Will Human Evolution Lead to a Split in Our Species?

[rootX]

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

It's interesting but sounds BS to me.

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.

What you think about humans in that many years(~10,000) from now?

 

[LightbulbSun]

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

It's interesting but sounds BS to me.



What you think about humans in that many years(~10,000) from now?

While evolution is not a ladder, and its possible our descendants could be a regression of us, I don't see our descendants being completely void of emotion.

 

[SticksandStones]

Being void of emotion would give a lot more time for the important things in life - like sex.

 

[Redbelly98]

I'd be happy just for humans to still be around in 10,000 years.

 

[glondor]

Sounds like BS to me.

 

[waht]

or 100 years,

I think it was Asimov or Orwell who first predicted that humans species will split in two classes. One class will posses quality genes ranging from high intelligence, looks, athletics and the other will be the opposite.

 

[rootX]

It's little contradictory.

1) Humans will lose love and emotions
(I am not sure how many people really care about the whole society even now.)
2) There will be an inferior class

I really don't know how inferior class can even survive given that humans aren't mature enough to be tolerant or to live with harmony and peace...

 

[Evo]

or 100 years,

I think it was Asimov or Orwell who first predicted that humans species will split in two classes. One class will posses quality genes ranging from high intelligence, looks, athletics and the other will be the opposite.

You mean like this?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=266696

 

[waht]

What Asimov or Orwell was implying (forgot who) is that in the generations to come genes with not perfect qualities will multiply themselves and produce very deformed, hobit, cavemen type people. Whereas those with very good genes will multiply them over generations to produce super humans.

But Tracy is just someone who has a warped belief system. Anyone has potential for that.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

No, not Asimov or Orwell - this is from... oh, it actually says it in the article. Yeah, it's straight out of The Time Machine.

⚛​

 

[GCT]

What Asimov or Orwell was implying (forgot who) is that in the generations to come genes with not perfect qualities will multiply themselves and produce very deformed, hobit, cavemen type people. Whereas those with very good genes will multiply them over generations to produce super humans.

But Tracy is just someone who has a warped belief system. Anyone has potential for that.

There was an article a while ago which appeared on the front page of Yahoo claiming that the human species is going to evolve into one race and even proceeded to describe some of the features of this hypothetical race. It may have been relevant soley to the US , at this point I am not able to remember.

I do not believe we are going to have a super race - exactly what kind of competition is going to spur the development of this super race? The US is one of the richest nations it has arrived at this state by attending to all of the cultures here. So if humanity is going to be bipolar how is this relevant to the economy compared to the state of today where all of the gradients of ability that place each and every one of us in our respective sectors systematically contribute to the economy?

If the future is a singular race there may be some immediate problems with this. For one... all of the problems that had caused humans to diverge and create nations.

Nations exist for a purpose. People born within each nation are able to learn from the history of that nation e.g. foreign relations. This is why I believe that this merging of the races is not going to happen.

 

[Andre]

What you think about humans in that many years(~10,000) from now?

The question is if Homo sapiens urbanis VAR professionalis is risking extinction perhaps because he forgot something essential for the survival of the species.

 

[mgb_phys]

What Asimov or Orwell was implying (forgot who) is that in the generations to come genes with not perfect qualities will multiply themselves and produce very deformed, hobit, cavemen type people. Whereas those with very good genes will multiply them over generations to produce super humans.

Yes they will eveolve into a super inteligent race that understand computers and advanced technology - and a handsome race that will manage them.

 

[Moonbear]

I'm voting BS. While I fully expect humans to be different in 10,000 years, I think it's rather presumptuous to think anyone could predict what exactly those changes will be. The safe thing about these predictions is nobody will be around who heard them to say it was wrong in 10,000 years.

 

[Evo]

I'm sorry, but he got it backwards, we are going to evolve into much uglier, unhealthier people. Men are choosing women with fake breasts, starvation diets, calf implants, rib removal, and both men and women are choosing mates pumped full of botox, nose jobs, chin implants, facial reconstruction (cheekbones, etc..), liposuction for body reshaping. People are being born and living long enough to reproduce through medical intervention, and are spreading even more genetic problems into the gene pool.

