# Human Race will Split into Two Species...



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2007)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...ogy.html?in_article_id=489653&in_page_id=1965



> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
So, was the Time Machine way ahead of its time?


----------



## bydand (Oct 29, 2007)

If you ask some of the upper crust, they will tell you it already has happened. 

As soon as I read this I thought of the "Time Machine" as well.  Wow, the Eloi, and the Morlocks are our future according to this guy.  And it only going to take another 100,000 years, didn't HG Wells have the Time Traveler going like 800,000 years?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Oct 29, 2007)

At this point, things going as they are, I believe it is overly, and perhaps even naively, optimistic to believe the human race will last more than one or two more generations at best.


----------



## exile (Oct 29, 2007)

Huh???? 

Species split as a result of partitions in gene pools, typically as a result of environmental barriers. Populations separated from each other develop local specializations which over time lead to genotypic differences deep enough to result in mutual infertility between the groups. Is there a single word in all the futurobabble in the story about just how this process is going to take place in a world where poplulations move around so easily that genetic isolation is essentially a fantasy, at this point?

BTW, that's not a new state of affairs. An old friend and colleague of mine, a physical anthropologist specializing in genetics, used to like to point out to his classes that DNA tests on New Guinea pygmy groups&#8212;arguably the most isolated people in the world&#8212;yielded gene frequencies that were almost indistinguishable from those of northern Scandinavians. We've all been around the block, lots and lots of times over the past couple of million years,  and partied hearty nonstop, it looks like. What is the evidence that all of a sudden this is going to come to an end??


----------



## Phoenix44 (Oct 29, 2007)

> We've all been around the block, lots and lots of times over the past couple of million years, and partied hearty nonstop, it looks like.


You're funny.


----------



## exile (Oct 29, 2007)

Phoenix44 said:


> You're funny.



Well, given the original `news' story, it's that or start sobbing uncontrollably...


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 29, 2007)

I might not be quite so pessimistic as *Andy* in that I think that humanity will survive in some form for quite a while but that civilisation is on the slippery slope down to the beginning again if we're not careful.

As to the core of the OP, isn't it a tenet of the new, improved, evolutionary theory that changes occur in the genes of every creature type more or less constantly and that environmental (and/or social) pressures merely add additional vector for variation?


----------



## newGuy12 (Oct 29, 2007)

exile said:


> Well, given the original `news' story, it's that or start sobbing uncontrollably...


:lol:


And Andy, you are right.  There's no way that we will still be around 100,000 years from now.  No way.


----------



## newGuy12 (Oct 29, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> I might not be quite so pessimistic as *Andy* in that I think that humanity will survive in some form for quite a while but that civilisation is on the slippery slope down to the beginning again if we're not careful.



Right, this is about the same thing, after all.  Some kind of horrible catastrophe will occur, and kill almost everyone, save a few who will eek out an existance, in a fashion like "Water World", or "Mad Max" or some such movie.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2007)

Why couldn't cultural differences, especially between the widening lower class and narrowing upper class, eventually develop into a partition?  Especially when the latter can always afford the latest gene manipulation/life extension technology that is developed?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 29, 2007)

The Human Race will Split into Two Species???

Didn't that happen once already?


----------



## tellner (Oct 29, 2007)

Phoenix44 said:


> You're funny.


He's also right. One of our distinguishing characteristics is our tendency to screw anything with remotely the right shape and number of limbs. And even that's negotiable in certain parts. The bonobos may be team promiscuity champions, but we're in a strong second place. The idea that we would undergo behavioral reproductive isolation is just plain crazy. 

I'm an Eastern European Jew with a dose of Romany somewhere in there. Those are two cultures which make a religion (literally) out of staying separate from their neighbors. My wife has Chinese, African, Native American and European ancestry. We're hoping that any kids we have will marry Basque San Dravidians so we can complete the set


----------



## Steel Tiger (Oct 29, 2007)

As Exile has already pointed out it takes serious geographic isolation for speciation to occur.  In the case of the Eloi and Morlocks from The Time Machine such as a serparation existed in that one group was forced to lived underground and the other above.  Is Dr Curry suggesting that different socio-economic groups will acually be physically separated?!

We have seen social differentiation and separation throughout human history and prehistory.  The Hindu caste system is a good example.  It has existed for at least 3000 years and members of the different castes have been encouraged to only marry within their own caste.  But the castes were not physically separated from each other, there are even rules about caste mobility.  And really, when you come right down to it, you cannot tell the caste of a Hindic Indian from their physical appearance (maybe from what they are wearing, but that's different).

