NationStates Jolt Archive

Another arm? Bigger brains? Lesbians grow penises? What do you think is next in human evolution? And how long do you think it will take?

I have a friend who worships comics; he believes that mutants are the next stage, just like in X-Men. I disagree though; I think that the next step won't be as drastic. For example, because sex is more public now, the media glamorizes it, and people no longer wait until their married to do it, I think that sex will become more enjoyable and STD's will slowly disappear. Then again, I don't know much about evolution.

So what are your thoughts?

We'll get really really small. And eventually we'll be the smallest.

I imagine it's going to be mostly mental evolution; I've read that autism might be part of the process towards a new level of utilization, since autistic people tend to use more of their brain and more regions of it than the non-autistic.

Evolution in certain parts of the brain coincided almost simultaneously with the development of civilization and agriculture along with writing, the arts and literature. This leads me to believe that the incredible technological acceleration of the past two centuries has been part of a new phase of evolutionary development, but as a layman in the topic I can't really make that argument definite.

I imagine it's going to be mostly mental evolution; I've read that autism might be part of the process towards a new level of utilization, since autistic people tend to use more of their brain and more regions of it than the non-autistic.

Evolution in certain parts of the brain coincided almost simultaneously with the development of civilization and agriculture along with writing, the arts and literature. This leads me to believe that the incredible technological acceleration of the past two centuries has been part of a new phase of evolutionary development, but as a layman in the topic I can't really make that argument definite.

No, autism is an excessive-male-brain disorder - google 'Simon Baron-Cohen', he makes the most sense on this. Evolution it ain't!

Where are you getting this 'evolution in certain parts (which parts?) of the brain coincided with the dev of...'? I disagree, profoundly. What you're seeing is social development, not physical, and the storage and easy access of knowledge. It's got precious little to do with evolution, and a lot more to do with society-and-socialisation-as-means-to-inherit-knowledge! :p

As for where we're going... well... in the west, physical atrophy. To what extent is a big body that important when we're basically sedentary? Muscle and bone mass off the menu, mibbe? I know we've _been_ getting bigger - nutrition - but think longterm. Like a few thousand generations. We mostly rely on our brains for work, not our bodies; why make the investment in something you don't really use?

It's difficult to predict evolution, since we don't know for sure what's going to be an advantage. A lot depends on how we handle the near-term future.

If we do manage to survive long enough to colonize other planets, then a lot of evolution will involve becoming better adapted to those planets. (At the same time, we may be terraforming those planets to make them better adapted to us, so the process may meet somewhere in the middle.) Higher or lower gravity will probably demand some alteration of organs, muscles, and skeletal structure. A planet with slightly different atmospheric chemistry may lead to changes in the lungs and blood chemistry. (Radically different atmospheric chemistry will probably always require artificial breathing apparatus - we won't be adapting to chlorine atmospheres any time soon.) The planet may receive more or less ultraviolet radiation from its star, requiring changes in skin color and eyes - this is something we already have on this planet, due to differing UV intensities at different latitudes. If the planet orbited and F-type star, we'd probably need skin as dark as possible, and if it orbited a K or M-type star, we'd probably lose all skin pigmentation completely.

As for those who stay here on Earth? Hard to say.

:p

Elgesh']No, autism is an excessive-male-brain disorder - google 'Simon Baron-Cohen', he makes the most sense on this. Evolution it ain't!

My thanks. It's always good to learn when I'm wrong, so I know what I'm talking about better. :)

Where are you getting this 'evolution in certain parts (which parts?) of the brain coincided with the dev of...'? I disagree, profoundly. What you're seeing is social development, not physical, and the storage and easy access of knowledge. It's got precious little to do with evolution, and a lot more to do with society-and-socialisation-as-means-to-inherit-knowledge! :p

I read about it in the recent issue of Discover magazine. I'll see if I can find it.

My thanks. It's always good to learn when I'm wrong, so I know what I'm talking about better. :)



I read about it in the recent issue of Discover magazine. I'll see if I can find it.
I'd love to read that, cheers! I go in thinking it's rubbish, granted, but it'll be fun to read an argumentative piece :) Gies a shout if you can find it, eh? :)

We have largely quit thinking for ourselves, so I imagine all the critical thought areas of our brains will disappear. They will be replaced by centers that can quickly focus on the easiest place to get a welfare check cashed.

Elgesh']No, autism is an excessive-male-brain disorder - google 'Simon Baron-Cohen', he makes the most sense on this. Evolution it ain't!

Where are you getting this 'evolution in certain parts (which parts?) of the brain coincided with the dev of...'? I disagree, profoundly. What you're seeing is social development, not physical, and the storage and easy access of knowledge. It's got precious little to do with evolution, and a lot more to do with society-and-socialisation-as-means-to-inherit-knowledge! :p

As for where we're going... well... in the west, physical atrophy. To what extent is a big body that important when we're basically sedentary? Muscle and bone mass off the menu, mibbe? I know we've _been_ getting bigger - nutrition - but think longterm. Like a few thousand generations. We mostly rely on our brains for work, not our bodies; why make the investment in something you don't really use?


Evolution won't come about because of physical trends, or social ones. If we're getting fatter that doesn't mean we'll just adapt to being fat. Although that is possible it won't happen because we're getting fatter.

Increased optical sensitivity and range, better survivability under higher or lower atmospheric pressure, and hair loss.

The human brain keeps growing. The current trend looks like our heads will get longer from the back and the shape of our spinal cords will change too.

I vote that we all evolve wings so we can fly over to America and laugh at the Creationists who refuse to evolve for religous reasons.:p

The human brain keeps growing. The current trend looks like our heads will get longer from the back and the shape of our spinal cords will change too.
What are you describing? That we'll look like we're wearing bicycle helmets all the time?

I vote that we all evolve wings so we can fly over to America and laugh at the Creationists who refuse to evolve for religous reasons.:p

You can keep your wings. I will terrorise them from below by evolving drill-hands! The true mark of evolutionary supremacy is whether or not it's been predicted by a Mega Man villain!

What are you describing? That we'll look like we're wearing bicycle helmets all the time?

Didn't you know? Lance Armstrong's head is shaped that way. It's not a helmet.