 

[GCT]

I'm sorry, but he got it backwards, we are going to evolve into much uglier, unhealthier people. Men are choosing women with fake breasts, starvation diets, calf implants, rib removal, and both men and women are choosing mates pumped full of botox, nose jobs, chin implants, facial reconstruction (cheekbones, etc..), liposuction for body reshaping. People are being born and living long enough to reproduce through medical intervention, and are spreading even more genetic problems into the gene pool.

Calf implants and rib removal ... why? Most men do not care whether their partner had surgery or not - they are not preoccupied with what kind of life their child is going to have - however this is not the same with women. A woman's social status has a lot to do with what her child becomes. In the meanwhile the man is imagining greener pasteurs - other beautiful women. Women are very particular about genes. I guess the sole way to justify the surgery is that if the formerly ugly woman marries a beautiful , intelligent , socially compatible man then their children are going to have a good chance of having the same traits. Then the surgery was worth it.

 

[rootX]

Yes they will eveolve into a super inteligent race that understand computers and advanced technology - and a handsome race that will manage them.

 

[Proton Soup]

Yes they will eveolve into a super inteligent race that understand computers and advanced technology - and a handsome race that will manage them.

hey now, it's truer than you might think. depending on the COMT genes you inherit, you might be a deep thinker, but also predisposed to high anxiety when placed under high stress. your COMT evil twin, however, performs best under this high-stress environment, but isn't the deep thinker you are. as you can see, this could present a problem. if the type-A management guy thinks everyone else must be like him and gets better results when more pressure is placed on them, then he may be sabotaging his own results by creating an environment where the deep thinkers can't function optimally.

there is also some suggestion now that by supplementing our food supply with folate (to prevent neural tube defects), fewer babies with MTHFR polymorphisms (a defect in folate metabolism) are spontaneously aborted. and the result here is more children with autism disorders. this may mean more technological advancement, as autistics are often better able to see the physical world for what it is, but also more social retardation.

 

[CEL]

For a specific gene to become predominant in the gene pool, it must provide some breeding advantage to the individuals possessing it. Certainly, being smarter or more sexually attractive are traits that favor procreation, so we could expect that genes that provide those traits can be selected in the gene pool.
But I agree that miscegenation will lead to people with uniform skin color in the future.
But 10000 years represent 400 to 500 human generations. Too short a period for natural selection to work, specially because there will be no isolated niches in which it could act.

 

[mgb_phys]

But 10000 years represent 400 to 500 human generations. Too short a period for natural selection to work, specially because there will be no isolated niches in which it could act.

With social selection pressure you can do the same thing in very short timescales, 10s of generations, because the birth rate advantage is much higher.

If you have a society where eg. red hair is considered unlucky and women with red hair are 50% less likely to marry than those with blond hair then it doesn't take very long for the gene to dissapear.
Modern medicine, low birth rate and high survival rates slow down natural selection - but everybody deciding they are only going to marry (or at least have kids with) tall men has a strong effect very quickly.

 

[vanesch]

With social selection pressure you can do the same thing in very short timescales, 10s of generations, because the birth rate advantage is much higher.

That said, we are not very different from our ancestors of 10 000 years ago. Why would it suddenly accelerate ?

but everybody deciding they are only going to marry (or at least have kids with) tall men has a strong effect very quickly.

Oh, about half of the population is not going to act that way. Hey, *I* don't want to have kids with a tall man

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I'm sorry, but he got it backwards, we are going to evolve into much uglier, unhealthier people. Men are choosing women with fake breasts, starvation diets, calf implants, rib removal, and both men and women are choosing mates pumped full of botox, nose jobs, chin implants, facial reconstruction (cheekbones, etc..), liposuction for body reshaping. People are being born and living long enough to reproduce through medical intervention, and are spreading even more genetic problems into the gene pool.

eh, these women are still the vast minority. I think we'll see a trend that shuns blatant plastic surgery soon. I know plenty of guys who admit wanting a "natural girl"

 

[mgb_phys]

That said, we are not very different from our ancestors of 10 000 years ago. Why would it suddenly accelerate ?