HG Wells envisioned a Metropolis-like future for mankind in which the workers and the elite were simply not allowed contact, of any kind, with each other.  Over the course of a few hundred thousand years such conditions might produce speciation.  But if the separation is merely social convention and looking down ones nose at another person then it is not going to happen.

However, some Dr Curry's other speculation is very likely.  The human species becoming taller and developing a strong homogeneity in appearance are very possible outcomes of the massive movement in and of populations nowadays.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 29, 2007)

Dr Curry is a political science professor at the London School of Economics. Not the guy I would go to for hard science, but, then look how many people take Al Gore seriously...
This study was conducted for BRAVO, home of such scholarly works as _Queer Eye For The Straight Guy_, _West Wing_ Re-runs and _James Lipton_.
This isn't science, its plagiarism of science fiction.


----------



## tellner (Oct 30, 2007)

You just can't resist bashing Gore, can you? 

*sigh*

Gore did not claim to do the science. He reported the results of real scientists and used their conclusions (with attribution). This guy pulled speculation out of his butt and called it science.

As far as it goes, Gore was absolutely 100% 200 proof right when he started beating the ozone drum during the Bush I Administration. The dimwits on the Right made fun of "Senator Ozone". But he followed the science and ended up being vindicated. At least among thinking people. 

It's the same thing with the climate change writings. We have the data. It's robust. It comes from several different sources. The near term predictions have been borne out. If anything, they were overly _optimistic_. But the Republican War on Science continues apace. It actually is an inconvenient truth, so they do the standard drill:

First they deny. 
Then they lie. 
Then they say it's junk science. 
Then they say it's 'controversial'. 
Then they attack the messenger. 
Then they say it would be too expensive to do anything about it.
Then the say "Tough. You're screwed. But the money's in the bank, and it's your own fault."


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 30, 2007)

We already have it here, there's the rest of the world then there's Middlesborough. It's about half an hour away from where I live and a million miles. Recently voted the worst place in the UK to live in, it has to be seen to be believed lol. It's not a slum or ghetto it's just the mind set of the people there!


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 30, 2007)

exile said:


> Huh????
> 
> Species split as a result of partitions in gene pools, typically as a result of environmental barriers. Populations separated from each other develop local specializations which over time lead to genotypic differences deep enough to result in mutual infertility between the groups. Is there a single word in all the futurobabble in the story about just how this process is going to take place in a world where poplulations move around so easily that genetic isolation is essentially a fantasy, at this point?
> 
> BTW, that's not a new state of affairs. An old friend and colleague of mine, a physical anthropologist specializing in genetics, used to like to point out to his classes that DNA tests on New Guinea pygmy groupsarguably the most isolated people in the worldyielded gene frequencies that were almost indistinguishable from those of northern Scandinavians. We've all been around the block, lots and lots of times over the past couple of million years,  and partied hearty nonstop, it looks like. What is the evidence that all of a sudden this is going to come to an end??


I agree that a species split of humans is just a fantasy. The only real way for that to happen is a one time colonization of say, Mars with no further input from the mother planet ... over the course of several generations (read: like 100+ years) will species differences start to appear and then another say 1000 years for they could be truly called Martians as long as they don't breed with any Earth humans. But for that to happen successfully the colonization population would have to number in the several hundreds to create a diverse enough gene pool to begin with so that inbreeding isn't much of a risk ... lak it iz in certain parts o' Wes' Virginiee an Ken-tuckee. :uhyeah: Ya'll know whut am tawlking 'bout dun't cha?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 30, 2007)

exile said:


> Huh????
> 
> Species split as a result of partitions in gene pools, typically as a result of environmental barriers. Populations separated from each other develop local specializations which over time lead to genotypic differences deep enough to result in mutual infertility between the groups. Is there a single word in all the futurobabble in the story about just how this process is going to take place in a world where poplulations move around so easily that genetic isolation is essentially a fantasy, at this point?
> 
> BTW, that's not a new state of affairs. An old friend and colleague of mine, a physical anthropologist specializing in genetics, used to like to point out to his classes that DNA tests on New Guinea pygmy groups&#8212;arguably the most isolated people in the world&#8212;yielded gene frequencies that were almost indistinguishable from those of northern Scandinavians. We've all been around the block, lots and lots of times over the past couple of million years, and partied hearty nonstop, it looks like. What is the evidence that all of a sudden this is going to come to an end??




