Two Breeds of Humanity

[Paracelsus]

Via Yahoo! News (Daily Mail from the UK): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1965

The human race will one day split into two separate species, an attractive, intelligent ruling elite and an underclass of dim-witted, ugly goblin-like creatures, according to a top scientist.

100,000 years into the future, sexual selection could mean that two distinct breeds of human will have developed.

The alarming prediction comes from evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry from the London School of Economics, who says that the human race will have reached its physical peak by the year 3000.

Note that this prediction comes via the Daily Mail--not exactly a publication noted for its scientific accuracy.

Oliver Curry is not an evolutionary biologist either; he seems to be more of a philosophy major: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Curry

Oliver Curry is a research associate at the Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science in the London School of Economics. He is an evolutionary theorist. His Ph.D., on the topic of morality as natural history, was awarded by the Government Department of the London School of Economics, where he now teaches Political Theory.

As an evolutionary psychologist, Curry also contributed to the secular morality segments of the television documentary, The Root of All Evil?, in which Richard Dawkins argues that the world would be better off without religion.

Does anyone know whether this guy has any background in genetics or evolutionary biology? I'm unsure of what the study of 'evolutionary psychology' entails.

[Rue]

The human race will one day split into two separate species, an attractive, intelligent ruling elite and an underclass of dim-witted, ugly goblin-like creatures, according to a top scientist.

And of course the "goblins" will live underground consuming the flesh of their attractive neighbors.

[Van Rijn]

And of course the "goblins" will live underground consuming the flesh of their attractive neighbors.

Yep, from the article:

Dr Curry's theory may strike a chord with readers who have read H G Wells' classic novel The Time Machine, in particular his descriptions of the Eloi and the Morlock races.

I was just going to say that he must have been reading The Time Machine recently. Except in this fellow's argument, the Eloi are the "ruling class."

[3dknight]

I watched national geographic channel recently and I was this special called "Ape to Man" It said that their was a humanic species that was stronger but dummer than us and we killed them off or they couldn't survive. Is there any truth in this?

[Tucson_Tim]

I watched national geographic channel recently and I was this special called "Ape to Man" It said that their was a humanic species that was stronger but dummer than us and we killed them off or they couldn't survive. Is there any truth in this?

Neanderthals?

[Puffin]

That claim's about a year old. As evidenced by the BBC.

It's based on a huge number of assumptions. Firstly, there's the assumption that the human race will still be going in 100,000 years time. Based on the fact that in the past 50 years we've had at least a couple of close calls with nuclear holocaust, I'd be cautious of predicting that we can go 100,000 without it ever actually happening.

Then when he claims that we'll all be coffee-coloured in 1000 years, he's assuming that in this world of globalisation we'll all have bred with people of every race. I'd consider that a fair assumption in the developed world, but it carries implicit assumptions about the future politics of Asia and Africa. These assumptions might also be fair, but I'd at least like to see how he justifies them.

And I don't think it is possible for him to assert that in the future we'll be fussier about partners, leading to us all becoming idealised images of perfection. He needs to provide a reason why the less attractive people either die or are unable to find a mate amongst the other people who have been rejected by the most attractive.

And in order for speciation to take place, the gene flow between the Eloi and Morlocks needs to be almost zero for enough time as it takes the species to drift apart. Otherwise, they will simply form one continuous spectrum, as opposed to grouped into two different sub-species. If the Eloi consider themselves above the Morlocks and do not assist the Morlocks with technology or medicine, then the Morlocks will be more vulnerable to natural selection, which would push them in the direction of current humanity over an evolutionary timescale.

The whole thing seems replete with assumptions, and I'd like to see them justified before taking any of it seriously.


I think evolutionary psychology is trying to explain psychological behaviour in terms of characteristics that would give an evolutionary advantage.

[Van Rijn]

That claim's about a year old. As evidenced by the BBC.

When I first saw it, I thought it sounded familiar, and not just because of the Wells connection. We've discussed this before:

http://www.bautforum.com/general-sci...split-two.html

[Nereid]

Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote (in 1973*), "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".

To the extent that psychologists are interested in rooting their science in biology, I guess one could expect evolutionary psychology to have a very bright future.

FWIW, and IMVHO, this Oliver Curry - if the reports are accurate - hasn't even studied history, much less biology or evolutionary psychology.

*The reference I get is "American Biology Teacher. 35:125–129"

[KaiYeves]

Refering to the title:
Well, duh- Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Homo Sapiens Superior!

[Ronald Brak]

Does anyone know whether this guy has any background in genetics or evolutionary biology? I'm unsure of what the study of 'evolutionary psychology' entails.

He has no background in biology. He has a PHD in economics and teaches political science. Which is a little odd because considering what he has written I don't think he knows what science is. He came up with the same nonsense a year ago and there is no hint that it is some kind of joke.

From the article:

Men will have symmetrical facial features, deeper voices and bigger penises, ...Women will all have glossy hair, smooth hairless skin, large eyes and pert breasts, according to Curry.

From the sounds of it he spends far too much time thinking about large penises, smooth hairless skin and pert breasts and is desperately seeking a rationalization for his behaviour.

