Eloi and Morlocks - for real?

[Dark Moth]

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

 

According to this article, one evolutionist believes the human species will evolve into two distinctly separate races, one 'upperclass' and one 'lowerclass', much like the Eloi and Morlocks in The Time Machine.

 

Some bad things:

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.

 

But some good things as well:

...men will exhibit symmetrical facial features, look athletic, and have squarer jaws, deeper voices and bigger penises.

Personally, I'm tempted to shrug this off as just another theory, but it's interesting still...

Edited October 21, 2006 by Dark Moth

[Blarghagh]

I don't buy it. The human race is too diverse for this.

[metadigital]

It's sensationalistic drivel and not worthy of the "science" categorisation.

 

The author was paid by a lad's mag; I can guess the brief.

 

It would require the troll subrace of Morlocks-alike to exclusively breed amongst themselves, for a start. As if there was some biological imperative, some survival advantage.

[Raymond Luxury-Yacht]

Bigotry.

 

I won't waste any time to explain why.

[Sand]

This seems to be nothing more the drivel since one can, if he or she seeks to or has the bad luck to, elevate or descend in the social order of have and have nots. Evolution is a slow process it is largely built on biological necessity, not social standing. Remember that evolution is still only a theory of how we as a species came to be, one cannot take it as whole cloth til more evidence supporting in the macroverse can be found.

[Checkpoint]

But some good things as well:

...men will exhibit symmetrical facial features, look athletic, and have squarer jaws, deeper voices and bigger penises.

Personally, I'm tempted to shrug this off as just another theory, but it's interesting still...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This wouldn't make a big difference anyway, since physical attraction would still be relative. A good-looking guy now could be but a decent-looking guy then.

[Musopticon?]

Evolution is a slow process it is largely built on biological necessity, not social standing. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Better living conditions; food; sunlight; safety and possibly fairly clinical(as in sanitation) atmosphere don't amount to anything? Social status gives all those, especially, going by this articles "logic", in such a highly-evolved society. If they've based their theory on gaps between social classes that result in the clich

[Fenghuang]

No, no, see, what'll happen is the people in the third world countries will devolve into the inferior human subspecies, and they'll be dark skinned, because most third world countries are filled with dark skinned people. And the people in modern western countries will evolve into the superior human subspecies, and they'll be white, because the people in modern western societies are primarily white. And then the ugly darkies will constantly resent their aryan masters, but they won't be able to rebel or anything because they're inferior on a genetic level.

 

Yay science!

[Pop]

It's not fair to dismiss this just yet. Eugenics has been around for the last century, having never really died with Mengele as it should have.

 

But it's plausible, unfortunately. Gattaca-style trait selection in IVF is on the rise. Right now it's all about removing genes that increase risk for disease, but in China they're also weeding out female embryos at IVF clinics (arguably better than the infanticide generally practiced there) and selectively adding disabilities to fetuses (as in when deaf surrogate parents want a deaf child)

 

What's to stop us, 10 years down the road when we can control prefferable physical traits? What's to stop those who can afford it from creating their children tall, with blonde hair and blue eyes? What rational argument can you give against doing that, being aesthetic choices as they are? Can you really say a genetically perfect human is the same as the rest of us?

[metadigital]

Who wants blonde hair?

 

Sure, on some females it's okay, but guys with blonde hair look ... decidedly effeminate.

 

Seriously, it will be very, very difficult for eugenics to arise: there are too many safeguards. Eugenics has been around for over a century: Winston Churchill was one very vocal (pre-Nazi) supporter, for example.

 

Removing disabilities is one thing, and completely understandable; I'm more concerned about those "responsible" parents who think that giving their child a disability is a good idea.

No, no, see, what'll happen is the people in the third world countries will devolve into the inferior human subspecies, and they'll be dark skinned, because most third world countries are filled with dark skinned people.  And the people in modern western countries will evolve into the superior human subspecies, and they'll be white, because the people in modern western societies are primarily white.  And then the ugly darkies will constantly resent their aryan masters, but they won't be able to rebel or anything because they're inferior on a genetic level. 

 

Yay science!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The article was careful to state overtly that colour wouldn't be a factor, i.e. every person would be "coffee-coloured", resulting from the mixing-pot theory. (There is no way the article would have been published, otherwise.)

 

 

Some relevant links:

Genomics: We are all numbers

Hybrids: When two species become three

Did humans and chimps once interbreed?

Why we differ from our primate cousins

Chimpanzees show hints of higher human traits

Evolution gets busy in the urban lab

[Dark Moth]

But some good things as well:

...men will exhibit symmetrical facial features, look athletic, and have squarer jaws, deeper voices and bigger penises.

Personally, I'm tempted to shrug this off as just another theory, but it's interesting still...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This wouldn't make a big difference anyway, since physical attraction would still be relative. A good-looking guy now could be but a decent-looking guy then.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True, true. Though having a bigger tool to work with will always be a good thing in my eyes.

 

But seriously, I think this guy raises a couple interesting points here and there, but mostly the article's bullcrap in my humble opinion. This reminds me of a documentary on the Discover Channel I watched on the future earth, in which the scientists who put it together believed squids would be one of the dominant species on earth eventually. It just seems to me the human race is too diverse and interactive for a species split to even happen. Maybe for animals it would happen, but not for the human race. Even the whole 'coffe-colored skin' concept seems a little unrealistic.

Edited October 21, 2006 by Dark Moth

[Krookie]

I never read Time Machine.