Sir,

Is the quoted researcher the same that stated the Africans and those of their heritage have a lower IQ due to genetics? Or is this a different Britsh Professor looking to get into the press?


et al,
Isolation in today's culture would be almost impossible. As to separation of people for breeding stock, well I think that as long as there are pretty women in the lower and middle income groups, there will be rich men who will seek them out and they will have continued to avoid the isolation. I mean even at the height of racism in this country with slavery, there were men who slept with their pretty slaves. (* Note: I do not support racism. I am not calling anyone a racist. I am not saying it was wrong for them to sleep around based upon their race/color/religion what have you. I do not support slavery in any form, so one coudl say it was wrong for them to sleep with those under their care. The comment though is only a reference point to history. *)


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 30, 2007)

HAHAHAHA!!! What a joke. What has the world become where we start making news out of cable TV shows? Its the whole snake eating its tail motif.


----------



## exile (Oct 30, 2007)

Rich Parsons said:


> Sir,
> 
> Is the quoted researcher the same that stated the Africans and those of their heritage have a lower IQ due to genetics? Or is this a different Britsh Professor looking to get into the press?



Different guy, Rich. The one you're thinking of (I _think_) is James Watson, codiscoverer of the double helical structure of DNA (and cowinner of the Nobel Prize for that discovery). This guy is apparently some political scientist at&#8212;where was it? The London School of Economics? I was relieved to learn the guy's no biologist&#8212;you'd hope someone who actually knew something about demographics and genetics would be a little more cautious in making loopy predictions like that...

Here's an interesting exercise: take the social and economic organization of England in the year 1000, and the social and economic organization of England in the year 2007, and chart the differences in technology, economic activity, the organization of work, patterns of settlement and residence.... the lot. Now do a little thought experiment: imagine going back to the city of, oh, say York in the year 1000 and asking every single person in the city what life would be like a thousand years later. And then try and imagine even one of them being even vaguely, minutely right. Now why should we think that this guy has any better chance of being right about events 1,000, let alone 10,000 years in the future? Given how unexpected things are&#8212;hell, could our parents in the 1950s even visualize the impact of personal computers on the organization of the economy a measely half century and some change later??&#8212;why are we not simply reading what this guy has to say, rolling our eyes rolleyes and then bursting out laughing lol for a bit before going on the next newstory, about the two-headed boy reared by wolves or whatever else of similar plausiblity the National Enquirer Channel news team has been able to uncover?...


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 30, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Why couldn't cultural differences, especially between the widening lower class and narrowing upper class, eventually develop into a partition? Especially when the latter can always afford the latest gene manipulation/life extension technology that is developed?


 
It never stopped things in the past.  Just look at the history of the US, during colonial times.  How many slave owners had offspring with their slaves?  Lots and lots.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 30, 2007)

Tell ya what, those goblin people better not be tasty or we uber-hottie brainiacs are gonna Soylent Green 'em.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 30, 2007)

Naziesque undertones of a "master race" and the idea that some people are "sub-human" by genetics if you ask me. I dont like it.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 30, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> So, was the Time Machine way ahead of its time?



While this idea is obviously wrong for the reasons that the others have put forth, it doesn't even make sense in its own terms.  Because the gene pool for the underclass would be much broader (more people) they would probably be the attractive and intelligent ones, while widespread physical abnormalities would be more likely to persist in the more restricted gene pool of the elites.  Just look at the history of the European royal families!

If the author is going to claim that the underclass becomes dumb and goblinoid because of sex selection, that is also pretty screwy, because most people seem to enjoy hooking up with the most attractive people possible.  If he is going to claim that the underclass will become dumb and ugly because they are poor and hungry, I would refer him to places like Africa where the people look pretty normal generally speaking.


----------



## Ray (Oct 30, 2007)

newGuy12 said:


> Right, this is about the same thing, after all.  Some kind of horrible catastrophe will occur, and kill almost everyone, save a few who will eek out an existance, in a fashion like "Water World", or "Mad Max" or some such movie.


I was hoping the future would be more like "A Day at the Races."


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Oct 30, 2007)

I don't see a genetic split happening, but the rift between two classes is already very clear.

Long, long ago we _homo sapiens_ made a deal with the devil and exchanged technology for evolution.  We no longer _need_ to evolve...we can develop gadgets that increase our survivability without all that tedious mucking about with genetic drift, survival of the fittest and natural selection.

Access to those technologies is not universal, however.  Look at what the 'developed' world has, compared to 2/5 of the world population that can't manage clean drinking water.

