Hell, it’s already happening.
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.
I disagree that the underclass will be dim-witted, for they will be the ones doing most of the work.
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.
Sieg Heil!
I think by “Dim witted’ they mean no ability to think for themselves. No free thought.
Go to any Walmart, and see what Im talking about. The TV dictatates what they feel and should do… While the rich attend opera, dine in 5* restaraunts, and think of money as a way of restricting the lower peoples mobility….
A tad too “brave new world” isn’t it?
Of course this is a projection, because we will be extinct long before… lol
I think the article is wrong… in my experience it’s been squat goblin like creatures that have all the intelligence and creativity not the tall and attractive. And who’s to say the intelligent people would take over the world, in corporate America it’s the complete opposite. Your typical corporate executive is out of touch and didn’t reach promotion through honest means. Thus the tall, slim, attractive and dim-witted rule the Earth.
Obviously there are exceptions to this but from my experience it’s pretty rare.
I don’t know what being tall, thin and attractive(a subjective term) have to do with being upper-class. Some of my best friends are short, fat, and ugly.
Predicting the genetic future of the human race is more science fiction than science. Dr Curry seems a little confused about how evolution works.
I predict we won’t even be here!
#3 Pedro
Sad isn’t it but that phenomenon is more of a social flaw than the actual ability of those people to learn and perform those tasks.
#3. I dont disagree actually. But there is at least one major exception to this “rule”. His name is George W. Bush. Or as I like to refer to him the “dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures”.
This theory assumes that breeding will be extremely selective and it seems that many of the elite, like others, select for attractiveness, not cleverness.
Sign me up for the underclass.
Well, at least my descendants.
Man, I’ve got to get into either the archeology or future studies rackets.
No one can really call you on either one.
7,
so true… there are some interesting things to happen Before that date.
but the postualation that the SMARt will be rich is totally STUPID.
I can see the groups congregating together, or being Pushed apart, as in the Early years of France..
I could see the Rich becoming Short Squat, and Dumb… but I cant see the lower classes becoming Dumb. those that Have to/NEED to be smart are generally on the bottom, to fight for themselves, to steal, to build things….You have to be smart to survive being Poor.
I do see something tho…
This person is an Economist…He never paid for anything in his life.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/darwin/people.htm
Oliver Curry is a Research Associate in LSE’s Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science. He also teaches Political Theory at New York University in London.
If you think that the “Singularity is Near” it won’t take 1000 years. By the end of this century we will all be dead, living in caves or living in a technical paradise. I don’t have much faith in humanity so I think living in caves will be the optimal out come.
I think the bottom line is smart people dont want to breed with stupid people, so the stupid people have to breed with each other, and they become a subspecies.
The first time I heard this theory, there was a lot more work put into it and it was called Time Machine, by H.G. Wells. If this is going to happen, why hasn’t it happened yet?
This kind of stuff always pisses me off. I hope this guy isn’t getting paid to say this kind of stuff. The best argument he has in his favour is that he gets paid to do this kind of research. I’m obviously not smart enough to see who would pay for this kind of information.
Paris Hilton ???
I saw that movie. Idiocracy. Or, as it will be known in the future, Curry’s syndrome.
sounds like WP talk to me…
This is the same thing Charles Murray said in The Bell Curve. How come when he says it backed up by science, it causes an outcry, but this professor says it and it’s just an oddity for blogs?
If that’s so true, how come India and China which are loaded with peasants and farmers are churning out math and computer geniuses?
This is the same thing Charles Murray said in The Bell Curve.
Not exactly. Murray just noted that intelligence has a genetic component, which seemed sort of obvious rather than controversial to me. I don’t recall that he made any predictions about it becoming worse over time.
Unrelatedly:
As to whether attractive people tend to be smart, stupid, neither, etc… first think about what “attractive” (pretty, handsome, cute, etc) mean. In evolutionary (i.e. genetic) terms, it means HEALTHY. Some aspects change slightly over time (marylin monroe vs. uma thurmon) but in general, pretty always wins over time.
Always.
I find the argument of a subspecies very unlikely. Plus, from the distinction between species and subspecies on wikipedia, it seems that if two human groups had physical differences but choose not to mate, that would be a distinct species, not a subspecies.
I have read that attractiveness correlates with intelligence. Of course there are exceptions like Paris Hilton. But in general attractive people are smart people. Don’t confuse innate attractiveness (primarily symmetry) with things that obscure or correct attractiveness: clothing, makup, nerdy dress, etc.
Some exceedingly smart people:
Richard Feynman
Benjamin Franklin
Albert Einstein
Isaac Newton
I submit that they were ‘attractive’ people and exceedingly brilliant too. (Of course maybe I am just so dellusional that I make a poor judge of looks, especially not men’s appearances).