[metadigital]

But seriously, I think this guy raises a couple interesting points here and there, but mostly the article's bullcrap in my humble opinion.  This reminds me of a documentary on the Discover Channel I watched on the future earth, in which the scientists who put it together believed squids would be one of the dominant species on earth eventually.    It just seems to me the human race is too diverse and interactive for a species split to even happen.  Maybe for animals it would happen, but not for the human race.  Even the whole 'coffe-colored skin' concept seems a little unrealistic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That documentary wasn't suggesting that squids would take over the world; it was merely speculating on what other creatures might have the wherewithall to become dominant; cephalopods are very intelligent and could quite easily do so (IIRC the target of the show was 50 million years in the future, too).

I never read Time Machine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course not.

 

Just for your own benefit: it's your loss.

[Sand]

I never read Time Machine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It is one of the great works of English literature. The original film wasn't that bad either.

[thepixiesrock]

It was written before he was born though.

[Sand]

That sounds fairly silly.

[metadigital]

It was written before he was born though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And a little angel just died.

[Sand]

That sounds sillier.

[Darque]

I never read Time Machine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It is one of the great works of English literature. The original film wasn't that bad either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've read it, excellent book.

[metadigital]

War of the Worlds is brilliant, too. Nice little antidote to the British and their Empire building ...

 

Male-killing bacteria foiled by butterfly gene

A bacterium that slaughters all the male offspring of the insects it infects has been disarmed by a simple genetic change in a butterfly host within a few decades.

 

The speed with which this resistance evolved implies that male-killing may have appeared

[Dark_Raven]

War of the Worlds is brilliant, too. Nice little antidote to the British and their Empire building ...

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And their collapse into chaos.

 

 

Never read the book, saw the old movie though. Good movie.

[Dark Moth]

Two things:

 

1) Shut up, Hades.

 

2) H.G. Wells was a brilliant author. He had great ideas and was good at writing them down. He also accurately visualized many aspecs of war that would come in the future, such as an Air Force and chemical warfare. As for this, I think the only chance of humanity dividing itself into two would be as he visualized - some cataclysmic disaster that forces humans to adapt. BTW Raven, you should really read WotW. Very good book, and better than the movie.

Edited October 22, 2006 by Dark Moth

[Archmonarch]

I agree that natural evolution will almost definitely not produce two or more separate human species, however I do not think the same could be said when genetic engineering is added. It would, of course, be primarily an aesthetic choice for the wealthy and a form of increased immunity during the adoption phase. However, as it developed and it became accepted by the general population, I think it will almost certainly be adapted to more radical goals. Eventually, people might be able to choose among certain genetic packages, per se, which while not exactly different species (at least in the beginning) would grant differing abilities. Over time, as the Terran environment changes in addition to the stellar exploration, it is entirely possible that humanity develops into entirely different species. Naturally, without gross genetic intervention, this would require at least hundreds of thousands (with advanced genetic sciences to enhance the rapidity of the process) if not millions of years.

 

I do agree that this author is a sensationalist idiot however.

 

 

P.S. There is a distinct difference between Eugenics and Liberal Eugenics. FYI, Pop.

Edited October 22, 2006 by Archmonarch

[213374U]

OMG N0Z!

 

So, let me get this straight. We aren't able to predict weather (even locally) a month in advance with a reasonable accuracy index, and this guy is proposing a theory about what will happen to mankind in 100k years? And it gets hosted by the BBC?

 

Lol.

 

That could make for a fairly interesting sci-fi plot, but otherwise, it's 100% random crap. The man is just exploiting his (rather irrelevant considering the field he's commenting on) credentials to make his predictions appear sound. This as almost as unscientific as a seer peering into his crystal ball. It is just sad that people can be led to believe, or even seriously consider, pseudo scientific rubbish such as this. There are so many factors in play that I would probably have more chances of predicting what side a flipped coin will fall on than this guy being accurate about the fate of humankind.

 

We are a rather insignificant* and quite fragile part of this pinch of cosmic dust we like to call Earth. It is difficult and unpleasant to envision how inconsequential we are in a cosmic scale, so we cling to some perceived notion of mastery we hold over reality (not to mention all the religious cosmogonies of which mankind is a central element). This is a gross misconception, that sooner or later will crumble under the true weight of human irrelevance. But dammit, it feels so good when you fancy yourself a god.

 

Well, yes. I'll admit that that last paragraph was my very own personal view, and I have no scientific evidence to present as proof of that (predictions can't be proven by definition, but who cares anyway). I do not think I'm a doctor by some famous university either, but can I have it hosted on some BBC page all the same? Pretty please?

 

*Yeah, mankind weighs way less than say, ants, for instance.

 

BTW, I'm drunk. So, doubt arises; is this post a good example of alcohol-induced mental diarrhea or undeniable proof of the awareness-increasing effects of booze? I don't know, and I don't care... =)

Edited October 22, 2006 by 213374U

[Craigboy2]

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

 

According to this article, one evolutionist believes the human species will evolve into two distinctly separate races, one 'upperclass' and one 'lowerclass', much like the Eloi and Morlocks in The Time Machine.

 

Some bad things:

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.

 

But some good things as well:

...men will exhibit symmetrical facial features, look athletic, and have squarer jaws, deeper voices and bigger penises.

Personally, I'm tempted to shrug this off as just another theory, but it's interesting still...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Doubt it. We might be a little taller and that's about it.