While some good-hearted folk are working to fix that, the general trend seems to be towards a wider rift between the haves and the haven'ts.  

We don't need genetic change to see a difference between some 13 year old kid in Somalia and a 13 year old kid in Beverlee Hills.  The only thing that's missing is more widespread acceptance of the myth that both are there because it's natural, or that they deserved it.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 30, 2007)

A pretty important point there, *Bushi*, on a number of different levels, both biological and sociological.


----------



## tellner (Oct 30, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Naziesque undertones of a "master race" and the idea that some people are "sub-human" by genetics if you ask me. I dont like it.



Truly G-d is Great! Blotan Hunka and I have found another political point where we're in complete agreement!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 30, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Naziesque undertones of a "master race" and the idea that some people are "sub-human" by genetics if you ask me. I dont like it.


 


tellner said:


> Truly G-d is Great! Blotan Hunka and I have found another political point where we're in complete agreement!


 
DAMN and all this time I was just thinking right handed versus left handed :uhyeah:

As far as a serious response to this goes Blotan Hunka pretty much got it in my opinion


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 30, 2007)

Is an eclipse at hand? Perhaps an earthquake or stars falling from the sky?? LOL!


----------



## Steel Tiger (Oct 30, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Why couldn't cultural differences, especially between the widening lower class and narrowing upper class, eventually develop into a partition? Especially when the latter can always afford the latest gene manipulation/life extension technology that is developed?


 
We have many examples of social differentiation throughout the history of humanity.  It seems we really do like to divide ourselves up into little groups of haves and have nots.  But none of the examples we have created the right sort of divide as to create species variation.  We have some beauties right now that have separated the so-called first world from the developing world, but it doesn't actually stop people from moving between one group and the other, so cross fertilisation continues.

It is always interesting to note that this kind of speculation comes from people whose descendants would be in the elite.  Maybe its just wishful thinking for the well-being of their offspring.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 30, 2007)

exile said:


> Different guy, Rich. The one you're thinking of (I _think_) is James Watson, codiscoverer of the double helical structure of DNA (and cowinner of the Nobel Prize for that discovery). This guy is apparently some political scientist atwhere was it? The London School of Economics? I was relieved to learn the guy's no biologistyou'd hope someone who actually knew something about demographics and genetics would be a little more cautious in making loopy predictions like that...
> 
> Here's an interesting exercise: take the social and economic organization of England in the year 1000, and the social and economic organization of England in the year 2007, and chart the differences in technology, economic activity, the organization of work, patterns of settlement and residence.... the lot. Now do a little thought experiment: imagine going back to the city of, oh, say York in the year 1000 and asking every single person in the city what life would be like a thousand years later. And then try and imagine even one of them being even vaguely, minutely right. Now why should we think that this guy has any better chance of being right about events 1,000, let alone 10,000 years in the future? Given how unexpected things arehell, could our parents in the 1950s even visualize the impact of personal computers on the organization of the economy a measely half century and some change later??why are we not simply reading what this guy has to say, rolling our eyes rolleyes and then bursting out laughing lol for a bit before going on the next newstory, about the two-headed boy reared by wolves or whatever else of similar plausiblity the National Enquirer Channel news team has been able to uncover?...




Thanks Exile for the information. 

Hmmm 1000 years ago versus today. How about 1897 to 2007? So let us look at 2117 and think what might be able to be around?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Oct 30, 2007)

Rich Parsons said:


> Thanks Exile for the information.
> 
> Hmmm 1000 years ago versus today. How about 1897 to 2007? So let us look at 2117 and think what might be able to be around?


 

As things are going now? Very little.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 30, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> While this idea is obviously wrong for the reasons that the others have put forth, it doesn't even make sense in its own terms. Because the gene pool for the underclass would be much broader (more people) they would probably be the attractive and intelligent ones, while widespread physical abnormalities would be more likely to persist in the more restricted gene pool of the elites. Just look at the history of the European royal families!


No... Not even BIGGER noses & ears!  Blood so watery that it just oozes out of the capillaries and pores?


----------



## Steel Tiger (Oct 30, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> No... Not even BIGGER noses & ears! Blood so watery that it just oozes out of the capillaries and pores?


 
Now see what you gone and done!  

I'm going to have nightmares for days now, haunted by big nosed, big eared, no chinned monsters bleeding all over the place and speaking in weird upper class accents.  :xtrmshock


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 30, 2007)

Yeah, but what about technology?  What's to stop a global elite class from genetically manipulating themselves and using other futuristic life extension technologies from making it impossible for them to "dilute" their gene pool by screwing the _proles_?  I bet that it wouldn't take that many generations and you'd truly have a partition.  