Someone’s been reading Brave New World…
oh please, for every one healthy attractive man there will be 10 “goblins” the goblins will be the ones to rule the earth they will hold and control the one ring. Dark Lord Sauron will rule this middle earth AGAIN
the time of man is over
Choosier about sexual partners? I doubt that, besides, the perceived upper classes tend to breed with the perceived lower classes for fun, and the get from those unions tend to exert a leveling factor on the species. Of course, the whole concept of “upper” and “lower” classes is relative, depending on the viewer’s perspective. And then there will be wars, famines, plagues, and they will become evolutionary factors as well. If we go into space long term exposure to no-gravity and radiation, especially when astronauts start doing what comes naturally in their little space ships, will affect the race as well. I’d say the race will adapt to deal with whatever comes along, and if we fail then we’ll become as all the other failed species: extinct.
Let them think they’re tall, slim, handsome, clever, whatever. Who gives a fuck?
I’ve long given up hope on mankind. We only act after tragedies, in between we let ourselves be ruled by handsome, greedy idiots. One day there’ll be a tragedy with no possible recovery, and then it’ll be game over.
So just let me live the rest of my life. With my friends, my family, my cats, and all the other ugly people who’d rather eat a burger with their ugly friends than go to the opera…
Fortunately I’ll be long gone way before 3000 AD. I’ve heard it’s much better ‘upstairs’.
#13 I think the bottom line is smart people dont want to breed with stupid people, so the stupid people have to breed with each other, and they become a subspecies.
And as the subspecies of the stupid get dumber and dumber, we in the underclass will trick them out of their money.
#14 This kind of stuff always pisses me off. I hope this guy isn’t getting paid to say this kind of stuff. The best argument he has in his favour is that he gets paid to do this kind of research. I’m obviously not smart enough to see who would pay for this kind of information.
It ain’t coming out of your pocket, so why do you care? He more likely “paid” to teach classes on economics, and since he teaches at the London School of Economics, he must be smarter than you and I and 5 other people put together — even though I think he’s likely off the mark, as I gather, you do to.
#18 This is the same thing Charles Murray said in The Bell Curve. How come when he says it backed up by science, it causes an outcry, but this professor says it and it’s just an oddity for blogs?
Because this isn’t that, and that was racially charged…
There already is a split. Fundamentaly, there are two types of people: one type are the people who believe in an image of themselves, while the second type are the people who believe nothing. It is not cut and dry but rather a gradation process from a total belief in oneself where, such as a baby, one believes that what he sees or feels is what everybody else is also seeing or feeling. That is the first stage that every single human being starts at. Eventually it then goes into higher and higher stages where one starts to believe in an image of oneself. How do you identify yourself? That is the basic question to find out where in the growth process one is in. It is a growth in consciousness. On a scale of consciousness from 1 to 10, most people in the world today are at a level of 3 or 4. Most of the guys here are at around 5 and 6. Dvorak is 6 with moments of 7. Bush is a 5. I am at 8 to 9 with moments of 10 (Christ Consciousness, Buddha Mind, etc.). Also keep in mind that this scale of consciousness is also constantly fluctuating which depends on body and mind. If we are starving or in need of something so great, our levels will drop a couple of points. If we are dead, our level goes down to 0. If we are comatose, like say Terry Schiavo, then our level of consciousness (aka awareness) can go down to 1. As we get higher we realize the collective consciousness that includes not only ourselves but other humans AND other animals AND other sentient beings AND, even inanimate objects like the LCD screen you are looking at.
Actually the upperclass gets more complacent, and diverse over time. They still stay a small part of the population, and are smart enough to hang on to their endowments that generate income without them doing anything.
The walmart folks will complain and grumble about how everything is terrible, and they are suffering, and why doesn’t anyone save them, and life is unfair. NO KIDDING – of course life is unfair. So work arround it.
There is another class that will evolve. Not a middle class, not a lower class. The non-participants. People who know how to live on a small micro-income in some way. And live well on it. Look at the rest of the world boys and girls. They are living well on subsistance living in some areas (rural areas of many countries) . Using bartering mostly. Yes, ultra specialized healthcare will be impossible to afford to get now, but in the future the knowledge and alternatives may be able to help you take care of everything. And no one lives forever.
This whole discussion on future breeding ignores the direction we’re headed in. Five hundred years from now when a couple want to become parents they’ll head to the genetic engineers office to pick the traits they want in their offspring.
31,
The rich ones will. The poor will shoot genetic craps like God intended.
#29 – – On a scale of consciousness from 1 to 10, most people in the world today are at a level of 3 or 4. Most of the guys here are at around 5 and 6. Dvorak is 6 with moments of 7. Bush is a 5. I am at 8 to 9 with moments of 10 (Christ Consciousness, Buddha Mind, etc.).
Okay… Okay…. I have been a tad slow on the uptake when reading your posts, but now that i know with certainty that you are going for comic relief, I have a better appreciation for what you are writing.
Either that, or you are a self deluded loonbat.
In either case, try paragraphs. They really work.
>don’t recall that he made any predictions about it becoming worse
He said basically the same thing. That people tend to mate with people who are in similar social circles, and that this would lead to the creation of a permanent underclass. Race was just one section of the book, and not crucial to the overall theme.