Despite this other article which says the one below is crap, I have to say, just walking on the Strip here in Vegas where people from all around the country come, I think this split has already occurred.
Human race will ‘split into two different species’
The human race will one day split into two separate species, an attractive, intelligent ruling elite and an underclass of dim-witted, ugly goblin-like creatures, according to a top scientist.
100,000 years into the future, sexual selection could mean that two distinct breeds of human will have developed.
The alarming prediction comes from evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry from the London School of Economics, who says that the human race will have reached its physical peak by the year 3000.
Next contestants on The Bachelor
Sure, if attractive were exclusively intelligent and if the ugly were exclusively dim-witted, he may have a point. However, that is not true. Because ugly people can be smart, they can be successful which will attract attractive mates, which will cause the genes of the ugly and the attractive to continue intermixing for a long time.
1. This is old.
2. Its FAKE.
Mating with someone beautiful or ugly depends primarily on MONEY. And it has been shown time and time again that the brainiest people are likely not to be wealthy. Therefore, because rarely does brains = money, and beauty is attracted to money, the interbreeding will continue and prevent the “globins” from emerging–although I have noticed plenty of left-over Neanderthal DNA riding the NY subways.
The split has already occurred. It’s just that the critters saddled with leftover Stone Age genes are still in the majority. Politics and the electorate being the outstanding example. Churches being the most remarkable syndrome.
I saw that movie! I think it was called the time machine…
3. “the brainiest people are likely not to be wealthy”
You’re probably just kidding, but just in case you’re one of the dim-witted uglies, there is a strong correlation and causation between high IQs and wealth. God, just think about Bill Gates.
an underclass of dim-witted, ugly goblin-like creatures
How else do you explain the popularity of American Idol and Survivor.
Okay now, how many times have I told you…. the Daily Mail is not a real newspaper….. it doesn’t report real news. Its a political tool used to make people who live in Middle England feel smug in the knowledge that should they leave their enclaves, they will be attacked by crazed foreigners and blood thirsty lesbian healthy-and-safety executives who will make them use gender neutral terms while ordering their groceries in kilo’s and not pounds…..
#8: That’s why there’s the other link.
I for one welcome our beautiful yet vapid overlords
I fully agree with this article (not just because everyone else is decidingly against it). And while it may not come for a “reputable” newscource (like a supposedly pro science website), it is still very real and true.
Look at how people choose a mate. Historically (aka as far back as there has been somone documenting that shit), intelligent people favor intelligent people, and stupid people dont know any better.
There, I rest my case.
Dude, we are already there!
13 Dude, we are already there!
Yup…
DU regulars, and everyone else.
[And DU editors. -ed]
How do you think our brains developed to judge some people “attractive” and others “unattractive”? How about what smells good vs. what smells bad? Ditto taste?
There was no point in our evolution where some arbitrary mutation suddenly endowed us with these subjective judgements…. (and many others.) They evolved over time, just like all our other characteristics, with Ma Nature’s goal of passing on your genes successfully.
Our brains equate beauty with health; it’s just that simple. Nowdays… maybe not so relevant, but it’s obviously served us pretty well for the last 40,000 years or so.
Unfortunately, I am on the Morlock end of the scale. (If you picture Michael Moore when you read this, you’re not far off the mark.)
[One man’s skank is another man’s beauty. – ed.]
As long as the smartest people get horny and sleep with anyone who they can (as the upper classes have always done) and poor and horny don’t give a monkey’s about birth control (as would often appear to be the case) there will always be a good amount of inter-mixing, and the ‘smart’ good looking genes will trickle their way into us normal people…..
Devo had the right idea? Don’t you mean H.G. Wells?
The examples of two sorts of people presented here aren’t the same as the ones in “The Time Machine”. The article says there will be two races- the intelligent good-looking ones and the ugly dumb ones. In “The Time Machine” there were two races also- one was squat and ugly and it literally preyed upon the beautiful idiots.
Disney taught us one important lesson in their remake of Beauty & the Beast:
You could be the ugliest, hairiest MF in the world but if you’re rich enough to own a castle you will get the girl.
