speculation time: when and how do you think humanity's next speciation will occur?

[welfareloser]

i, for one, worry that, with the way idiots hook up with idiots... we're in for a homo genius / homo troglodytus split.

any other thoughts? this is one of my favorite recurring ponderables.

[zenbooty]

i, for one, worry that, with the way idiots hook up with idiots... we're in for a homo genius / homo troglodytus split.

any other thoughts? this is one of my favorite recurring ponderables.
You mean what is going replace us after we're gone?

How 'bout an integrated conciousness?

[InfiniteNothing]

There's no selection to speciate. Unless you're a plant, there's no speciation without selection. Everybody lives today. Genetic drift, however, will play a factor in dumbing the species as a whole.

[welfareloser]

you don't think there are any divisive selective forces at work right now at all, and that there never will be, either? i disagree.

[hoey222]

it will get to a point when genetic toddlers will enter the already shallow gene pool and piddle in the midst of it......

[InfiniteNothing]

you don't think there are any divisive selective forces at work right now at all, and that there never will be, either? i disagree.
I can't think of any. What are you thinking of?

You need very very strong selection if there is no geographical separation (and I don't think there is since we have air planes). Otherwise gene imigration will beat selection.

[BrewMaster]

you seriously sit there and ponder this stuff WL? if I had 3 kids at home, this would be the last thing i would be thinking about.

[johnnymk]

As butts grow larger, humans will grow a windshield wiper between their cracks, so they don't have to reach around to wipe

[hapoo]

there will never reach a point when there will exist two unmateable humans (based on genetics of course). There may however reach a point when humans of the future would be "incompatable" genetically with humans of the past, but i think that naturally that would take a long time to occur. But since we're starting to mess around with our own genes it might not take so long.

[InfiniteNothing]

As butts grow larger, humans will grow a windshield wiper between their cracks, so they don't have to reach around to wipeAgain, humans with WSW on their butts would not be selected for.

[molecularfire]

I think that there are selective forces at work still, just now it's mainly within the human race. One thing that I've been thinking about is higher level emotions (emotions other than rage and fear). In the grand scheme of things it's a new invention and I think we're still in the process of developing emotions. I feel that a lot of people think that the emotions that we have and our lack of control of them to be what nature intended, I disagree... I think that nature is testing out emotions in us and those who can't control their emotions and use it effectively will eventually get weeded out. JMO... I'll tell you guys how it pans out in a couple million years.

[BigJon]

I think the human race will automatically prolong it's own evolution due to the fact that we meddle too much in our genes already. In the future, when scientists are genetically altering human fetuses to be free of all defects, diseases, and "made-to-order" by the parents....they will end up screwing up and creating a race of mutant humans that will be trained to do all the jobs that us "higher class" "purebred" humans don't want to do....

woah....I sound like "Brave New World"....

:heh:

[Hiro]

there will never reach a point when there will exist two unmateable humans (based on genetics of course). There may however reach a point when humans of the future would be "incompatable" genetically with humans of the past, but i think that naturally that would take a long time to occur. But since we're starting to mess around with our own genes it might not take so long.
This would be the view I most agree with. Or there would be two separate types of humans, those with brains and those without. Obviously the former would rather not mate with the latter.

The gene make up would be the same, but the intelligence levels would just clash so extremely that they just wouldn't touch each other.

If that makes sense.

[InfiniteNothing]

I think that there are selective forces at work still, just now it's mainly within the human race. One thing that I've been thinking about is higher level emotions (emotions other than rage and fear). In the grand scheme of things it's a new invention and I think we're still in the process of developing emotions. I feel that a lot of people think that the emotions that we have and our lack of control of them to be what nature intended, I disagree... I think that nature is testing out emotions in us and those who can't control their emotions and use it effectively will eventually get weeded out. JMO... I'll tell you guys how it pans out in a couple million years.

Heh, you're not giving animals enough credit. Animals like dogs, pigs, hominoids, etc, have rather complex emotions.
Secondly, evolution has no goal. So explaining it as a process isn't quite true.
Lastly, you still haven't given a selection force. What is killing off emotionally unstable people? Suicide? Hmmm, slow but possible. Then again that's competing with the emotionaly unstable people that use sex as an outlet. (Sexual selection)

[Ladogaboy]

Heh, you just finished reading Foundation and Earth too, eh WL?

