Slashdot Mirror
Human Species May Split In Two
gEvil (beta) writes "According to an article at the BBC, an evolutionary theorist in London suggests that humanity may split into two sub-species within the next 100,000 years. From the article: '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.'" No missing link here, we already have the troll-like humans to prove it.
This is why you check out other members of the family. You get an idea what their mom and aunts grandmas look like. You can easily get an idea whether they've augmented and if they'll age "gracefully".
it was the "ugly, squat goblin-like creatures" who were not "dim-witted", but intelligent and ran the world (not an underclass, but they did live underground). While the "tall, slim, healthy, attractive" ones were not at all "intelligent, and creative," but were utterly empty headed vapid frail cattle... literally. they were food. they were all vegetarians and they were regularly slaughtered for the meat eating underrulers
but why anyone would seek sustenance by eating a bag of antlers like lindsay lohan is beyond me. utter science fiction, on that point alone
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Swedes love their bastu, it is us Finns that love SAUNA. Sweden is practically the only western country that wants to use their own word for sauna, bastu.
I just HAD to clarify this, since I love sauna and I am Finnish. And I am not even sure swedes love their bastu.
Other than that, yaaar!
-Is the meaning of life vanity, or is vanity the meaning of life?
George Bush Jr's grandfather Prescott Bush was a eugenicist, consistent with his work funding Hitler's Nazis. Prescott's law partner Tighe was the Connecticut (Bush family home state) director of the eugenics "Birth Control League". Prescott's boss Averell Harriman was one of the main promoters of American eugenics.
--
make install -not war
True. Here's some info on North Carolina's "Eugenics Board":
/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7242649/site/newsweek
Goofy, Geeky Gifts and More!
A brief Bio of the guy:here
and the course work offered at the London School of Economics: here
He is apparently a researcher for the Evolutionary Moral Psychology Group at LSE. The group doesn't seem too keen on actual biology or evolutionary research, just extrapolating biological theory into philosophical concepts so his prediction should be taken with a rather large grain of salt.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
Of course, such a mutation could still cause something serious to a human, but insects can, to put it in street language, "evolve faster" than humans. A couple moths with a mutation for a whole new wing colour could hit the reproductive jackpot if the environment was right.
Not to mention that five to ten human generations during some period of time corresponds to two hundred or so moth generations (if they live a year).
So, in the end, tall athletes = nutrition, practice, and often, drugs. Not evolution.
This was not a new idea when Huxley was writing.
Time Machine by HG Wells, anyone?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
It doesn't seem convincing that he intentionally funded the Nazis based on the article you linked to. The author of the article certainly doesn't seemed convinced.
Not quite accurate.
There would have been a number of moths in the population that were naturally dark prior to the industrial revolution. Those moths would have suffered higher predation than the lighter colored moths which blended in more easily. This would have kept their numbers very low. During the IR the darker colored moths would have blended in more easily and the roles been reversed, allowing the already naturally occuring dark moths to increase in number while the lighter colored moths were kept down by predation. The mutations existed pre-IR. Natural variation allowed that type of moth to survive through different environmental changes. They didn't split into two species.
There's no such environmental change and no predator to enforce that level of natural selection on humans. Plus for the fact that there's no motivation for pretty people to only select other pretty people to procreate with. I've seen plenty of cavemen with beautiful mates.
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
Body builders, weight-lifters, etc, can disfigure their hearts - I would not expect life-expectency to be nearly so high.
Life expectancy has nothing to do with reproductive success. As long as you reach the age of sexual maturity and successfully produce fertile offspring, your job is done as far as passing your genes on to the next generation is concerned.
Are you kidding me?
India has seen the end of a caste system and has moved into a knowledge-based economy. Their poor are becoming literate, and taking "our" IT jobs. The prospects for the average Indian are getting better as the days go on.
Ditto for China. The front page article of the Oct. 17 Investor's Business Daily is "Chinese Wage Growth Surging, But Hasn't Fueled Higher Prices." Although the focus of the article is on urban China (where unskilled/semiskilled workers have been seeing wage increases between 5 and 20 percent each year since 2000), it also mentions how efforts to "exploit" rural farmers for labor have also driven up their wages.
Although the "Cultural Revolution" was definitely a setback for the Chinese economy, things have been going wonderfully for them since. Consider that in the 80s, Proctor and Gamble researched expanding into the Chinese shampoo market - only to realize that there wasn't any. The average peasant could only afford a bottle the size you find complimentary with your hotel room; and even then, only once a year, for a special occaision. McDonalds and other fast food places ha da little more success, but mostly with the wealthy and tourists - as in Russia, peasants would make pilgrimages of sorts to a fast-food restaurant that they could only afford to eat at once a year.
Now, the standard of living in China is rising rapidly - people can not only feed themselves, but they have cars and consumer electronics! They have computers and internet - remember that big firewall China has? Their standard of living is rapidly approaching western standards - a far cry from when Mao Zedung encouraged peasants to smelt steel in their backyards.
DATABASE WOW WOW
Actually - it's older than that.