As a species human beings can no longer really be considered to be subject to the forces of evolution and natural selection. We've come to the point where we adapt to new circumstances and challenges through culture and technology, rather than the genetic approach. To be fair, in less developed countries there is the possibility of human evolution, ie sickle cell anemia in Africa, which appears to be a response to malaria. However, as far as I know, most experts in evolutionary biology/anthropology see the possibility of a new phase of human evolution as highly unlikely. I could be wrong, but be sure to refer me to any professional articles if you would argue to the contrary.

Also, I agree with Elgesh on his response to the brain development question. There has been no change in the dimensions of the human brain for the last 100,000 years, ever since the species evolved to its current stage. We are no smarter or more mentally developed than human beings living at any other stage in our history.

You can keep your wings. I will terrorise them from below by evolving drill-hands! The true mark of evolutionary supremacy is whether or not it's been predicted by a Mega Man villain!

Aha, but I am preceeded by Zoltar and the hawkmen from Flash Gordon.
Fl45H P\/\/l\l5 J00!!!

Aha, but I am preceeded by Zoltar and the hawkmen from Flash Gordon.
Fl45H P\/\/l\l5 J00!!!

Unicron will eat you, too.

"What's next for human evolution?"

Longer, more intense orgasms would be nice. :D

Seriously, I think that human evolution, at least in a physical sense, has reached its maximum extent. I suspect that the human brain will continue to evolve, perhaps incorporating some startling new capabilities.

Speciation into two separate human species. One that is dumb, impulsive , short-lived, and breeds really fast will evolve. The other will be smarter, more inclined to delay satisfaction in order to work toward long term goals, will live over a century in average life span and will reproduce less often.

Longer, more intense orgasms would be nice. :D

You win

Speciation into two separate human species. One that is dumb, impulsive , short-lived, and breeds really fast will evolve. The other will be smarter, more inclined to delay satisfaction in order to work toward long term goals, will live over a century in average life span and will reproduce less often.

That's not fair. I don't want to have to choose between lots of bangin' or crazy brain powers.

As a species human beings can no longer really be considered to be subject to the forces of evolution and natural selection.

This is pretty scary when you tink about it. A hundered thousand years ago someone who became bald prematurely would look older than his age and not be able to mate. His mutant gene for premature balding would be removed from the gene pool to the triumph of the species. People with bad eyesight would walk off cliffs rather than having kids so everyone had better eyesight too. Today though we have the crutches of glassses and hair restoration that leave these people perfectly genetically viable despite their flaws. In a few hudered thousand years all those negative mutations we've been trying to cover up underneath technology will leave us fleshy, weak, and riddled with disease inside on some super cool mechanical exoskeleton.

Dreams of grandure and hints at Eugenics aside, you have to admit it's scary that we'll all be degrading genetically as a species over the nex few hundered thousand years instead of improving.

Speciation into two separate human species. One that is dumb, impulsive , short-lived, and breeds really fast will evolve. The other will be smarter, more inclined to delay satisfaction in order to work toward long term goals, will live over a century in average life span and will reproduce less often.

Which will be called Morlocks, though?:p

You win
LOL! Kewl! Where's my cookie??? :p

That's not fair. I don't want to have to choose between lots of bangin' or crazy brain powers.
You can bang without making babies, you know? Or did you go to a school with "abstinence only" sex ed?

You can bang without making babies, you know? Or did you go to a school with "abstinence only" sex ed?

No, but you made it out to seem like the freaky mind-race were more of the "let's just cuddle" persuasion.

Actually, come to think of it, these days I'm not getting anything in the way of bangin' or mind powers, so either one would be a marked improvement. Until I can fashion a giant transformational exoskeleton, anyway.

Lesbians grow penises?

Cool! Maybe we will develop better genitals in the future.

Another arm? Bigger brains? Lesbians grow penises? What do you think is next in human evolution? And how long do you think it will take?

I have a friend who worships comics; he believes that mutants are the next stage, just like in X-Men. I disagree though; I think that the next step won't be as drastic. For example, because sex is more public now, the media glamorizes it, and people no longer wait until their married to do it, I think that sex will become more enjoyable and STD's will slowly disappear. Then again, I don't know much about evolution.

So what are your thoughts?

Evolution mainly trives on survival of the fittest, since human society is structured in such a way that the fight for survival is pretty much gone, i doubt we'll see any big evolutionary changes anytime soon (however, we might start evolving again when we've blown ourselves back into the stoneage), infact, our genepool might even start deteriorating because of the absence of the "survival of the fittest" principle

I want another set of arms, in addition to this one. 4 arms, fully functional.

- Kung Fu!
- beer, cigarette, food and still a free hand!
- 10,000 other possibilities!

Another arm? Bigger brains? Lesbians grow penises? What do you think is next in human evolution? And how long do you think it will take?

I have a friend who worships comics; he believes that mutants are the next stage, just like in X-Men. I disagree though; I think that the next step won't be as drastic. For example, because sex is more public now, the media glamorizes it, and people no longer wait until their married to do it, I think that sex will become more enjoyable and STD's will slowly disappear. Then again, I don't know much about evolution.

So what are your thoughts?


Well, knowing a little about evolution, those who go around having a lot of sex will probably be 'selected out' through STDs and become less common.

The 'gene' for promiscuity in men is favored, because men who are promiscuous tend to pass on more of their genes into the future generation (females in mammalian species are selected more for how choosy they are of partners, since females are limited in quantities, the ones that went for quality are those most likely to pass their genes on to the future)

But with today's STDs, promiscuity will NOT be the best genetic survival choice. THose who are promiscuous will more likely die before passing on any genes. The promiscuity gene will begin to die out. Supposedly. Of course, condoms make the selection less natural and more controllable. So only STUPID promiscuity will be fatal. But then again, by using condoms, no genes are passed on to the future, so there again, would be selected out.

I think the most likely mutation will be for our legs to shorten and eventually disappear, like tails did. With so many drive-through services and online services and delivery services, people need their legs less and less.

Once science fits humans with 'wearable' vehicles, the legs will atrophy and become unnecessary. Future generations will be fitted with their mobility device at birth. There will be a computer inside of it, too.

After reading some of the ideas, i have to agree with the one that said we are weakening our gene pool.

As a gardener, i know that i have to pull weeds to allow the other plants to live and flourish. If i let every weed grow, the garden would be an ugly mess.

