Human species 'may split in two'

[Cattlegod]

Show me the data. Those are some pretty hefty claims, since when does drastic evolution happen in 2 thousand years?

Stuff like this is worth about 2c unless they show how they came to the conclusions that they did.

e.g.

I predict that by 3000 AD, humanity will have learned how to genetically splice an embryo to prevent aging at all. Also all children will be able to have this procedure because humanity has eliminated the cost of health care to everyone. Not to mention, bionic memory implantations into the human mind so that all knowledge and theories can be downloaded into everyone and practically applied.

I like my version better and it is just as likely to happen unless they show factual evidence that their idea will happen.

 

[Vic]

Psuedo-scientific crap.

 

[vi edit]

Show me the data. Those are some pretty hefty claims, since when does drastic evolution happen in 2 thousand years?

Lifespans have almost doubled in 1/4 of that time. Obesity has spiraled to epic proportions in 1/16th.

Things can change much quicker than you think.

 

[z42]

Originally posted by: DougK62
This idea isn't too far-fetched. Genetic engineering could conceivably make a large difference.

I think genetic engineering is the only way this will actually happen.

People do NOT pick their partners based upon genetics. People pick their partners based on looks and wealth for the most part. The study assumes that attractive people are also smarter, and that is not necessarily true. I think Bill Gates has more women available to him than the manager at my local Blockbuster, regardless of who is better looking. It may be true that a "lower genetic class" is being created in the world's slums. I still think that there are enough social programs and adoptions that those genes are still cycled into the whole and not kept totally separate.

This all goes out the window if genetic engineering starts and is only accessable to the wealthy upper clas.

Gattaca here we come.

 

[JS80]

lol this guy's a complete idiot.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: z42

Originally posted by: DougK62
This idea isn't too far-fetched. Genetic engineering could conceivably make a large difference.

I think genetic engineering is the only way this will actually happen.

People do NOT pick their partners based upon genetics. People pick their partners based on looks and wealth for the most part. The study assumes that attractive people are also smarter, and that is not necessarily true. I think Bill Gates has more women available to him than the manager at my local Blockbuster, regardless of who is better looking. It may be true that a "lower genetic class" is being created in the world's slums. I still think that there are enough social programs and adoptions that those genes are still cycled into the whole and not kept totally separate.

This all goes out the window if genetic engineering starts and is only accessable to the wealthy upper clas.

Gattaca here we come.

Agreed...

Also, offspring tend to normalize to the 100 point medium over time.

Although, I also agree that the world slums and bad areas seem to be breeding grounds for poor genetics.

 

[zephyrprime]

This theory will not come to pass for 2 reasons: Guys will have sex with dumb hot chicks and Girls will marry Rich ugly guys. You see, what one sex genetically selects for the other side unselects.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: z42

Originally posted by: DougK62
This idea isn't too far-fetched. Genetic engineering could conceivably make a large difference.

I think genetic engineering is the only way this will actually happen.

People do NOT pick their partners based upon genetics. People pick their partners based on looks and wealth for the most part. The study assumes that attractive people are also smarter, and that is not necessarily true. I think Bill Gates has more women available to him than the manager at my local Blockbuster, regardless of who is better looking. It may be true that a "lower genetic class" is being created in the world's slums. I still think that there are enough social programs and adoptions that those genes are still cycled into the whole and not kept totally separate.

This all goes out the window if genetic engineering starts and is only accessable to the wealthy upper clas.

Gattaca here we come.

Agreed...

Also, offspring tend to normalize to the 100 point medium over time.

Although, I also agree that the world slums and bad areas seem to be breeding grounds for poor genetics.

Also good looking/ugly parents does not ensure good looking/ugly offspring. same with intelligence.

 

[yllus]

That makes sense if:

1) Intelligence, strong immune systems and beauty are all traits possessed by members of the upper class, which they pretty clearly are not.
2) Social mobility becomes next to nil in the future, disallowing members of the lower class that aren't 3-for-3 from gravitating upwards.

In short: Weak.

 

[GeneValgene]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
This theory will not come to pass for 2 reasons: Guys will have sex with dumb hot chicks and Girls will marry Rich ugly guys. You see, what one sex genetically selects for the other side unselects.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Show me the data. Those are some pretty hefty claims, since when does drastic evolution happen in 2 thousand years?

Lifespans have almost doubled in 1/4 of that time. Obesity has spiraled to epic proportions in 1/16th.

Things can change much quicker than you think.

sure, but useful lifespans seem to be topping out now. Now we just extend people's lives

 

[GTaudiophile]

But as we see today, the upper class ain't breeding while the lower class has 10 kids per single mom.

I think the lower class will have the upper hand in the gene pool as a result.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

this guy is a moron. he's obviously never herad of nanotechnology, biotechnology or robotics.

i think within in the next two decades we'll be able to replace all our organs with new organs which would in itself allow the boddy to remain way past 120 years. In 30 years nanotech will be able to repair body cells at the molecular dna and atomic levels enabling seemling limitless bodily lifespan.

in otherwords this guy is an idiot and knows nothing of current technology let alone future technology.

 

[torpid]

I read that article this morning and find it to be 100% rubbish. This reminds me of "philosophers" in ancient days who would come up with wacky ideas about the universe, like the universe is actually a giant lint ball composed of fennel and bark. That sort of thing.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: DaShen
Agreed...

Also, offspring tend to normalize to the 100 point medium over time.

