average when you live with him for a couple months, but his values have to be compatible with mine. In a man with similar values, he may not be the most handsome man but his actions and his big heart make him handsome to me. Maybe i think about things too simply or this would only apply in a utopian society, but i still maintain hope that someone good out there exists who can make me happy, but if by luck i dont find this person, i wont just settle. I went off on a bit of tangent, sorry.

Back to the topic mentioned here: this divergence wont happen because we have all seen the hot guy that married the ugly girl or vice versa. A mixture of genes will always be inevitable, so you cant segregate the good looking from the badlooking in terms of having a good looking upper class and an ugly lower class. Genetic recombination can make even the good looking couple have an ugly child, so this logic is just flawed.

[zubin]

That's interesting. I just don't think outwardly attraction is genetic but rather believe it is psychological and social. At least, the genetic difference that makes one more outwardly attractive than another is negligible. So I don't share your definition of prettiness, including the use the words of "hot/pretty/ugly etc" as objectively existing phenomena. But hey, difference in opinion is good right?

[mike435]

i dont no man when the world had scholars like plato it was a dirty and discusting world still

today with all the human rights awarness we are still more than ever on the brink of anailation

i have given up on imprvment

[golgol85]

I didnt say outward attraction is genetic, looks are genetic though. Attraction is a matter of preference. All I am saying is that when someone looks at another person, the physical looks of the person drive us to make judgements about them. For example, in an upper division psych class i took called woman and the body, it has beenproven that those who are fat are considered to be ugly and lazy, even if they are really not so. The fact that they are fat makes people assume they are lazy and look at them as ugly. They are also viewed as stupid because it appears they cant see the health risks associated with being fat. We live in a world where people are judged by their looks, the better looking person gets the job with higher pay even if they dont have the credentials soley because of their looks. Better looking people are viewed as more competent, eventhough again this sterotype may not hold true in all cases.

[zubin]

Psychology is a young science, though there are better interpretations coming out. To say a person's weight causes us to view them as lazy neglects the fact that it doesn't cause this reaction with every person. There is a beliefs and social factor in every human that causes some people to be prejudiced. In other words, we can recognize two basic factors: the person's looks combined with different beliefs/societies. But the beliefs/societies factor is what counts because that is what is actually tilting a person's view from prejudiced to non-prejudiced and vice versa.

I just want to let you know that psychology can be a very politically biased and unscientific science sometimes. Unfortunately, the true science of psychology is largely ignored because it goes against many political ideologies. Mainstream psychology like in most classes is biased by neo-liberalism as social factors are not given their proper weight and analysis.

[mike435]

I didnt say outward attraction is genetic, looks are genetic though. Attraction is a matter of preference. All I am saying is that when someone looks at another person, the physical looks of the person drive us to make judgements about them. For example, in an upper division psych class i took called woman and the body, it has beenproven that those who are fat are considered to be ugly and lazy, even if they are really not so. The fact that they are fat makes people assume they are lazy and look at them as ugly. They are also viewed as stupid because it appears they cant see the health risks associated with being fat. We live in a world where people are judged by their looks, the better looking person gets the job with higher pay even if they dont have the credentials soley because of their looks. Better looking people are viewed as more competent, eventhough again this sterotype may not hold true in all cases.

you are right about that about both sexes

but you have to concider that some of it is based on truths two

my own example in one year we went throgh 3 employes

i promis with out prejudice i chose people and after the year i noticed the fat ones were lazy i swear i am not kidding
at the same time the skinny guy was lazy to but the fat guy was lazier

but sadly what you said is true