With today's medical technology, it's true, people who in the past would not have lived long enough to have children are now able to do so. Defects that would have lessened their chances of having offspring are now not stopping them. The gene pool is becoming filled with weaker traits.

Im not advocating eugenics, but on another level, its a good argument for abortion to continue to be a choice.

Cultivate the flowers and pull the weeds.

As a species human beings can no longer really be considered to be subject to the forces of evolution and natural selection. We've come to the point where we adapt to new circumstances and challenges through culture and technology, rather than the genetic approach. To be fair, in less developed countries there is the possibility of human evolution, ie sickle cell anemia in Africa, which appears to be a response to malaria. However, as far as I know, most experts in evolutionary biology/anthropology see the possibility of a new phase of human evolution as highly unlikely. I could be wrong, but be sure to refer me to any professional articles if you would argue to the contrary.
I disagree. Even introductionary physical anthropology texts make the point that human beings are subject to the same evolutionary forces as other species. Why insert such a fact unnecessarily if it's even controversial, much less untrue?

We are subject to evolution. Evolution is measured in adaptedness which is defined by an organism/specie's functioning in an environment. We dont say that because a species currently occupies an environmental niche where X is not a disadvantagement to evolutionary fitness and so individual organisms with trait X are not selected against, and because X would be a disadvantagement to evolutionary fitness in some other possible environment, that therefore the species is not subject to evolution or is not evolving or is degrading.

Because adaption is reactionary (not proactive) the only advantage a species can have in regards to furture circumstances, is a wide scope or range of variability.

I agree with the people who say we're not going to evolve much. Lose the appendix and the talebone, maybe, also better brains, but I don't think we're going to change species anymore.

Elgesh']Which will be called Morlocks, though?:p

Damn you H.G.Wells!!! Damn you!!!!

I have a friend who worships comics; he believes that mutants are the next stage, just like in X-Men. I disagree though; I think that the next step won't be as drastic. For example, because sex is more public now, the media glamorizes it, and people no longer wait until their married to do it, I think that sex will become more enjoyable and STD's will slowly disappear. Then again, I don't know much about evolution.
I doubt sex will become safer due to our liking it, because as far as I know, evolution works through traits that increase the organism's chance to survive and/or breed. STD resistance may evolve due to eradication of less-resistant populations, but I don't think it would be correlated to enjoyment of sex.

Personally, I think that evolution is lagging behind us. We've only been here for a couple million years, but in the past few thousand, civilization sprang up and all that, and in only the past hundred years, cars, airplanes, and computers all appeared. Human innovation is speeding recklessly forwards, perhaps at an exponential pace. But evolution isn't. We may have fast cars and flying machines, but we still have African savannah brains and bodies.
I'm not sure modern society will stand still long enough for evolution to catch up with it in any large sense. I think the main driving force for any evolution of human poplation nowadays would be mass die-offs due to some possibly avoidable factor, not due to long selection over many generations, because within the lifetime of each generation now, society is changing in huge ways.
[/rant]

After reading some of the ideas, i have to agree with the one that said we are weakening our gene pool.

As a gardener, i know that i have to pull weeds to allow the other plants to live and flourish. If i let every weed grow, the garden would be an ugly mess.

With today's medical technology, it's true, people who in the past would not have lived long enough to have children are now able to do so. Defects that would have lessened their chances of having offspring are now not stopping them. The gene pool is becoming filled with weaker traits.

Im not advocating eugenics, but on another level, its a good argument for abortion to continue to be a choice.

Cultivate the flowers and pull the weeds.
Why not advocate eugenics?
Of course, advocating forced eugenics might be a bad idea. It would be difficult to enforce that for long.
But what about freely chosen eugenics? Allow families who wish for it access to modern genetic testing, what we currrently know about genetic sequences that can cause disease, and to abortion.
There you go, a rather imprecise and not-very-effective form of eugenics, that won't involve trying to strongarm the unwilling.

Evolution comes from changing ourselves to suit the enviroment. Humans, on the other hand, have learnt to change the environment for ourselves. This means our evolution has come to almost a standstill, taking much, much longer than any other species. People aren't suddenly going to develop the abillity of telekinesis or shoot lasers out of our eyes. Its impractical in our enviroment, and if our enviorment becomes inpractical, we CHANGE it. [/Smary-ass reply]

In a few hudered thousand years all those negative mutations we've been trying to cover up underneath technology will leave us fleshy, weak, and riddled with disease inside on some super cool mechanical exoskeleton.
You say that as if it were a bad thing. The coolest race in Master of Orion were the Meklars, and I would shuck this flesh sack in a second if I could gain a robotic exoskeleton for the trade.

lets think about this logically- why did species evolve in the first place? well, most evolved so they would not starve or for other purposes of sustaining life. today, however we dont fear starving or even fear not being able to sustain life. we dont even think for ourselves anymore. so, what would be the purpose for us to evolve? there are no life-or-death situations and we certainly arent going to grow stretchy arms to reach the television dials when we have lost the remote. so, evolution has been slowing as advancements allow us to live more easily and lazily. any advancements that we do see will have to all be artificial eventually. so mutants and lesbians with penises (which doesnt make much sense to begin with anyways since lesbians are lesbians because they are not sexually attracted to or pleased by male sex organs) are out of the question for now.

Evolution comes from changing ourselves to suit the enviroment.
No. Evolution comes from the intersection of variance (in a breeding group) with evolutionary forces.

Humans, on the other hand, have learnt to change the environment for ourselves.
Every creature changes it's environment just by being a part of it.

This means our evolution has come to almost a standstill, taking much, much longer than any other species.
No it doesnt mean that at all.
It isnt that long since we had a pandemic of huge purportions. Never mind the fact that the next one could break out at any time. Even if the next one doesnt come for hundreds of years, such a time frame is not significant on an evolutionary scale.

