Human species 'may split in two'

[dragon wench]

BBC NEWS | UK | 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.

I can't help but wonder if in certain respects this hasn't already happened...

[Claudius]

If this is science I wonder what fiction is?

[Kienan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claudius If this is science I wonder what fiction is?

Well said, well said, I was wondering more or less the same thing. It's certainly interesting stuff, but totally unscientific. I wonder what that guy is smoking. Seriously, I hope drugs were involved, otherwise this guy is an arrogant ass...or insane. *shrug*

[Kaer]

I'd say the internet has already had a rather significant effect on the social aspects of that prediction.

[dragon wench]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaer I'd say the internet has already had a rather significant effect on the social aspects of that prediction.

lol! And not just the internet either... Go the average bar on a Saturday night and you see plenty of evidence that the trends have already started to take effect


Somewhat more seriously,
I'd say the guy has been reading waaaay too much fantasy and/or sci-fi.. probably combined with some high grade psychotropics. It's sort of Altered States in reverse, or maybe "fast-forward' as the case may be

[C Elegans]

Just a brief note, I may write more later if I have time: This Curry guy is a junior researchers with only four peer-reviewed publications. He is by no means an acknowledged authority in evolutionary genetics. So his opinion - note opinion, it's not based on actual research studies - is not something I would view as important in any way. Spectacular yes, well-founded, no.

[GawainBS]

A thousand years is just a few eyeblinks to evolution, no?

[Maharlika]

I'll just sit back and wonder how my great great great great grand kiddies would look like in the future...

[VonDondu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by C Elegans This Curry guy is a junior researchers with only four peer-reviewed publications...

Including a few "men's magazines", perhaps?

The article says that Curry is an evolutionary theorist at the London School of Economics. Economics? Theorist? (As in, hypotheses that can neither be proven nor disproven?) The article also says, "He carried out the report for men's satellite TV channel Bravo." How seriously are we supposed to take him?

[Fiberfar]

Well, evolution seems to have skipped a few people along the way so....

[Moonbiter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VonDondu Including a few "men's magazines", perhaps? The article says that Curry is an evolutionary theorist at the London School of Economics. Economics? Theorist? (As in, hypotheses that can neither be proven nor disproven?) The article also says, "He carried out the report for men's satellite TV channel Bravo." How seriously are we supposed to take him?

Well, he's a doctor, isn't he?

[C Elegans]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VonDondu Including a few "men's magazines", perhaps? The article says that Curry is an evolutionary theorist at the London School of Economics. Economics? Theorist? (As in, hypotheses that can neither be proven nor disproven?) The article also says, "He carried out the report for men's satellite TV channel Bravo." How seriously are we supposed to take him?

Now I have checked Dr Curry, and I don't have much to add. He is a behavioural evolutionary theorist active in the field of moral values and moral actions, that's why he is at an Economics department. The part of psychology that deals with certain types of decision making are often researched in the field of economics because the experimental paradigms they use, like the "altruism game" and the concept of reciprocal altruism, originates from the field of behavioral economics or economics psychology. (That's why the psychologist Daniel Kahneman got the Nobel Prize in economics for his research in this field.)

Curry is no experimentalist although he is co-author of one experimental paper using exactly the reciprocal altruism paradigm. He is a theorist, almost all of his writing is various applications of evolutionary mechanisms on philosophical and moral questions. Simply put, he is in the very murky area of trying to explain complex, multivariate and multidetermined human behaviours in terms of evolution mechanisms. This field is very new in science, and it's shaky enough even for those with a real background in evolutionary biology. There are a few brilliant research groups doing real experiments in this field, and these groups consist of people with a scientific background in evolutionary biology, genetics, epidemiology, neuroscience and cognitive psychology. It is possible to perform high quality research in this field, and some scientists do. I don't think I need to state that Oliver Curry is not one of them.