I meant it would accelerate over the simple natural selection model: somebody has teeth 0.01% stronger and are 0.01% more likely to survive to have kids who have stronger teeth. The problem with this is that the advantages are so slight that the selection pressure is tiny and so it takes many 1000s generations for a mutation to spread.
Societal selection has much larger differences in success, so the selection effect in each generation can be a few 10%.

Oh, about half of the population is not going to act that way. Hey, *I* don't want to have kids with a tall man

Then that does cause a split in society, one half choose ever taller partners and the other choose ever shorter - the ones in the middle dissapear.

I think we'll see a trend that shuns blatant plastic surgery soon. I know plenty of guys who admit wanting a "natural girl"

It doesn't matter, it's the women who are in charge. They decide who gets to father the next generation (irrespective of who they decide to marry).

 

[BobG]

eh, these women are still the vast minority. I think we'll see a trend that shuns blatant plastic surgery soon. I know plenty of guys who admit wanting a "natural girl"

Or, we'll see a trend towards improved methods of surgery that make it impossible to differentiate between "natural" or "artificial". Just like hair color - only your hair dresser knows.

Most "attractive" physical attributes depend on health. People raised in developed countries tend to have better teeth, fewer scars, etc than people raised in third world countries. The smaller differences between people living in developed countries can always be overcome by braces, teeth whiteners, make-up, surgery, etc.

 

[BobG]

Oh, about half of the population is not going to act that way. Hey, *I* don't want to have kids with a tall man

Then that does cause a split in society, one half choose ever taller partners and the other choose ever shorter - the ones in the middle dissapear.

Whoooosh. That one went right over someone's head. I think the half vanesch was referring to wouldn't making many reproductive contributions with tall men even if they liked them.

 

[lisab]

Or, we'll see a trend towards improved methods of surgery that make it impossible to differentiate between "natural" or "artificial". Just like hair color - only your hair dresser knows.

It would become obvious, as the children wouldn't look like either parent! ("Where DID junior get that nose?!?")

 

[mgb_phys]

Whoooosh.

Arrgggghhhh - I've been wooshed, normally I'm the one doing the wooshing!

ps. we do need a woosh smiley.

 

[BobG]

Or, we'll see a trend towards improved methods of surgery that make it impossible to differentiate between "natural" or "artificial". Just like hair color - only your hair dresser knows.

It would become obvious, as the children wouldn't look like either parent! ("Where DID junior get that nose?!?")

Lower divorce rates!

One of my kids had to do a chart of his extended family's eye color as a project about genetics. Technically, they only had to worry about brown and blue eyes, but that would have left gaping holes in my wife's family, so he had to go ahead and take into account green eyes, as well. Almost every family's eye color made sense once we figured out how green eyes figure into the mix - almost. How do you answer your kid's inevitable question about the one family whose eye colors don't make sense?

I'm not sure the teacher really thought that one out before she assigned the project.

 

[GCT]

It would become obvious, as the children wouldn't look like either parent! ("Where DID junior get that nose?!?")

- Are we always able to explain hereditary anomalies? None of us are going to go to the doctor and ask where that nose came from.

- Remember the men are not so preoccupied with their children's appearances as women are , even if they want natural bosoms , it is the women that are concerned about this aspect and remember it is the women who get plastic surgeries.

 

[lisab]

Lower divorce rates!

One of my kids had to do a chart of his extended family's eye color as a project about genetics. Technically, they only had to worry about brown and blue eyes, but that would have left gaping holes in my wife's family, so he had to go ahead and take into account green eyes, as well. Almost every family's eye color made sense once we figured out how green eyes figure into the mix - almost. How do you answer your kid's inevitable question about the one family whose eye colors don't make sense?

I'm not sure the teacher really thought that one out before she assigned the project.

Whooops!

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I wonder if, in the cultures where men spend more money on cosmetics than women do, if they get more plastic surgery as well.

⚛​

 

[rootX]

- Are we always able to explain hereditary anomalies? None of us are going to go to the doctor and ask where that nose came from. QUOTE]

Maybe in future ...

It would be funny when people would build specs for their new babies.

A really hilarious xkcd about making babies:
http://xkcd.com/441/