Variability in a large gene pool increases a species evolutionary fitness because it increases the adaptive scope of the species.

lets think about this logically- why did species evolve in the first place? well, most evolved so they would not starve or for other purposes of sustaining life. today, however we dont fear starving or even fear not being able to sustain life.
Well, there are countries in which starving is still an option, and disease is a problem, and such. And not being able to sustain life? If you are speaking about the life of an individual, there are still situations that can cut short an individual's life that are affected by genetics. Most of the examples I can think up now are diseases.
we dont even think for ourselves anymore.
Umm, however not? As far as I know, it's quite impossible to avoid making choices. And what does "thinking for ourselves" have to do with evolution? We are only one speices, and aside from us tere are only perhaps a few that might have basic sapience, but all other speices evolve, and they far outnumber us too. Evolution isn't about thinking, it's about breeding.
so, what would be the purpose for us to evolve?
There is no "purpose" to evolution. Evolution is not a teleological system, with goals of some sort. All evolution is is the fact that organisms that survive to breed, and breed more, have their genes spread more.
<snip>we certainly arent going to grow stretchy arms to reach the television dials when we have lost the remote. so, evolution has been slowing as advancements allow us to live more easily and lazily.
I'd agree with that bit to some extent.

I disagree. Even introductionary physical anthropology texts make the point that human beings are subject to the same evolutionary forces as other species. Why insert such a fact unnecessarily if it's even controversial, much less untrue?

We are subject to evolution. Evolution is measured in adaptedness which is defined by an organism/specie's functioning in an environment. We dont say that because a species currently occupies an environmental niche where X is not a disadvantagement to evolutionary fitness and so individual organisms with trait X are not selected against, and because X would be a disadvantagement to evolutionary fitness in some other possible environment, that therefore the species is not subject to evolution or is not evolving or is degrading.

Because adaption is reactionary (not proactive) the only advantage a species can have in regards to furture circumstances, is a wide scope or range of variability.


true dat. a small percentage of humans have a mutation that makes them resistant to the HIV virus. Now, although AIDS patients are living longer, most aren't reproducing. These people who cannot get AIDS are free to pass on their genes as much as they want without fear of contracting the disease, therefore have a theoretic higher reproductive success. I would not be surprised to see this gene become more common over the next century.

Also, its interesting to know that every human has, on average, four recessive fatal alleles. This means that if you were to have a child with a person with this same allele, 1/4 of your children (in theory) would die. There is natural selection. The fun part comes when a new disease or pressure makes being heterogenus advantageous (see: Tay Sachs, Cystic Fibrosis, Sicle Cell)

Elgesh']Where are you getting this 'evolution in certain parts (which parts?) of the brain coincided with the dev of...'? I disagree, profoundly. What you're seeing is social development, not physical, and the storage and easy access of knowledge. It's got precious little to do with evolution, and a lot more to do with society-and-socialisation-as-means-to-inherit-knowledge! :p
I have also seen that too, one more than one science show. They basicly found that about the same time as agriculture started, our skull grew larger and more space was created for a larger brain.

My perdictions:

In Africa, more efficient digeustion/nutritionally. Food/Starvation is a major problem so being able to survive on less food would be very benificial. An increase tendency to glutteny(sp?) will probably be seen so when they do find food, they can eat all that is there.

In the West, our body storing less fat. There are alot of obeisity related health problems happening, and fat people are unattractive (for now).

I think changes to the brain will be the most noticable change to humans anytime soon.

Originally Posted by Anastani
In a few hudered thousand years all those negative mutations we've been trying to cover up underneath technology will leave us fleshy, weak, and riddled with disease inside on some super cool mechanical exoskeleton.

true if we keep on the path we are going (its good to see so many people understanding our evolutionry predicament) but i believe that genetic engineering will become our next step of evolution. However alot of people (espescially religous -no offence-) see altering DNA to be a crime against nature.

So in reference to the movie GTTACA potential embrious will be filterd for impurities and weakness, making the offspring smarter stronger and healthier, and in turn live longer more productive lives- though this as represented in the movie could lead to genetic prejudice.

True this could happen with genetic engeneering as well but with engenerring if you need somthing you just go down to your local genetisist and get an add on.... wings or drill hands any one?? :gundge: .

true if we keep on the path we are going (its good to see so many people understanding our evolutionry predicament) but i believe that genetic engineering will become our next step of evolution. However alot of people (espescially religous -no offence-) see altering DNA to be a crime against nature.

So in reference to the movie GTTACA potential embrious will be filterd for impurities and weakness, making the offspring smarter stronger and healthier, and in turn live longer more productive lives- though this as represented in the movie could lead to genetic prejudice.

True this could happen with genetic engeneering as well but with engenerring if you need somthing you just go down to your local genetisist and get an add on.... wings or drill hands any one?? :gundge: .
Good point, If we do decide that gentetic engineering is ok, how would we evolve ourselves?

I think our brains will grow bigger, and we'll lose all our body hair, come on, we don't use it, and a lot of us spend a fair bit of time shaving it all off, we'll stop growing as tall, possibly an extra finger and toe on each hand/foot. There's been some hype somewhere, I can't quite remember where, about the male Y-chromosome dying off, so give it a few centuries, all of us will be lesbians and relying on cloning for reproduction.

Without some sort of cataclysmic event that threatens our survival, we're probably pretty much done evolving.

I cant understand why people think humans are not subject to evolution.


I dont see anything about our circumstances that is contrary to modern evolutionary models. Even without the implications of punctuated equilibrium, a century is not a significant evolutionary time frame. 100 year relaxation in some selective pressures a population previously faced, is not an escape from evolution, just a trend within it (evolution).

Good point, If we do decide that gentetic engineering is ok, how would we evolve ourselves?

well I don't know about you guys but there are a lot of animals out there that have abilities I would like to engineer into myself heres part of a list I'm making

-dolphins have the ability to sleep half their brain at a time my job (like most) only requires half my brain so I could get all my sleep while at work (not unlike I do already :p ) and have all you time off to do whatever you want...

- Camels have ovular shaped blood cells that prevent dehydration and prevent catastrophic dehydration (people on the verge of fatal dehydration when rapidly hydrated cause tree blood cells to explode)

- most animals have some vitamins there bodies produce on there own this could make us no longer reliant on particular food groups helping cure world hunger

- two words - bat sonar!!!

- I have know alot more about stronger muscles/bones but there pretty standard even without animal references and just generally I'd go with bigger brains and longer lifespans
and possible the ability to hibernate in case of interplanetary travel

What's next? Proportionally larger and more brightly-coloured genitals; no appendixes; fewer digits; poorer vision overall; a general atrophying of the musculoskeletal system; greater reliance on cybernetics; and smaller, not larger, brains.

Probably we will gradually become immune to some diseases, although certainly not all.

Cancer and alzheimers will stick around, (I'm not saying their diseases, I'm off that) because they generally come into effect after breeding occurrs.

