Tuesday, October 17, 2006

The future of humanity: elves and goblins?

Read this:

1. Human species 'may split in two'
2. The future ascent (and descent) of man


This is absolute nonsense for the following reasons:

  1. This relies on WAY too many unstated assumptions.

  2. That's just not how natural selection works... it's not that simple. If the argument is based on the assumption that the upper class will relentlessly alter their genes in order to be more appealing to potential mates, assuming that that is possible in the future, why would jaw muscles and skin color then be subject to natural selection, but not other physical characteristics?

  3. The numbers in both articles don't make sense. What's the 100,000 year mark predicting? The 1,000? I'm confused.

  4. Wait, so purely aesthetic sexual preference is not going to change at all in the course of 1,000 years? We'll have no cultural developments in that time; after a torrent of globalization everyone around the world will adopt current mainstream western preferences? Even after all of the supposed interbreeding?

  5. The "highly educated" stratifications of society are not as apt to make their mating preferences primarily on physical appearance, nor are they statistically as likely to have as many children as the less educated. One could argue that the this assertion could apply to the bourgeoisie or a materialistic upper class, but even then the distinction would not be nestled in two simple categories.

  6. Assuming that this new genetic modification technology was inexpensive enough to have become widespread, what reason would there be to justify the STRICT class distinctions between the poor, short-asymmetry-faced stupids and rich, tall-symmetry-faced "smarts"? Everyone has interbred to create a coffee-colored skintone and presumably accepted similar views on culture (at least with regard to aesthetics), yet there remains a class-based divide (which is ostensibly arbitrary) that cannot be resolved?

  7. Since when has creativity been a strictly genetic aptitude? Indeed what is 'creativity'? I could be wrong, but 'imagination' and it's application are not primarily rooted within innate genetic traits as they are in psychology and social circumstance. Or so I doth claim.

  8. Dr. Curry’s predictions were commissioned by the television channel Bravo to celebrate its 21st anniversary on air.
    Does that not jovially exclaim, 'BULLSHIT'?

  9. What reason do we have to believe that human civilization as we know it will be around in 1,000 years (much less in 100,000 years)? We've already exceeded the planet's natural carrying capacity (and the population is still growing). And the optimistic "Star Trek"-like future seems implausible. What says that human civilization wouldn't revert to a "leaver" way of life before we reach the year 3000 (if it's still around by then)?

I can't go on... it's not worth the effort.

No comments:

Post a Comment