Technically, this seems feasible to me.  Realistically?  Probably not, but who knows?  Someone mentioned James Watson above.  He has always been a big time supporter of eugenics.  If that theory ever came back into vogue with the monied elites, all bets are off...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 30, 2007)

Andy Moynihan said:


> As things are going now? Very little.




It was war time to get up too Nuclear power. That made bis steps.

The micro chip made big changes.

The next change will come from another area where a break through will happen. It will make things seem like wow how did we get by without it, and yet that is what is great about the break throughs.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Oct 30, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Yeah, but what about technology? What's to stop a global elite class from genetically manipulating themselves and using other futuristic life extension technologies from making it impossible for them to "dilute" their gene pool by screwing the _proles_? I bet that it wouldn't take that many generations and you'd truly have a partition.
> 
> Technically, this seems feasible to me. Realistically? Probably not, but who knows? Someone mentioned James Watson above. He has always been a big time supporter of eugenics. If that theory ever came back into vogue with the monied elites, all bets are off...


 
I can actually see medical technology having some effect like this but I can also see a problem.  Eugenics programs of the past generally tended to look at an entire 'race' of people, usually white Europeans.  The problem I can see with an economic elite doing this and excluding people of lesser socio-economic backgrounds is that they are going to limit their genetic diversity.

I think that Empty Hands made a good point with the example of European royalty.  They are all starting to look a bit samey.  Of course, it can be argued that gene manipulation could overcome the lack of diversity.

Life extension is an interesting thing.  Currently we consider a generation to be about 30-40 years.  It would be interesting to see the effects on a population in which one group was progressing through twice as many generations as another in the same time frame


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 30, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> I can actually see medical technology having some effect like this but I can also see a problem. Eugenics programs of the past generally tended to look at an entire 'race' of people, usually white Europeans. The problem I can see with an economic elite doing this and excluding people of lesser socio-economic backgrounds is that they are going to limit their genetic diversity.
> 
> I think that Empty Hands made a good point with the example of European royalty. They are all starting to look a bit samey. Of course, it can be argued that gene manipulation could overcome the lack of diversity.
> 
> Life extension is an interesting thing. Currently we consider a generation to be about 30-40 years. It would be interesting to see the effects on a population in which one group was progressing through twice as many generations as another in the same time frame



Another point, let us say there is a seperation, and still free choice to choose from your own sub-group. I mean I am 6'3" - 190.5 cm and I have found that while women of a certain height are cute and attractive I prefer not to date them as they are shorter than me. In the same I know some women who do not like dating such a big guy. So, while people will choose their partners based upon selection and discrimination (* look up the ord to see how I am applying it here *) and one will still see that there will be a based point of how people will go tall and short or heavy frame and small frame and  blonde and brunette or brown and blue eyes. 

I think if such a group does separate themselves they will either die out do to lack of numbers or will be on another planet after we terraform, and even then it would be hard to see such a major change.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Oct 30, 2007)

Rich Parsons said:


> Another point, let us say there is a seperation, and still free choice to choose from your own sub-group. I mean I am 6'3" - 190.5 cm and I have found that while women of a certain height are cute and attractive I prefer not to date them as they are shorter than me. In the same I know some women who do not like dating such a big guy. So, while people will choose their partners based upon selection and discrimination (* look up the ord to see how I am applying it here *) and one will still see that there will be a based point of how people will go tall and short or heavy frame and small frame and blonde and brunette or brown and blue eyes.
> 
> I think if such a group does separate themselves they will either die out do to lack of numbers or will be on another planet after we terraform, and even then it would be hard to see such a major change.


 
That's a good point you make,Rich, about selection and discrimination.  That is why during the eugenics movements in Germany and the United States (just to name two) that individuals didn't really get to choose their own partners.  The state or group decided who would breed with whom.  Otherwise, in a small population you will get some people simply being left out as undesirable which ultimately will reduce the group size and eventually lead to the extinction of the group.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 31, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> No... Not even BIGGER noses & ears!  Blood so watery that it just oozes out of the capillaries and pores?



Blast it all old chap, now you've gone and upset the colonials!


----------



## Blindside (Oct 31, 2007)

I don't see a genetic partitioning based off mate selection happening.  On the other hand this guy was talking 100,000 years, If we ever make it off this rock, intersteller colonization combined with genetic engineering could easily subset the species.  I don't see any reason why the human race wouldn't diversify to fit niches on other planets.  You would have both spatial seperation to create the opportunity for speciation as well as intentional gene engineering for desirable traits for non-terran norms.