Probably the life span will increase, but that's mostly due to medicines...

Apart from that, we've pretty much got to wait for the next asteroid storm, comet strike, alien invasion, etc.

Actually if the oil crisis comes to a head, and technology flops, we'll probably see evolution speed up.

Actually if the oil crisis comes to a head, and technology flops, we'll probably see evolution speed up.

Given that our brains and bodies haven't substantually changed since the _stone age_, I doubt it :)

I think the evolutionary process may into difficulties over the next 100-500 years. I think it's highly unlikely we won't start regular Sci-Fi'esque bio-engineering & cybernetics in my lifetime.

Imagine what it will be like when fetuses are by design. Or when your kid comes home with stainless steel scales instead of a tatoo.
Or when the first crippled people willingly get turned into something more androud than human.

The technology isn't too far away. And under such circumstances, I can't really see how evolution will have much of a chance. There is, of course, our brains. But when we can preselect the genetic make-up of people, evolution really doesn't play much of a role anymore.

The most notable physical difference I can think of, is that humans will get smaller & have a slower metabolism. Because we've progressed to a point where size & physique is fairly pointless. In fact, it's arguably an advantage to depend less on muscle-mass & a quick metabolism, when most of us won't be using our strenght much in the future.
Our immune system will probably not improve nearly as fast as it would if it weren't for our technology.
I doubt we'll ever evolve fewer or more digits & limbs, as we're perfectly adapted already, and evolution doesn't take our wishes into account, only our actual needs.

I vote that we all evolve wings so we can fly over to America and laugh at the Creationists who refuse to evolve for religous reasons.:p

Yeah! Or, just come over to my school. Plenty of non-evolutionists there. :P

Anyway, I think that our optical range will actually become shorter as we spend more time on the computer...

Elgesh']Given that our brains and bodies haven't substantually changed since the _stone age_, I doubt it :)

I only meant as compared to the rate it would travel at if the oil crisis is resolved.

Here are some possible fixes to the deteriorating gene-pool quality:

1) With more research into biotechnology, someone with poor eyesight could concievably have his/her eyes replaced with a 20/10 or better pair, grown from that person's own cells in a lab, same for other such things as a club foot, etc.

2) Legs atrophying from lack of use would be quite unlikely. People would still need them as long as we live with gravity. Even if we had "wearable vehicles", we would still exercise, because morbidly overweight people are considered unattractive in most societies and because of the health risk.

Exercise = The F*cking Win.

3) Brains will certainly become bigger, and as long as it doesnt happen too fast, our bodies will probably become larger to compensate. Larger brains mean larger necks to support them, leading to a larger upper body to support that. Without a larger, more powerful torso and lower body to support THAT, we would be losing a lot more people to falls, workplace accidents, etc., because they would be too top-heavy.

4) We could always root out stupid people by removing most warning labels from products. If you know you are allergic to peanuts, maybe you shouldn't eat that Peanut Butter Kablammo bar.[/joke]

5) Non-forced eugenics will begin to become more prevalent as defective genes lead to autism, hemophelia, cancer, etc.

As well, it would be interesting to see the evolutionary changes in a society that has spend a few thousand generations in the zero-g conditions of space. Even if they did exercise on a regular basis, we could see interesting things occur, like legs becoming more like arms. What good are legs in zero-g?

This has all been stated already, but people seem to be glossing over it. Evolution is a result of an organism with specific traits being more or less capable of breeding than another organism. That doesn't mean that big brains or third arms are very likely; very few, if any, people fail to breed because they don't have a larger than average brain, or because they only have two arms. Disease resistance is one area where humans still see evolutionarily driven changes - a population dies off because they were susceptible to a disease, while another population may survive due to their having a slightly different trait (think molecular or cellular scale). Also, the idea that the gene pool is watered down over time makes sense, as the vast majority of people have at least enough children to replace themselves, allowing certain disorders to be "spread". Breeding rates are also interesting areas to look at when talking about human evolution - think about which segments of the population produce more offspring; they are the most evolutionarily fit, even if they may seem less than perfect. Kinda scary...

Also, the idea that the gene pool is watered down over time makes sense, as the vast majority of people have at least enough children to replace themselves, allowing certain disorders to be "spread".
It is erroneous to apply the notion of 'watering down' to evolution. Populations are characterised by more or less genetic diversity, not by being more or less concentrated or watered down.

The next stage of human evolution is Guided Evolution, meaning evolution that is guided by human scientists.

Humanity will control it's own evolutionary path with machine augmentation and genetic modification. We will encourage the genes for intelligence, physical strength, good health, creativity, and discourage genetic traits that allow for genetic disease (like Sickle Cell Anemia).

Machine augmentation will be used to enhance the individual person even further to whatever specifications that person desires (and can afford).

This glorious future shall be ours one day, I hope within my lifetime (that is if the filthy religious fanatics of the Republican Party are stopped from trying to stop Human Evolution that is).

As a species human beings can no longer really be considered to be subject to the forces of evolution and natural selection. We've come to the point where we adapt to new circumstances and challenges through culture and technology, rather than the genetic approach. To be fair, in less developed countries there is the possibility of human evolution, ie sickle cell anemia in Africa, which appears to be a response to malaria. However, as far as I know, most experts in evolutionary biology/anthropology see the possibility of a new phase of human evolution as highly unlikely. I could be wrong, but be sure to refer me to any professional articles if you would argue to the contrary.That's not the case. There's more to evolution than just natural selection. We're still subject to mutations and very likely to sexual selection. Six fingered people persist because only other six fingered people want to marry them, for example. What this suggests to me is that humans will speciate themselves into several other species. With a future of genetic engineering, we may well see more. For example, if we ever invent habitats in space, it would be pointless for people living there to have legs, so why not extra arms? And of course, now having extra arms, why would they want to breed with people without these extra arms?

Assuming breeding in the future is only done via engineering and in labs, then we will have some extreme form of sexual selection--the parents will be selecting traits for their children that they believe are the most attractive (let's face it, who wants their kid to be stupid and ugly?).

In some ways, technology may be accelerating evolution: greater mutagens in the environment, a lack of 'pruning' from natural selection. It's just that we're not being driven as one species to common development.

Additionally, I'm not sure we can see what selective pressures may still be working on us. Just because more people of a particular type get to breed, doesn't mean they'll be able to outbreed other folks.

