Empty Hands
Senior Master
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!
Human Race will Split into Two Species...
- Thread starter Makalakumu
- Start date
Blast it all old chap, now you've gone and upset the colonials!
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
Lamont
Cruentus
Grandmaster
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.
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
Master Black Belt
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
Senior Master
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?
So, if it comes down to that, can the middle class go with the goblins?
Steel Tiger
Senior Master
I think you've done a pretty good job of explaining actually.
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.
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
Senior Master
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
Senior Master
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.
"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.
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
Grandmaster
Tellner makes some excellent points. I'll highlight one:
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.
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.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #51
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
Grandmaster
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.
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
Master Black Belt
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
Senior Master
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2004
- Messages
- 3,959
- Reaction score
- 1,058
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
Senior Master
No, it's love... Love will keep us together. Hey! Don't make me go all Muskrat Love on you!
Steel Tiger
Senior Master
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.