[Ronald Brak]

Looking into this a bit more Dr Curry says that he was paid to write some science fiction about evolution and it was reported as fact. If this is what happened than I appologize for my insulting snark. (The insulting snark seperated from the snide snark and became a seperate species 20 years ago. It can be recognized by the large trunk growing from the center of its forhead.)

[Noclevername]

Given some of the mismatched couples I see together, this is absolute weapons-grade bolognium. Assuming that the standards of beauty of today will be the same over 100,00 years, that no interbreeding will ever take place despite enough free and open travel that humanity has achieved racelessness, and that pretty, athletic people and smart nerds will someday interbreed at all? Let alone get along well enough and often enough to produce a master race? Nonsense!

[Noclevername]

Here's the Wikipoop on Evolutionary Psychology, if anyone wants it.

[Ronald Brak]

Here's the Wikipoop on Evolutionary Psychology, if anyone wants it.

I don't know if it's a temporary problem, but that link doesn't seem to want to work. But I'll summarize evolutionary psychology for people. Most of what gets called evolutionary psychology is bunk. Biologists, who are the people who specialize in evolution, typically proclaim it to be bunk. It's not that the past seven million years of evolution have not affected human psychology, it's that what is now typically called evolutionary psychology uses arguements are often illogical and are based upon assumptions that aren't supported by data. Frequently they rely on some observation about human society (and frequently western human society) and propose an evolutionary "just so" story to account for it without while ignoring humanity's ability to have huge cultural differences with little or no genetic difference.

[Noclevername]

Oops. Sorry. Fixed the link.

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!]... this is absolute weapons-grade bolognium. [Snip!]

Excellent characterization!

[Noclevername]

Excellent characterization!

A great line from Futurama.

[3dknight]

I don't think this will happen. Think about the advancements they will make in plastic surgery and they're already making "costum babies" so in the future I don't think evolution will have anything to do with how we look.

[SMEaton]

...plastic surgery and they're already making "costum babies" so in the future I don't think evolution will have anything to do with how we look.

Hmm... google 'costum babies' = gah!

[Nowhere Man]

Hmmm. "Custom" or "costume"? Designer genes are still a thing of the future, methinks.

Fred

[3dknight]

Its not perfected but they have changed genes so babies won't get certain diseases and they can make sure if your baby is a boy or girl. You would have to come to the doctor before you have intercourse to do that though.

[Paracelsus]

I'm all for genetic counseling.

Granted, many diseases, including many of the common killers, are not purely genetic in etiology. However, there are other diseases, such as Huntington's chorea, that have been shown to be due to mutations in a single gene. Those types of diseases could could be eliminated in a generation if the carriers of those defective genes got counseling and selected for embryos that didn't carry the defective genes.

[Delvo]

Who in the world ever calls breasts (or anything else) "pert"? It's not even really a word...

* * *

they have changed genes so babies won't get certain diseases and they can make sure if your baby is a boy or girl.

That's not "designer", though. A true "designer" product is completely designed in all details by its designer, not just checked for a couple of specific defects and chosen out of two general models.

* * *

This idea actually makes some sense if taken as an economic theory rather than a biological one. Sexual selection alone might not be enough to make something like this happen, but the ability of the rich (who are already generally more intelligent anyway) to pay for the use of scientific advances such as true genetic engineering, to give their offspring even bigger advantages over the poor than they already have, could widen the class gap, creating a positive feedback system in which biological and economic class-distinctions build on each other.

* * *

Anyone who expects sexual selection to cause future men to be more masculine not only doesn't know our evolutionary history (which has largely been a matter of getting more feminine overall as a species, including both sexes) but also isn't paying attention to something else that's much more obvious and "in your face" in the present: women's tendency to, at least some of the time, go for rather feminine men like Orlando Bloom, or at least guys who aren't especially masculine (OR feminine, either way) like Ewan McGregor.

[hhEb09'1]

Refering to the title:
Well, duh- Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Homo Sapiens Superior!

Homo Shnook Shnook

Who in the world ever calls breasts (or anything else) "pert"? It's not even really a word...

Eh? probably been around since Middle English

[Fortunate]

I suspect that the far distant future may be completely different than any of us imagines.

[KaiYeves]

Homo Shnook Shnook

Huh? What I said was an X-Men reference.

[3dknight]

A true "designer" product is completely designed in all details by its designer, not just checked for a couple of specific defects and chosen out of two general models.

Its still being perfected they can change eye color, hair color... I'm saying in the future most likely they will have perfected this art and be able to do much more.

[Noclevername]

Huh? What I said was an X-Men reference.

Goes back way before that. http://www.finkbuilt.com/blog/mutant...ecies-imminent.

The term Homo Superior goes back even further: Odd John by Olaf Stapledon (1935) contains the first known use of the term "homo superior".

[KaiYeves]

Goes back way before that. http://www.finkbuilt.com/blog/mutant...ecies-imminent.
The term Homo Superior goes back even further: Odd John by Olaf Stapledon (1935) contains the first known use of the term "homo superior".

I was refering to the X-Men when I said it.
After all, I am a Marvel Mythologist.

[Noclevername]

I was refering to the X-Men when I said it.
After all, I am a Marvel Mythologist.

Even the X-Men gotta know their roots!