So I still think there's a lot of things that still will drive evolution.

Someone else mentioned something about 'weakening the gene pool'. That's not happening. If anything we're strengthening it against disease and adversity as it's becoming more diverse. Who knows what rare immunities may be preserved among those people who might otherwise have died?

Five minutes of searching found various views to the contrary (that evolution has ceased for humans) by biologists:
http://www.open2.net/truthwillout/evolution/article/evolution_article.htm
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,644002,00.html
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.06/view.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn657

Imagine what it will be like when fetuses are by design.We're probably a long way off from that. Despite the optimistic views of some people. For one thing, you're not just some building according to a DNA blueprint, as is commonly thought. There's heaps of aspects of how an organism's body is made that just isn't understood (Jack Cohen, among other biologists, has written about it: http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/complexity/Seminars/1999/report99june.htm ).

I suspect that the idea of genetic engineering and probably cybernetics (in the form of having artificial limbs), is today's version of the 60's thinking machines, underwater and moon habitats, house keeping robots, flying cars and all that stuff that didn't eventuate but were thought to be just around the corner.

The technology isn't too far away. And under such circumstances, I can't really see how evolution will have much of a chance. There is, of course, our brains. But when we can preselect the genetic make-up of people, evolution really doesn't play much of a role anymore.Why not? When the female bower bird selects the male she wants to mate with, is she somehow reducing evolution? It seems to me that if genetic engineering occurs, it's just going to be like sexual selection manifested in another way.

I am hoping for wings, personally!

What's next for human evolution?

We all degenerate to Homo Erectus. :D

Homo Erectus, lol, i love that name. :D

true if we keep on the path we are going (its good to see so many people understanding our evolutionry predicament) but i believe that genetic engineering will become our next step of evolution. However alot of people (espescially religous -no offence-) see altering DNA to be a crime against nature.

So in reference to the movie GTTACA potential embrious will be filterd for impurities and weakness, making the offspring smarter stronger and healthier, and in turn live longer more productive lives- though this as represented in the movie could lead to genetic prejudice.

True this could happen with genetic engeneering as well but with engenerring if you need somthing you just go down to your local genetisist and get an add on.... wings or drill hands any one?? :gundge: .

i have to agree with poitter evolution is too slow while technology increases exponentially so as soon ass we have genetic engineering we'll have man-made evolution and since it'll be man-made every generation will be different so natural evoluton will be eliminated amost completly (some people like the amish wont change of course)

We're probably a long way off from that. Despite the optimistic views of some people. For one thing, you're not just some building according to a DNA blueprint, as is commonly thought. There's heaps of aspects of how an organism's body is made that just isn't understood (Jack Cohen, among other biologists, has written about it: http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/complexity/Seminars/1999/report99june.htm ). Great link. Still reading it.
What I meant was stuff like selective breeding. People already do it, it's just not very developed yet, and not very wide spread. In terms of the process of evolution, what we're currently doing is great & all that.. But I can't really imagine it'll continue to be when taken to the next level.
Ridding ourselves of various three-legged freaks, retards & so forth, is probably positive (though not something I agree with), if it has any impact at all - which I somewhat doubt.
But selecting the must optimal sperm & egg severely limits the bio diversity. When taken to the next level - assuming it's not all just so much hot air - and actively designing the best package, limits bio-diversity even further. Especially if it ever becomes common practice.
The process of evolution isn't driven by smart or pretty people. The more homogenous a group is, the slower the process will be. Add social structure into it, and anything extrodinary suddenly becomes undesirable. Who the hell would mate with something like that (whatever 'that' may be)?

I suspect that the idea of genetic engineering and probably cybernetics (in the form of having artificial limbs), is today's version of the 60's thinking machines, underwater and moon habitats, house keeping robots, flying cars and all that stuff that didn't eventuate but were thought to be just around the corner.Possibly, but if the technology ever becomes commonly available, I'm willing to bet good money that it'll also become common practice.
I know I wouldn't mind experimenting with such things. I can just imagine having some sort of flexible metal alloy replace my tatoos, getting infra vision & a crest instead of a mohawk.. And so on.. I'd go absolutely nuts if given half a chance. And I know I'm not alone.

Why not? When the female bower bird selects the male she wants to mate with, is she somehow reducing evolution? It seems to me that if genetic engineering occurs, it's just going to be like sexual selection manifested in another way.Sure. And we all know that we pick the partners we believe will be best suited for propagating the species, right?

Anyway, that must be a good thing. In a species as numerous as ours, evolution will surely work faster when mating isn't riding on who's most likely to succede. I think there's too many of us to go for the 'refining' aspect. More likely we're specialising, or diversifying if you will.
Just look at common stereotypes, like strong people are stupid, where as feeble little wankers are smart. It's a stereotype because it's usually true. And presumably, it's reinforced because those people tend to mate with their equals instead of their opposites.

Heh, I'm all over the place on this.. Anyway, I don't believe space habitats & the like are nessecary for an extreme level of diversification. It seems to me that the current western approach to society, technology & education are pretty much a given. Assuming we don't exterminate ourselves, I think it's entirely plausible that we'll start to see little beginnings of such diversification as soon as technology allows for it.

For example, every single time someone has thought of something clever (or less clever) to do to themselves, a subculture as sprung up around it.

Imagine for a second that people could be modified to appear mor elike the comicbook version of wolverine. How long do you think it would take before there was a pack of such people in every major city? My guess is a year or two.
Given how all our societies generally shun anything not extremely ordinary, I'd say there's a fair chance these wolverine people would end up as little packs with little baby wolverines.

Assuming such things aren't impossible Sci-Fi crap, I'd say it's a given we'll end up not just guiding our evolution, but actively moving it along in a million different directions. And unlike you, I don't think there's much question that the technologies will be discovered. Anything along such lines that is theoretically possible, is a potential cash cow. I'm almost certain our social standards will end up being the only thing governing what happens.

Thinking about self-induced evolution a bit, after reading what everyone else posted, how would our societies have to adapt to all these different people. Giving ourselves wings has been sugested a few times, what changes would that cause? One of the first changes would be to buildings, we would want a place to land on top. Rush-hour traffic would lessen as people are able to fly overtop of eachother. What about crime? It would be quite easy for someone with wings to mug someone without. I'm sure bumping into people while flying would be alot more dangerous, too. We give ourselves better reflexes to compensate (which would change our lives in different ways). Sports would have to change too. Baseball wouldn't be as exciting as it is now if the fielders could fly around and catch every ball that gets hit.

