Thread: BBC:Human species may split in two(elite/underclass)

Although this statement is two days ago, it captures my imagination that the human trajectory is speculated to have this direction and magnitude.
For those who have known about this already or (will) have read from the link please comment and add to this unusual extrapolation.

Link

Additional links:

Link 2

Link 3

Link 4

It seems to me like a very adventurous speculation, but it's always fun to imagine these sorts of things. The reasoning leading to this seems to be OK, but I think that under the circumstances described on the article rather than to perfection it will lead to extinction...

The small ugly guys because of its inferiority (similar to what happened to Neanderthal), and the pretty guys because of their dependence from technology.

I doubt this. If we don't obliterate eachother, inevitably someone will rise and "save" humanity. It has been done countless times in ancient times, and we are long overdo for another hero. However with the increase of knowledge and technology there will be an increase in how the body works and how to keep it in shape/improve it.

This "lower" class will probably not exist as a result.

As long as we have folks like Norman Borlaug running around this little blue marble, we'll be just fine.

You would need to 'isolate' the two groups for a considerable time for anything like that to happen, can't see it myself, isolation would breed suspicion, leading to a war. Keep the groups together and alcohol will keep enough of them 'interbreeding'. Also there's no difference in brainpower between civilised and remote populations of the world who had until recently been isolated for many millenia.

Our brains are not likely to develope further, there is no need from an evolutionary point of view, infact it may be that if we totally rely on technology, some of the higher brain functions (if not exercised) will simply become the head's equivalent of the appendix.

I predict 5000yrs from now the earth will be a hot radioactive dead planet leaving a huge gaseous trail of cabon monoxide in it's wake.

First of all, thanks for the replies. :-D
Now then...

Originally Posted by Cuete

rather than to perfection it will lead to extinction...
The small ugly guys because of its inferiority (similar to what happened to Neanderthal), and the pretty guys because of their dependence from technology.

I am not sure about the end result, but it seems to me like the continuation of current human conduct; not as the progression of a state but predictable behavior on the whole.
And yes I agree that it is fun to think of these things--it is provocative.
However, an economist cannot understand science (maybe technology and it's commercializations however, but not basic research and it's final applications) and future use of the genetic sciences would alter results (human future) tremendously. On this note I am unsure how predicable one can become, is something like morality understood? People have a hard time considering religion due to its "sanctity."

Originally Posted by Megabrain

You would need to 'isolate' the two groups for a considerable time for anything like that to happen, can't see it myself, isolation would breed suspicion, leading to a war. Keep the groups together and alcohol will keep enough of them 'interbreeding'. Also there's no difference in brainpower between civilised and remote populations of the world who had until recently been isolated for many millenia.

Our brains are not likely to develope further, there is no need from an evolutionary point of view, infact it may be that if we totally rely on technology, some of the higher brain functions (if not exercised) will simply become the head's equivalent of the appendix.

I predict 5000yrs from now the earth will be a hot radioactive dead planet leaving a huge gaseous trail of cabon monoxide in it's wake.

I think isolation does exist, it is a matter of definition. Economic differentiation is not seen to be disparate: consider USA and the American dream. And the sub-systems of "groups" have their own representatives interelated with stereotype and political procedure, so it appears that we all get along and everything is just fine.
Yes, the time scale is included (on the order of 1 000 yrs), and as I have reply to Cuete, engineering of genetics is not considered in the speculations. As for suspicion, I agree with you, but not for any halt on the course of human activities. Social movements do not seem to have the magnitude of past uprisings and overthrow. Currently it is small scale movements, but I have seen something describing the lower classes and the reconfiguration of social structures (in a history or government class). I cannot remember the terminology through.
In regard to this, is the genetic technologies, and the distributions of specialized workers involved in human activities that cause change. In combination to the military groups of human actions, huge differentiations should result beyond appearances in the application of genetics.
So our societies are not "homogenuos" (sp), monopolistic industries abound and large powerful governments, and military collections exist. Therefore I cannot see the people overthrowing the injustices that cause suspicions, disgust, pain, death, etc. I am not being cynical, it just does not seem plausible.

I have no comment on end results on our demise around 5 000 years, so I'll let Jeremyhfht's post answer this:

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

I doubt this. If we don't obliterate eachother, inevitably someone will rise and "save" humanity. It has been done countless times in ancient times, and we are long overdo for another hero. However with the increase of knowledge and technology there will be an increase in how the body works and how to keep it in shape/improve it.

This "lower" class will probably not exist as a result.

I have no clue about the hero, unless you refer to mythology I doubt omnipotent humans will exist again (such as demagogues) the identity movement seems to be established. So, it is not the superhero, it is the self. Although this is interesting... Consider the superhero movies that are out, but it is not the kind of movie to cheer the hero on it is more self-centered for the audience with respect to individual (self) feeling and conduct.

Originally Posted by Dingus

As long as we have folks like Norman Borlaug running around this little blue marble, we'll be just fine.

Thanks for the reply

Well, I am happy to share my thoughts and have some discussion. I know the article has a particular foundation, but imagination is such a delight to have outside the mundane.