Hold it, make that two lessons:
In Disney’s Aladdin they taught us that the uptighest princess gets wet for the nastiest vagrant.
This was the point of the book The Bell Curve, but people who put politics over science decided to bash the book.
Primarily, species need physical isolation in order to specialize.
I don’t see room for speciation of homosapiens if the world levels out between 10-12 Billion souls?
More likely to differentiate the entire genome with some basement experiment gone wrong.
“[One man’s skank is another man’s beauty. – ed.]”
There’s a saying in Spanish about this:
“El hombre es como el oso, mientras mas feo mas hermoso.”
BTW I’m not going to bother translating that.
I think this describes the situation better.
http://tinyurl.com/dn6b5
Personally, I think that with so many people and so much interaction around the world, speciation will be quite difficult for our species. Perhaps after The Great Human Die Off, if anyone is left, this might be possible. However, predicting evolution to this level of detail sort of goes against the chaos theory that would come into play in any simulation this complex.
I confess I haven’t read the articles yet. I’ll let you know if reading them later changes my opinion.
#17 – captain,
Yup. Morlocks and Eloi. Definitely not an original idea on the part of this particular scientist.
#6 SN
“there is a strong correlation and causation between high IQs and wealth.”
That is absolute nonsense.
What makes it nonsense?
Surely though, the beautiful people are all beautiful because of the plastic surgery, and not their genes, so maybe the rich people will continue to be mostly ugly, and the rest of us will get better and better looking because the ugly poor can’t hide their uglyness with a surgeons knife….
#27
First. The burden of proof is not in my court.
Second. For every example you give I could easily give a counter. There are too many factors on how someone becomes wealthy that to say that an IQ, which is a subjective value, has anything but a slightly higher than coincidental affect is just bunk.
Not to mention what defines wealth and what defines “High” IQ? Which of the numerous tests are used to make this claim?
By no means is high IQ a requirement to making large amounts of money and by no means is high IQ a guarantee of wealth.
#28 pedro
Your attempt at an insult would have been good had it been correct or had it been a proper sentence. When you can include Intertel and Fortune 500 in your credentials let me know.
You seem to be asking for 100% if a then b. That’s not what correlation and causation mean. Do you really think that higher IQs are not related to higher wealth on average? It may be that to be really wealthy does not correlate with really high IQ, but that’s not the same thing.
#27, #30,
The IQ test itself is highly controversial, as J points out. A long time ago, in a galaxy far away (so, around the 1970s), there was talk about changing the name of the test to the school readiness test. It turns out that it is a fair measure of how one may be expected to do in school, assuming a normal amount of motivation, and barring other factors.
Here’s a good brief discussion of the controversy about IQ.
http://tinyurl.com/3y8etz
#31
No I am not asking for 100% I am saying that it is unrelated or such a minor factor that it does not fall into the correlation and causation category. Like I said for every person you bring up that fits that description I can counter with someone that does not so at best that would be 50%. 50% does not equal correlation and causation. That would be as stupid as saying that a coin flip has a correlation and causation to wealth. That’s because…
THERE IS NO CORRELATION OR CAUSATION.
“Do you really think that higher IQs are not related to higher wealth on average?”
Not only do I think that. I know that for sure. I would say business sense, status, and or education are things that you can actually say there is a correlation and causation.
Lets not confuse IQ with education. They are not the same thing. There are members of Mensa that are not even high school graduates and can’t get jobs because of it. I know one.
“It may be that to be really wealthy does not correlate with really high IQ, but that’s not the same thing.”
Like I said it depends on how you define “wealth” and “High” IQ and what tests you use to gauge IQ. IT IS A SUBJECTIVE NUMBER
“It may be that to be really wealthy does not correlate with really high IQ, but that’s not the same thing.”
Well Bill Gates was used as the example. so……..
Lets just say I know many high IQ people, actually amongst the highest, and not even 50% are what I would consider wealthy. Average ($40,000 to $70,000 annually) or slightly above average ($100,000 $250,000 annually) for the most of them. But maybe my perspective might be skewed on what defines wealth.