There's this book called The Bible (author; disputed, age; roughly 2500 years?) that tells the story of an ancient nomadic race of goat-herders called the Hebrews. One of their laws was to discourage marriage outside their own race. Only the Hebrews were the Creator's favored race, and the rest were damned.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
For fucks sake. There's no 'e' in 'ridiculous' you moron. I'm sure this will be modded down but you dolts really need to get this through your thick heads...
Um, India and China has a lot of people, BUT! the majority of the world's population are *not* in India and China. There's roughly 6 billion people on the planet. The populations of India and China maybe adds up to 2.5 billion. 3.5 billion people (majority over 2.5 billion) are NOT in India and China.
This is the official explanation. But the cast system is alive and well in India. Just not officially. I just had to look at the mariage of our outsourcing coworker, where they explained us who can marry whom, and why one could not marry another. They never mentionned cast, only stutbornly said "no he can't marry her, because of what he is and what she is." If this not caste, well that smell and looks like it. Taste like it too.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I grew up in a poor area, and my family made less than $25k take-home per year, with both my parents working full-time, living in a state with one of the highest COL's in the US. I made it to Harvard on a scholarship by studying so much in HS that I only slept around 4 hours each weekday (and most weekends) from the beginning of my sophomore year up until graduation. People with backgrounds like mine were the vast minority there, and they tended to be far less ambitious than kids born into power.
Given that I went to a high school where over 85% children came from families who were below the poverty level, you would expect them to be the most motivated people in the state. Instead, that school is among the worst in the state by all metrics (from graduation rates and standardized test scores to teen pregnancies).
While poverty can be a strong motivator for a vanishingly small minority, all measurable data indicates that the exact opposite is true for the majority. The poor are far less likely to pursue higher education, more likely to struggle economically throughout the entirety of their lives, and their children are more likely to maintain or drop below their parents' economic status.
When was the last time that you saw news coverage about a millionaire's son being accepted to Harvard? How about a homeless man getting drunk and saying stupid things? Rags-to-riches success stories (e.g., Liz Murray) and lurid pieces on the boorish behavior of the wealthy (e.g., Mel Gibson) are newsworthy because they're exceptional, unlike those two everyday scenarios. Unfortunately, because the exceptions to the norm get a disproportionate amount of media coverage—including in school textbooks—many people tend to get the two terribly confused.
Being poor is, statistically speaking, a massive demotivator, while starting rich has the opposite effect.
The assertion that capitalism must be eliminating the 'rich caste' because the standard of living has been improving assumes a false dichotomy. Even a casual analysis of the economic trends in, say, the US, will show a steadily increasing stratification of society between the rich and everyone else, even as the standard of living has been improving.
The change that capitalism brings is that intelligence becomes the strongest correlation to potential wealth. This actually increases the selection pressure towards divergence of the species along social lines because the social division correlates to a genetically heritable trait and reinforces the tendency for that trait's 'carriers' (for lack of a better term) to select other 'carriers' as mates. In other words, given that, in a western capitalist society:
- People tend to marry people within the same socioeconomic class.
- People tend to marry people with similar educational backgrounds and levels of intelligence.
- Wealthy people tend to be smart.
- Smart people tend to be educated.
- Educated people tend to be relatively wealthy.
You have a perfect recipe for the eventual divergence of a subspecies of smart rich humans.Exactly which part of present-day Palestine are you talking about? Israel? Gaza? The West Bank? I assume you speak of the Palestinian territories.. Have you ever been there? I think you'd be surprised at the fairly high standards of living in, say, Ramallah, Nablus or even Jenin. People have homes with running water and electricity. There are no people living in tents on the streets (as opposed to, say, India - see discussion above). The situation in Gaza may not be amazing, but this is because the leadership is devoting all its resources into developing an army capable of fighting Israel, rather than improving living standards for its civilians. It's just a question of priorities.
Sorry to be changing the subject, but I really don't get why of all choices you had to use Palestine as an example of a really hopeless and terrible place.
So by "population sustainability," you mean not sustainable at all? Sustainable would be replacement rate, but that ain't the case. The rich and/or educated generally don't have enough children to replace themselves. There's no overpopulation thing going on there and if you look at especially decadent places like Europe or the United States, immigration is the only source of population growth. Our social security models in the West are based on the idea that there are more young than old, more workers than retirees -- what are we going to do when the situation is reversed? Nothing, I contend. We'll just invite more immigrants from the comfort of our old-age homes.
...", it seems to only point to your ignorance of history: remember the three major wars of the twentieth century? Ya know, the ones which killed millions upon millions of people, displaced millions more, and crafted the world political landscape where there is a sole superpower? Throughout all of that crap, only the poor survived; don't overestimate your own survival chances when history bears witness to the fact that the poor own the world and the rest of us just live here.
Like other posters have noted, the last few hundred years have seen a population explosion because of the industrial revolution, not because of cheap oil. And as for your estimate that in the last hundred years, the poor have gotten past "cultural brainwashing like military 'service',
You know I've never disliked a yank I've met.
Please stop calling us Yanks. We are not all Yankees. It is offensive to a lot of us to be called Yankee/Yank.
So please stop. The correct word is "American". (And yes, I do realise that "America" does not refer only to the USA; but there is no other valid adjective for our specific countrymen, unlike all other American countries. Canadian, Mexican, etc..United Statesian?)
Thanks.