Seriously, though... I don't see it happening in the foreseeable future. Unless some mad scientist starts doing some major, underground, genetic experimentation....

[InfiniteNothing]

Heh, you just finished reading Foundation and Earth too, eh WL?

Seriously, though... I don't see it happening in the foreseeable future. Unless some mad scientist starts doing some major, underground, genetic experimentation....

Now I'm just guessing here but I imagine nature plays mad scientist at a much greater rate than humans can. Consider how many fetuses (and embryos?) die before their birth. Many of those are genetic problems some of those are genetic mutations. That's nature playing scientist and failing. Problem is, it's hard to fix something that works reasonably well.

[molecularfire]

Heh, you're not giving animals enough credit. Animals like dogs, pigs, hominoids, etc, have rather complex emotions.
True, so I guess that nature is testing out emotions in a couple of animals.

Secondly, evolution has no goal. So explaining it as a process isn't quite true.
Also true. I describe it as a process because too many people that I know tend to think of evolution as a goal and that the human race is the end point so I just describe it as such. However, I do think that it is a process because it is something that is going on, refining itself. In evolution (assuming that you buy into it) traits pop up randomly and if it fits into our world and improves survival/procreation then it gets passed along, if it doesn't then it eventually dies with the trait holder. Sounds like a process to me.

Lastly, you still haven't given a selection force. What is killing off emotionally unstable people? Suicide? Hmmm, slow but possible. Then again that's competing with the emotionaly unstable people that use sex as an outlet. (Sexual selection)
Well... my take on it is this... there are two basic extremes of handling emotion... you could do too little emotion, or too much emotion both of which hinders your ability to interact with others in your species and decreases you chances of both procuring children and your ability to raise them to to be able to pass the genes onto the next generation.
Those who use do too little are seen as "cold", "unemotional", etc... and generally have trouble procuring mates. Those who do too much emotions are seen as "wild", "unstable" and generally have trouble holding onto their mates long enough to raise the children. Studies have shown that among other things childrens from broken homes are less likely to be successful and that is a factor in their ability to procure future mates. Obviously there are confounding factors like looks, that can make a person more or less likely to be able to procure and keep their mates... but these are separate traits. I know, this is just a simplified brief overview of concepts with a lot of generalizations but I really don't feel like writing a thesis on this (that and I haven't put enough thought into it to write a thesis).

[InfiniteNothing]

Well... my take on it is this... there are two basic extremes of handling emotion... you could do too little emotion, or too much emotion both of which hinders your ability to interact with others in your species and decreases you chances of both procuring children and your ability to raise them to to be able to pass the genes onto the next generation.
Those who use do too little are seen as "cold", "unemotional", etc... and generally have trouble procuring mates. Those who do too much emotions are seen as "wild", "unstable" and generally have trouble holding onto their mates long enough to raise the children. Studies have shown that among other things childrens from broken homes are less likely to be successful and that is a factor in their ability to procure future mates. Obviously there are confounding factors like looks, that can make a person more or less likely to be able to procure and keep their mates... but these are separate traits. I know, this is just a simplified brief overview of concepts with a lot of generalizations but I really don't feel like writing a thesis on this (that and I haven't put enough thought into it to write a thesis).

There are competing forces that cancel out those problems. Poor people are uneducated about birth control. In the case of high emotion there is associtive mating. Girls beat by their dads want to be with jerks.

I might be with you on low emotion. Often they are too logical to over populate the planet having only two kids and only at a decent age when they have the finacial resources to raise a kid. Their lackluster reproduction rates could get them washed out of the gene pool.

[welfareloser]

i dunno, i've often thought that there are an awful lot of babies out there that we ought to be sterilizing... babies that we artificially help to survive. anyone who can't make it on their own ought to hop outn the gene pool so they don't muddle it up with weak genes.

(not that i'll be offering any of my kids up on that altar :P )



and yeah, mf's ideas are intriguing, but it seems the more successful a woman is, the fewer children she has. responsible men have fewer kids than guys who don't give a f***.

and the mormons and latinos are outbreeding everyone else in this country :heh:

i guess i don't see any truly divisive forces at work right now... but i see the possibility of some developing. but then again, so long as smart, ugly, successful men continue to bang dumb, shallow, pretty women, we ought to be able to keep it all on an even keel :P