Lamont


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 31, 2007)

This theory is propigated by nutjobs who either want this prediction to be true (Modern Eugenists and Nazi types) or who are so afraid that it could come true that they believe this to be a probability (mainly, conspiracy theorists).

I think that this notion, wishful or not, is not based in reality. I think lots of things will happen in our future with nanotech and medical science. But to think that 2 separate species will occur is not really based in fact, as it directly offends the Darwinian theory that the notion is based on. The notion of "survival of the fittest" states that those most fit to survive and reproduce will be able to pass on their genes. Furthermore, it is well known that Genetic diversity it what enables species to grow more resistant and with the stronger survival traits of physical and mental intelligence. Therefore, it would not make scientific sense that we would seperate into "superhuman" and "goblins" where one is genetically superior to the other because those genetically inferior don't pass on genes, and those supposedly genetically superior would need to continually be tested by hardship and diversely bred to maintain that superiority. 

I don't know if I am adequetly explaining my position in a few short sentences, so let me best explain it with dogs. Dogs are bred to have genetic characteristics and traits that fulfill certain needs. But it is a well known fact that this genetic purity never works well in the long term, because the dogs lose defenses and become less effective from breeding along the same line. The closer the line (or the "inbreeding") the worse it is. So, an example would be the many pure French Bulldogs who are suseptable to all sorts of disease and physical problems. To put it simply,  dog breeds of today for the most part could not survive on their own, and if it weren't for breed associations and breeders, dogs would breed as they saw fit. What would happen is because of that diversity, traits not fitting for survival would be bred out. In hundreds of years, we would have closer to 1 breed of dog, vs. the many breeds we now have. You wouldn't have 2 breeds of dog, one with three legs and mentally defunct and another with superstrength and intellect, simply because the 3 legged mentally defunct dogs would be less apt to survive, and less apt to pass on those genes.

Am I making sense? It's kind of hard for me to make sense of it and put it into laymans terms, because even though I have a basic understanding of biology and genetics, I am not a biologist myself.

Since that point is made, it becomes clear that we are really all only 1 race of human, and moving more towards 1 ethnicity with superior traits then towards any kind of seperation of species. This is because there is no breeding association to seperate our "breeds" like in the dog world.

Attempts at creating a human breeding association has occured throughout history, however. Sterilization programs, Eugenics, Slavery, Nazism, and Aristocracies all hold such examples. But, they all have failed, and will continue to. Why?

We can see inbreeding with the Roman Empire and with Royal families to see that none of that sort of thing creates a superior race, and if anything it creates the opposite. But that doesn't stop people with lots of money/power throughout history to try to keep it. But as always, throughout history these attempts ultimately fail. This is because the faulty assumption by these types is that their "royal" bloodline is somehow superior. That always proves to be not they case, as when people like the Nazi's try to spread tyranny, the so-called "inferior" people successfully revolt because they have multitudes people who are smarter and stronger and more capable then those who would try to be a ruling elite. The human race, simply, will not stand for it on a global scale. This can be seen through every example ranging from the Roman and Chinese empires, to Napolian and Hitler. There will always be people capable of stopping the ruling tyranny, and who will exercise that capability when the public perceives that things have gone to far.

So, 2 species will not be occuring anytime in our future that I can see, pending some catastrophic, "Mad-max" style disaster. Nor will we see the success of any breeding program that would artificially create such a horror. But keep in mind that doesn't stop people from dreaming this **** up. And some of these people have money too. People who would put up a monument like this, for example: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones
http://www.radioliberty.com/stones.htm

But, as long as we, as normal moral people, are willing to fight for are rights and maintain our soverienty and constitution, we'll be able to put down anyone who would try to do something horrific (like the Nazi's of the past), whether their presumptions are based in reality or not.

C.


----------



## Ray (Oct 31, 2007)

Blindside said:


> I don't see a genetic partitioning based off mate selection happening.  On the other hand this guy was talking 100,000 years, If we ever make it off this rock, intersteller colonization combined with genetic engineering could easily subset the species.  I don't see any reason why the human race wouldn't diversify to fit niches on other planets.  You would have both spatial seperation to create the opportunity for speciation as well as intentional gene engineering for desirable traits for non-terran norms.


I don't think interstellar colonization is in the cards...everything is too far away from Sol for us to get there -- I'm not expecting warp-drive engines or anything like that to make it likely either.