I actually want some science talk beside the Dubya post, and wish to contribute to sciforum with dignity

Originally Posted by Grey_matter5

I have no clue about the hero, unless you refer to mythology I doubt omnipotent humans will exist again (such as demagogues) the identity movement seems to be established. So, it is not the superhero, it is the self. Although this is interesting... Consider the superhero movies that are out, but it is not the kind of movie to cheer the hero on it is more self-centered for the audience with respect to individual (self) feeling and conduct.

No, I mean a hero. Joan of arc and all that. You see them dotted throughout history in nearly EVERY civilization.

Originally Posted by Grey_matter5

I have no clue about the hero, unless you refer to mythology I doubt omnipotent humans will exist again (such as demagogues) the identity movement seems to be established. So, it is not the superhero, it is the self. Although this is interesting... Consider the superhero movies that are out, but it is not the kind of movie to cheer the hero on it is more self-centered for the audience with respect to individual (self) feeling and conduct.

No, I mean a hero. Joan of arc and all that. You see them dotted throughout history in nearly EVERY civilization.

I actually want some science talk beside the Dubya post, and wish to contribute to sciforum with dignity

Thought I wouldn't see that eh? Haha

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

Originally Posted by Grey_matter5

I have no clue about the hero, unless you refer to mythology I doubt omnipotent humans will exist again (such as demagogues) the identity movement seems to be established. So, it is not the superhero, it is the self. Although this is interesting... Consider the superhero movies that are out, but it is not the kind of movie to cheer the hero on it is more self-centered for the audience with respect to individual (self) feeling and conduct.

No, I mean a hero. Joan of arc and all that. You see them dotted throughout history in nearly EVERY civilization.

I actually want some science talk beside the Dubya post, and wish to contribute to sciforum with dignity

Thought I wouldn't see that eh? Haha

:-D Yes, just intelligent discussion (on my small text addition). It is not addressed to you alone but to all users of sciforum.
In other words, no flaming, bullshit, or nonsense. At least for my thread. 8)

Originally Posted by Megabrain

I predict 5000yrs from now the earth will be a hot radioactive dead planet leaving a huge gaseous trail of cabon monoxide in it's wake.

I bet you are wrong. Give me one million pounds now and if you are correct I shall give you twenty million pounds (adjusted for inflation) in five thousand years. Deal?

Grey, Joan of Arc isn't a mythology hero. It's like William Wallace. They're real. You need to read ancient history...

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

Grey, Joan of Arc isn't a mythology hero. It's like William Wallace. They're real. You need to read ancient history...

Acknowledged, I just thought that the recent hero in history can be an enemy to another.

In my opinion the large threats to humanity occur in mythology and I am well aware of the pervaiseness of the hero myth across Earth to be impressive (my association in application).
Overall I have not derive too much from history, meaning-wise the development of the events in recent record seem to be distorted, whereas I admire the richness of myth. So, consider the monsters and compare to the various forms of tyrants. One "embodies" so much destructiveness that we humans call evil, and for the other in history it is another human being (the tyrant).
Before we interacted culturally, we fought other things (the monsters), now we fight other humans and do not have a particular harmony (such as that associated with myth) where recent history derives particular things in specific ways. Here are some links, on the properties of history and the hero:
Link 1
Link 2

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

You need to read ancient history...

Again, I usually do not derive too much from history especially of political nature. However, I do enjoy exploring the uniqueness of cultural expessions such as world myth.
Presently, I would rather read the works of this writer to understand heroes in recent history: Link. Look at the publications list ("The hero in history: a study in limitation and possibility" looks extremely interesting).

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Megabrain

I predict 5000yrs from now the earth will be a hot radioactive dead planet leaving a huge gaseous trail of cabon monoxide in it's wake.

I bet you are wrong. Give me one million pounds now and if you are correct I shall give you twenty million pounds (adjusted for inflation) in five thousand years. Deal?

I'd like to say 'done' but I would have been, so I won't. 8)

I have lived long enough to see this sort of speculation often. It betrays a lack of awareness of evolution. The fact is that anthropologists now figure the human race has been evolutionarily and virtually unchanged for almost 200,000 years. That's right, the only chances we know of are little ones dealing with such things as resitence to certain diseases.

So, then what is going on? Has evolution stopped? Of course not! What is evolving now is not our biology but our societies, Social scientists refuse to deal with societies as social organisms, so they are forced to speculate on us evolving bigger heads and dumbed down versions so they can pretend biological evolution is continuing even when their own data shows it is not!

Social evolution is understandable and one can find it thoroughly laid out in http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

charles

We may already be splitting into two.

On one hand we have us, the thinkers.
Then we have the under-class chavs whose life ambition is to listen to hip-hop and threaten the rest of society with crime and play hip-hop on their mp3 mobile phones as loud as possible on the busses and trains as if the rest of us enjoy listening to their rubbish.

Leo,

If you want to split humanity into 'thinkers' and 'couch potatoes' - it's not a new thing, even some greek philosopher [can't remember his name] commented on such 2000 or so years ago!