There are changes we could choose that would have a much larger affect on us than flying. For instance, if everyone could send/receive/interpert wireless g signals. It would give people the potential to share any information with any other person instantly. Schools would have to be completely overhauld. First, the students would be able to cheat on tests rather easily. Also, if we could access the internets with our brains, would there be a point most classes at all? We could just look up the fact on the internet whenever we need it. If people are able to visualize pictures in their mind, would they be able to send them to eachother? The ablility for people to work as teams would increase significantly. We would be able to show people exactly what we mean instead of giving them a breif description. Would we be able to achieve something resembling a collective memory out of this? Then there is the issue of rights and freedoms. Spying on someone's computer over the internet is not too difficult of a task, someone would figure out how to spy on someone else's brain. Could hackers become Thought Police, litterally? Or would your thoughts just be pirated? Someone would also try to create malware for people's brains too (ie-sending schizophrenia to people).

I know I kinda got into a ramble there. There was a in there point somewhere...

The human brain keeps growing. The current trend looks like our heads will get longer from the back and the shape of our spinal cords will change too.

I sure hope that our spine changes, as it's a pretty poor design right now (my dad has severe back problems resulting from herniated discs).

I agree that our brains will probably get bigger, the result of which being that the shape of our skulls will be somewhat different.

I would say Brain function and maybe immune systems would be the most likely to evolve.
Maybe not telepathy, but I think mental abilities are going to increase.

everyone will go completely bald :eek:

Scientifically, the next meaningful step in evolution would be chromosomes. 46 and 2, that sort of thing. Not sure how that would come about, though I assume it would have to be sudden mutation.

Great link. Still reading it.
What I meant was stuff like selective breeding. People already do it, it's just not very developed yet, and not very wide spread.OK, so you didn't mean biologic engineering. When I read 'babies by design' I thought that's what you meant, because to me, a biologically engineered baby is a baby by design. As opposed to what we have now where we screen the egg, sperm and embryo, which is more like some sort of farming. Even splicing genes from other people/animals is kind of like a form of 'gene farming' as we're working with what we're given, not creating our own genes.

By the way, what I mean by biological engineering is not just genetic engineering (designing genes) but also designing the 'factory' that interprets the DNA to get it to do what we want.

In terms of the process of evolution, what we're currently doing is great & all that.. But I can't really imagine it'll continue to be when taken to the next level.
Ridding ourselves of various three-legged freaks, retards & so forth, is probably positive (though not something I agree with), if it has any impact at all - which I somewhat doubt.
But selecting the must optimal sperm & egg severely limits the bio diversity. When taken to the next level - assuming it's not all just so much hot air - and actively designing the best package, limits bio-diversity even further. Especially if it ever becomes common practice.
The process of evolution isn't driven by smart or pretty people. The more homogenous a group is, the slower the process will be. Add social structure into it, and anything extrodinary suddenly becomes undesirable. Who the hell would mate with something like that (whatever 'that' may be)?I'm sorry, I don't know what you're saying here. If you're saying evolution will continue, I agree. I was just talking about the promise of genetic engineering being a very optimistic one.

Possibly, but if the technology ever becomes commonly available, I'm willing to bet good money that it'll also become common practice.
I know I wouldn't mind experimenting with such things. I can just imagine having some sort of flexible metal alloy replace my tatoos, getting infra vision & a crest instead of a mohawk.. And so on.. I'd go absolutely nuts if given half a chance. And I know I'm not alone.Yes, I wasn't saying it wouldn't happen, I just think people are overly optimistic, just like they have been every other decade in the past. People in the past really thought the world now would resemble the Jetsons (obviously, not that we'd all be cartoon characters). What you seem to be talking about is cybernetics, and I do admit that cybernetics seems a lot more advanced at the moment. I'm not sure how long off we are from artificial limbs that work as well as ones in cyberpunk stories, that might well be a lot closer than biological engineering.

Sure. And we all know that we pick the partners we believe will be best suited for propagating the species, right?No, not really, but they do drive the selection in a certain direction. The Great Irish Elk is a classic example of an animal driven by sexual selection towards its own extinction. There's no reason that sexual selection produces a fitter individual, it does however change the species.

Anyway, that must be a good thing. In a species as numerous as ours, evolution will surely work faster when mating isn't riding on who's most likely to succede. I think there's too many of us to go for the 'refining' aspect. More likely we're specialising, or diversifying if you will.
Just look at common stereotypes, like strong people are stupid, where as feeble little wankers are smart. It's a stereotype because it's usually true. And presumably, it's reinforced because those people tend to mate with their equals instead of their opposites.I don't disagree here, but again I'm too thick to see your point.

Heh, I'm all over the place on this.. Anyway, I don't believe space habitats & the like are nessecary for an extreme level of diversification. It seems to me that the current western approach to society, technology & education are pretty much a given. Assuming we don't exterminate ourselves, I think it's entirely plausible that we'll start to see little beginnings of such diversification as soon as technology allows for it.Possibly so, in fact, probably so. I just put in space habitats as a stronger argument for speciation of humans. In one million years time I wouldn't be surprised if there are many human species. You're right, the desire for certain groups to 'keep it in the family' will probably, with sufficient technology, yeild different folks.

I'm not sure what will come first: space habitats or sub species of humans, space habitats do seem a little closer to me. At least we now understand how to build a space habitat, where-as, as I pointed out above, we don't really know how to make a new species. Sure, selection technologies may speed-up or slow down our evolution, but until we can understand better how a human is created, how its aspects are created, we won't be able to radically make new species.

For example, every single time someone has thought of something clever (or less clever) to do to themselves, a subculture as sprung up around it.

Imagine for a second that people could be modified to appear mor elike the comicbook version of wolverine. How long do you think it would take before there was a pack of such people in every major city? My guess is a year or two.Probably.
Given how all our societies generally shun anything not extremely ordinary, I'd say there's a fair chance these wolverine people would end up as little packs with little baby wolverines.