Although, I also agree that the world slums and bad areas seem to be breeding grounds for poor genetics.

Also good looking/ugly parents does not ensure good looking/ugly offspring. same with intelligence.

That is why I said things tend to normalize over time.

If both your parents have an IQ score of 130, there is a higher percentage that your IQ will be lower than theirs. The is a possibility that both there Good IQ genes will be passed on, but by statistics your IQ will be lower.

If both your parent have an IQ of 70, you have a higher percentage that your IQ will be higher.

Physical attractiveness can't really be quantified, but maybe there is some way of tracking that. Who knows?

Pseudo-science aside, there seems to be a large enough group of people on the bad side of the gene pool (not a race thing) that congregate with each other because the way our society is set up that there is some merit in this. Also, if genetic mapping becomes cheap and commonplace, there will definitely be a trend toward the well-off bettering their gene pool by selecting breeding. Gattaca FTL.

 

[torpid]

I don't buy the lower IQ from high IQ parents theory. IQ is not 100% nature, there is a large nurture factor in it. If you have two high IQ parents, your environment will likely foster improved intelligence even if your genetics don't get the full combination of intelligence genes.

 

[Babbles]

Interesting. I think, though, he needs to run on over to Oxford or Cambridge and have somebody explain genetics, evolution, and natural selection to him - I don't think he quite gets it.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
Show me the data. Those are some pretty hefty claims, since when does drastic evolution happen in 2 thousand years?

Stuff like this is worth about 2c unless they show how they came to the conclusions that they did.

Normally, it would take much longer than that, but with genetic engineering on the horizon, our DNA is going to change at a much faster rate. And the way this is likely to be done, is not by modifying our existing chromosomes, but add another one. If we start modifying our current 23, we risk changing something that really shouldnt be changed. If we put all our newfangled genes on a new pair, it can be more easily "removed." This alone would likely make the people with 46, and the people with 46+2 different species, since they are essentially reproductively blocked off.

I predict that by 3000 AD, humanity will have learned how to genetically splice an embryo to prevent aging at all. Also all children will be able to have this procedure because humanity has eliminated the cost of health care to everyone. Not to mention, bionic memory implantations into the human mind so that all knowledge and theories can be downloaded into everyone and practically applied.

It's not going to take nearly that long. Slow aging? Our lifetimes are longer than they've ever been. Medical technology is proceeding at an astounding rate. Bionic memory implantations? We're already halfway there - see PDAs, smartphones etc. Next we'll have them on our glasses, then contacts, then hell, just stimulate our visual neurons directly.

Free healthcare and life extension to everyone? LOL...that one just might take 1000 years.

 

[Vic]

Our lifetimes are longer than they've ever been.

Only on average, due to better nutrition and medical science. Otherwise, no, people still live the the alloted "3 score and 10" that they have for thousands of years.

 

[MX2]

Thats already happening

 

[SparkyJJO]

:roll:

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: DougK62
This idea isn't too far-fetched. Genetic engineering could conceivably make a large difference.

People do NOT pick their partners based upon genetics. People pick their partners based on looks and wealth for the most part. The study assumes that attractive people are also smarter, and that is not necessarily true. I think Bill Gates has more women available to him than the manager at my local Blockbuster, regardless of who is better looking. It may be true that a "lower genetic class" is being created in the world's slums. I still think that there are enough social programs and adoptions that those genes are still cycled into the whole and not kept totally separate.

But we do pick our partners genetically. Just because we're not getting DNA profiles doesnt mean we're not. We're far more likely to marry someone of a similar race than not - already a huge genetic similarity. I've read plenty of studies on the genetics of our mate decision - stuff we'd like to believe is ridiculous, but statistically significant. Stuff like odors, etc

This all goes out the window if genetic engineering starts and is only accessable to the wealthy upper class.

It most definitely will be. And the genetically superior are going to be the ones who are the most valuable to society, like it or not, and by virtue of that, they will make more money, and further perpetuate the cycle.

Our bodies evolved to survive in a VERY different environment than we live in. One in which food was scarce, predators abound, etc. We're built to function within these limitations. But these limitations no longer exist, and our design is frankly, obsolete. The ability to store excess amounts of fat, beat other men up, sleep through the night and run fast are no longer necessary in a first world society. What's needed is brainpower, creativity, fine dexterity perhaps, and our wish is clearly long enduring bodies. With those things, we can get around everything else. Physical strength is great for athletes, and unnecessary for most people. Pure muscles vs. Gun - muscles lose.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Vic

Our lifetimes are longer than they've ever been.

Only on average, due to better nutrition and medical science. Otherwise, no, people still live the the alloted "3 score and 10" that they have for thousands of years.

Well, obviously. Medical science is only going to extend it even longer.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Vic

Our lifetimes are longer than they've ever been.

Only on average, due to better nutrition and medical science. Otherwise, no, people still live the the alloted "3 score and 10" that they have for thousands of years.

Well, obviously. Medical science is only going to extend it even longer.

My point was that they haven't really extended it at all, except on average. Where once upon a time, not that long ago actually, most children never made it in adulthood, and only a few lived a full lifespan, now most everyone can expect to live to a full lifespan (barring accident, crime, or cancer). The primary reason for this has been nutrition.

 

[Evadman]

Why does any year that is mentioned in huge sweeping stupid comments like these always end with a bunch of zeros. Saying year 3347 would be better.