If evolution is a collection of random changes that just happen to make an organism more likely to survive in its environment (or not cause any negative survival tendencies) then predicting what will happen is not possible to any degree of accuracy.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Oct 31, 2007)

Well, here's my thought. I argue about the whole "ugly goblin-like" part. mostly since I'll take a poor chica over Bill Gates's kids any day. if nothing else, poor folk have a unique culture (or so it seems), and tend to be less crazy, and less whore-y.

So, if it comes down to that, can the middle class go with the goblins?


----------



## Steel Tiger (Oct 31, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Am I making sense? It's kind of hard for me to make sense of it and put it into laymans terms, because even though I have a basic understanding of biology and genetics, I am not a biologist myself.


 
I think you've done a pretty good job of explaining actually.




Cruentus said:


> Since that point is made, it becomes clear that we are really all only 1 race of human, and moving more towards 1 ethnicity with superior traits then towards any kind of seperation of species. This is because there is no breeding association to seperate our "breeds" like in the dog world.


 
It is interesting when you compare humans and dogs in this way.  For various reasons associated with diet and general health the human species is becoming physically superior with no clear indications of 'race', however you want to define them.  We are moving toward a 'new' version of ourselves.  With dogs you see a different movement.  It appears to be a regression toward _Canis lupis_ when they are left to breed without interference.  Interesting.




Cruentus said:


> Attempts at creating a human breeding association has occured throughout history, however. Sterilization programs, Eugenics, Slavery, Nazism, and Aristocracies all hold such examples. But, they all have failed, and will continue to. Why?


 
I think is it because you just can't separate people from people regardless of how hard you try.  Whatever program is used it does not take into account the concepts of sexual selection and discrimination.  You can try to tell people who to breed with but ultimately someone will break the rules and choose an undesirable.  The only way to stop it would be to permanently lock people up, and I still think they would find a way around it.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 31, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> It is interesting when you compare humans and dogs in this way. For various reasons associated with diet and general health the human species is becoming physically superior with no clear indications of 'race', however you want to define them. We are moving toward a 'new' version of ourselves. With dogs you see a different movement. It appears to be a regression toward _Canis lupis_ when they are left to breed without interference. Interesting.


 
If I had to guess, it's in the communication skills.  Other animals don't have the capability to discover a better way to do it and then transmit that information to the rest of the species.  Or maybe they do, but not to the same degree.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Oct 31, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> If I had to guess, it's in the communication skills. Other animals don't have the capability to discover a better way to do it and then transmit that information to the rest of the species. Or maybe they do, but not to the same degree.


 
Its a good point you make about information transmission.  To my mind it suggests the importance of information retention as well.  You can't transmit information if you cannot retain it.  I know that other species can transmit information which means they can retain it, but in the case of humans we are able to retain extremely complex concepts and pass them on.  Hence a better diet (though it can be argued that we are screwing that up), lower infant mortality, and better general health.


----------



## tellner (Oct 31, 2007)

"Superior traits" is all context. Fair skin is useful in Norway. It's an invitation to cancer in Durban. The ability to retain salt let kidnapped Africans survive the Middle Passage. It meant hypertension for their descendants 300 years later. 

I really doubt that people will voluntarily limit whom they mate with to people who are just like them. The evidence is that we tend to prefer people slightly different from ourselves. And there's a good dose of looking for the exotic. Heterozygocity and a variety of partners helps insure that your offspring will have a better chance of survival. 

A report from a year or two back indicated that a bit over one in ten babies born *in* wedlock was not fathered by the mother's husband. Jared Diamond reports that a colleague had done work on blood types in the "traditional values" 1940s and 1950s. He destroyed his notes and never published. Years later he told Dr. Diamond about the research but swore him to secrecy and asked him not to even mention it until he (the researcher) was dead. At the time publishing a paper saying that - wait for it - about one in ten women had babies by someone other than their husbands would have destroyed his career and been a cause of moral outrage. There are some interesting game-theoretic ways of looking at it with men trying to avoid raising other mens' children while planting cuckoos' eggs of their own and women weighing the advantages of multiple fathers against the risk of being caught. Sex is pretty damned cold-blooded and serious where the rubber meets, or fails to meet, oh never mind 

Strom Thurmond's experience of preaching segregation by day while practicing integration by night was not uncommon even in a culture which made a religion out of keeping Blacks and Whites separate. Of course, if it had been Carl Bunch and Stacey Thurmond instead of Carrie and Strom it would have ended in a lynching. Or like an old and bitter joke ends "Come on up, Rufus. They don't mind going to bed with us. They just don't want to go to _School _with us!" 