Assuming such things aren't impossible Sci-Fi crap, I'd say it's a given we'll end up not just guiding our evolution, but actively moving it along in a million different directions. And unlike you, I don't think there's much question that the technologies will be discovered. Anything along such lines that is theoretically possible, is a potential cash cow. I'm almost certain our social standards will end up being the only thing governing what happens.
I don't think these technologies won't be discovered, I just think estimates of it happening in the next 30 years are just as wrong as estimates of thinking machines by now. I think both will become a reality assuming humans continue an onward march of technology, but not any time soon.

I think you're right that there will be speciation for many reasons. That is evolution of course.

My question is to what sense we'll be guiding our evolution. I would think of guiding as some grand plan made by a human mind to achieve something. However, just as you described, what probably will happen is that people will make individual decisions on ideas they like---which is in principle no different from how people select mates now.

I'm just saying it's like what we have now, only it would be magnified by the abilities of our technology. I don't see it as a guided evolution, but the same more-or-less blind evolution that life has seen over the past millions of years. Sure, humans are making individual decisions, but unless there was some super-long-lived dictator making all the breeding decisions, I wouldn't see it as human guided.

To summarize what I was saying through all this:
1. I think that being able to design a child is still a long way off.

2. Even with that, evolution will not be guided by people any more than it is today. People will still make individual choices driven by individual whims and desires and not according to some plan somebody laid out. This is just how evolution works now. Only it will somewhat sped-up.

Basically, our selective pressure has ceased to be meeting survival needs and has now become reproductive in nature. Therefore natural pressure probably will favor females with faster, less painful birthing cycles, males who are more fertile, and growing intelligence (as the smarter we become the more children we can afford).

The other possibility is that we drive one-another extinct within the millenia and evolution never occurs.

Another arm? Bigger brains? Lesbians grow penises? What do you think is next in human evolution? And how long do you think it will take?

I have a friend who worships comics; he believes that mutants are the next stage, just like in X-Men. I disagree though; I think that the next step won't be as drastic. For example, because sex is more public now, the media glamorizes it, and people no longer wait until their married to do it, I think that sex will become more enjoyable and STD's will slowly disappear. Then again, I don't know much about evolution.

So what are your thoughts?



Wouldn't be surpried if there would be an increase in use of brain-activity: it's been said only 15 to 30% of one's brain is being used, which is evolutionary illogic--> an organ that consumes and demands such a huge amount of energy has to have anoter function besides, say, serve as a delicacy (sp?) for certain native tribes ;)

What I'm saying is, the brain uses an enourmous amount of energy. We only use a small amount of the brains capacity. In nature, no energy is wasted/used unless it is needed. Therefore, the bigger part of the barin has to have certain functions.

My conclusion: the next evolutionary step is fully using the braincapacity. But how long it will take for this effect to happen, I couldn't say.

What I'm saying is, the brain uses an enourmous amount of energy. We only use a small amount of the brains capacity. In nature, no energy is wasted/used unless it is needed. Therefore, the bigger part of the barin has to have certain functions.

My conclusion: the next evolutionary step is fully using the braincapacity. But how long it will take for this effect to happen, I couldn't say.
Isn't that contradictory? You're saying the part of the brain that isn't actively used has to have certain functions, so it must be doing something. I don't think cognitive processes are going to take over capacity from whatever else is happening in there. I'd hate to have my heart stop every time I'm trying to figure out some deranged Perl monger's code. Although this does happen occasionally.

My personal conviction (undoubtedly fed by many hours commuting) is that our bodies just might develop to be cubic. Stack three max, this side up. :p

I'd just like to make the point that human innovation peaked in the late 1800's and has been decreasing ever since.
That is all.

I think that the first efforts at genetic modification will be cosmetic - because that's what the market will demand.

Everyone will want children who grow up to be fabulously good looking and fit, even if they never exercise.

After a while, you'll be able to tell who wasn't modified, because they won't be incredibly good looking.

Someone else mentioned something about 'weakening the gene pool'. That's not happening. If anything we're strengthening it against disease and adversity as it's becoming more diverse. Who knows what rare immunities may be preserved among those people who might otherwise have died?

I know that when considering evolutionary fitness, diversity is certainly a good thing, with obvious benefits. What I meant by "watering down of the gene pool" is that traits that humans consider desirable, such as intelligence or attractiveness could be made increasingly rare because people aren't subject to a constant struggle to pass their genes on; nearly every person does so before death. So, if there is a population of 10 people, with 1 individual who is exceptionally intelligent, and if the people pair off, with each pair producing the same number of offspring, the ratio is maintained. On the other hand, I would say (acting as an armchair biologist) that the top tier of humanity (as judged by the majority of humanity at least) tends to have fewer children than the rest of the world - seemingly intelligent, wealthy or attractive people also seem less inclined to breed. Over time, it seems like this would actually remove many traits that people deem "good" - then again, this all hinges on the idea that the masses out-breed the historical figures, which is a pretty big assumption.

Longer, more intense orgasms would be nice. :D


i like you already.......i'll give 50 bucks to anyone who comes up with a better idea..........except i wont.

A second penis and two more arms for men, and a second pussy and another set of breasts to go along with this for women :D

Wouldn't be surpried if there would be an increase in use of brain-activity: it's been said only 15 to 30% of one's brain is being used, which is evolutionary illogic--> an organ that consumes and demands such a huge amount of energy has to have anoter function besides, say, serve as a delicacy (sp?) for certain native tribes ;)

What I'm saying is, the brain uses an enourmous amount of energy. We only use a small amount of the brains capacity. In nature, no energy is wasted/used unless it is needed. Therefore, the bigger part of the barin has to have certain functions.

My conclusion: the next evolutionary step is fully using the braincapacity. But how long it will take for this effect to happen, I couldn't say.
Sorry but that is total BS. It was a scam some company thought up in the 20's to sell their product.

Sorry but that is total BS. It was a scam some company thought up in the 20's to sell their product.

Particularly, it was the book 7 Habits of Highly Successful People. We use about 90% of our brains over the course of the day, because we don't always use the part that involves woodworking when we don't woodwork. :P

All I know is, no matter what else happens, we won't have wisdom teeth. I mean, they're completely vestigial, right?

All I know is, no matter what else happens, we won't have wisdom teeth. I mean, they're completely vestigial, right?

I dunno. I use mine to maul food. I also store pennies in my appendix.

Our lower jaws are getting smaller.
www.balasurgery.com/wisdom.htm