was going to say.... isn't this pretty much true all ready? i mean i know there's a huge split between what i would consider, intelligent, professional individuals, and the more common, stupid, unprofessional general populace
It'll end up a combination of Sci-fi's: Those people who can afford to pick out eggs/sperm and have them genetically manipulated to make them clever, good looking etc and those who just shag.
GATTACA, anyone? Very 1984: There's us, and there's the proles. Or very Brave New World. I'm not seeing it. First, for an evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry appears to have a rather poor understanding of how evolution and natural selection actually work (nonlinear dynamics of multiple selective forces, spontaneous mutation, redundant features not breeding out because there is no negative impact, to name a few). Second, history shows that wherever different human races meet, they interbreed. People may be choosy about their marriage partners, but not necessarily their one-night-stand sexual ones. Third, so far increased technology has created increased stimulation and complexity, resulting in greater cognitive development, not less. And someone still has to build the gadgets. Fourth, he contradicts himself: he suggests that increased medicine will lead to a weaker immunology and preservation of genetic defects, while on the other hand he suggests that more conscious selective breeding and quality of life will generate better health and genetically better, longer living humans. Which is it, doc? (And genetic cancer does not breed out for a reason, doc, but it has nothing to do with medicine. You should know this...)
Finally got around to reading that the other week. Cracking read Like the bit about becoming chinless, based on processed food not needing so much chewing, despite the fact that having no chin wouldn't give any advantage? Also seems to ignore the fact that a man with no chin would look less attractive, and therefore less likely to reproduce.
One of the best books about human nature. I was thinking specifically that even though processed food requires less chewing, having a normal-sized chin does not convey a disadvantage in that scenario, so there is no selective force for it to evolve into a smaller chin. The attraction bit is true, although people can adjust their ideas about that; if everyone has a small chin, it becomes the aesthetic norm.
They can still interbreed reliably...which (AFAIK) we can't do with the other apes. Speciation is a different ball-game to producing a 'pedigree' dog, but the fact that such a wide variety of dogs can be man-made (plus the fact that breeders still get puppies outside the 'breed standard') shows any animal's built-in potential to change direction through its offspring.
That was my thought on the subject. The whole bit about glossy hair, pert breasts and light skin being the model of an atractive woman is cleary a subjective opinion. The "supermodel" look is only attractive because that's what we tell our children. There may be some biological features that subconsciously appeal to our desire to procreate, but I think the idea of "attractiveness" is a human invention. -monkey
Most definitely. Just look at the forms of self-mutilation you see all over the world (ours included). Discs in the lower lip, ritual scarring, binding feet, deliberate striving for obesity or anorexia... People are weird.
S-w-e-e-t Its evolution doing what the germans tried to do I dunno if I would put much stick in it though, I think the world is just too diverse for anything of that nature to happen in any kind of reasonable timescale!
I've not read the full article, but it sounds like the kind of thing I would have written when I was 13. It does seem his knowledge of evolution and human society is limited at best.
That's different, that's Eugenics. That's where people with defects are actively sterilised in order that they cannot breed a new generation of people with genetic defects. Wasn't just the Germans doing it back in the 40's though, it was carried out heavily in the US state of California too.
To me, this sounds like some bloke who wants a bit of attention. Some of his predictions on what we're going to be like in 1000 years are based upon what's considerered attractive now. Think about what was considered attractive a few hundred years ago, even one hundred years ago. Society goes through phases of what's considered beauty.
the major foundations of natural selection become redundant as soon as sentient society's are brought into the equation. with genetic proliferation only reduced if health concerns are affecting the person. Sexual selection is and has been the driving force of evolution in humans for quite some time and will be to come, Unless there is another global scale disaster that threatens everyone's existence then the selective pressure will once again return to the fittest and most intelligent among us... (that's me out then! lol )
Selecting a partner based on their intelligence, success as a bread-winner, charm, etc. is no doubt a good trait, but the fact is a bright, successful couple don't breed enough. See dysgenics. One of several reasons for the outcome.