There are plenty of stories in Scandinavian friends' families about guys moving into a village and having the pick of the local girls. Farmers recognize that new blood is important for maintaining the health of the herd.

Inbred populations like Iceland and the Amish pay a high price for their "purity" in birth defects and mental retardation. Even within such groups there's very strong evidence that we instinctively seek out people who are genetically different. The HLA (Human Leukocyte) profile is reflected in pheromones. Please don't ask me to diagram the chemistry. It's been too many years. Among groups within Amish and Chassidic communities people were much more likely to marry members with very different HLA profiles than ones with closer. 

Other studies show that women who are ovulating find men with divergent HLA profiles more attractive. When they are pregnant they prefer the smell of close kin. It makes sense given our historical past. Before agriculture humans tended to follow the common mammalian pattern of Female Philopatry. That is, females tend to stay close to the area in which they were born. Males tend to disperse. Women who are looking to get pregnant look for genetic differences because the combination gives their offspring better health and physical performance overall. When they are pregnant their chances are better if they stick close to home where their close kin will take care of them and protect them.

Bottom line: Strong biological imperatives encourage us to breed in a very cosmopolitan fashion. This isn't likely to change any time soon.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 31, 2007)

Tellner makes some excellent points. I'll highlight one:



> Inbred populations like Iceland and the Amish pay a high price for their "purity" in birth defects and mental retardation.



Royalty and aristocracy in different era's experienced the same thing. Among other mentioned reasons, this is why a forced eugenics program where a social elite try's to maintain a "pure" race will ultimatily always fail. Diversity allows us to adapt, and adapting is how we stay alive.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 1, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Royalty and aristocracy in different era's experienced the same thing. Among other mentioned reasons, this is why a forced eugenics program where a social elite try's to maintain a "pure" race will ultimatily always fail. Diversity allows us to adapt, and adapting is how we stay alive.


 
What about technology?  Why couldn't gene technology be used to create diversity in the future?  For a group of people who could afford it, it doesn't seem like its out of the question.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 1, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> What about technology?  Why couldn't gene technology be used to create diversity in the future?  For a group of people who could afford it, it doesn't seem like its out of the question.



I think that technology will greatly change things for the future. But that won't change the fact that humans will still need diversity to adapt. Further, we don't know exactly how these changes will occur, but we can see that there is no evidence that technology will go in the direction of causing the creation of 2 species. That would require a lot of factors to be in place, of which there is no evidence of now.


----------



## tellner (Nov 1, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> What about technology?  Why couldn't gene technology be used to create diversity in the future?  For a group of people who could afford it, it doesn't seem like its out of the question.


 The seed companies have been promising this since about the 1970s. They talked about "Diversity in time rather than diversity in space." They've inserted and modified genes and now create whole artificial chromosomes for corn. 

So far it has reduced diversity, made herbicide-resistant weeds and generally not worked the way they promised.

Nature makes changes wholesale and in many different directions. A lot of them don't pan out. We do them one or two at a time.


----------



## jim777 (Nov 1, 2007)

Andy Moynihan said:


> At this point, things going as they are, I believe it is overly, and perhaps even naively, optimistic to believe the human race will last more than one or two more generations at best.


 
I'm really just hoping for another 10 years to be honest. If we get past that we may be ok. But he next few are going to be insanely tough.


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 1, 2007)

It's not a "new technology" that will create the two races, it's  "low-tech" that will keep them together.....BEER!  Helping ugly people reproduce since people first came together. LOL


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 1, 2007)

punisher73 said:


> It's not a "new technology" that will create the two races, it's "low-tech" that will keep them together.....BEER! Helping ugly people reproduce since people first came together. LOL


 

No, it's love... Love will keep us together.  Hey!  Don't make me go all Muskrat Love on you!


----------



## Steel Tiger (Nov 1, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> What about technology? Why couldn't gene technology be used to create diversity in the future? For a group of people who could afford it, it doesn't seem like its out of the question.


 
The best I can see technology doing for diversity is extending it slightly.  By this I mean an elite population is going to have a finite gentic pool and applying technological treatments to it can only work so far.  Tellner mentioned artifical chromosomes and how the production of such tends to have unexpected results at the moment.  If such things are used by an elite population is it likely that they, a group trying to maintain some sort of purity, would go down the road of introducing artificial elements to their gentics?  Given that sort of mindset I din't thinki they would.


----------

