NationStates Jolt Archive

This article suggests that, in 100,000 years, humans could divide into two species. Rather than the standard cause of evolution (geographic isolation of species), he suggests that it could be a socioeconomic issue. The two species would be divided between "haves" and "have nots". While I don't agree with this theory, I also don't disagree.

Sadly, the article isn't quite detailed enough, but there are some bits of information that make it plausible.

Those who are poor, tend to stay poor. Those who are rich, tend to stay rich. This is true in most societies.
Now, add to that social circles. Those who are rich tend to live near each other. Their children go to the same schools. They tend to attend similar universities. They tend to get similar jobs.
Poor people function the same way. Most neighborhoods are defined by SES more than any other single factor.

This would mean that the rich are meeting more other rich people, and therefore more likely to marry another rich person. Again, same for poor. If this is the case, is it all that inconcievable that there will start to be genetic drifts based on these lines?

I don't agree with his assessment of what these humans will look like, but that is really not the point.

My question is does it seem possible that Homo Sapien will divide into two different species based on class differences?

The article (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13547374,00.html)
Note: the article also mentions some other predictions about the future of human evolution. Feel free to discuss these as well, or add your own predictions.

My question is does it seem possible that Homo Sapien will divide into two different species based on class differences?

No, because the Revolution is coming Comrade. The Revolution is coming.

impossible there will always be rich and poor breeding (its what the middle class is for) like nerds and everyone else will never split because I get plenty :cool:

I say Homo-sapiens will exist unless we begin modifying ourselves, there is some kind of global catastrophe or until we begin colonising space

All of which involve natural selection being taken into account (even if we modify ourselves because there will always be enough normal humans to water it down unless everyone does it)

Eloi and Morlocks?!?!? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_Machine) :eek: :eek:

If anything, the divide will be between the intelligent and the stupid. The stupid tend to breed the stupider, and the intelligent rarely breed with the stupid.

If anything, the divide will be between the intelligent and the stupid. The stupid tend to breed the stupider, and the intelligent rarely breed with the stupid.

what about businessmen and trophy wives?

The Earth's resources will not last forever, Oil is the world's best source of Economy, and it is dwindling, we will move out of Earthly zones when we are ready(or when shortages force us to)

The Earth's resources will not last forever, Oil is the world's best source of Economy, and it is dwindling, we will move out of Earthly zones when we are ready(or when shortages force us to)

I disagree. Firstly, how could we move out of Earthly zones without oil? And surely we should be trying to fix the situation rather than just running away from it? Renewables ftw!

Nah, the future isn't in space. The future is in the recycling bin.

Only 2 species?

If we were say, birds, rather than humans the apparant biological differences between us would have us classified as perhaps as many as a dozen different species. If you add cultural differences like haves vs have nots to it you could make a case for fifty species of human.

Part of the reason for so many species in non-human critters is due to the status bestowed on anyone who "discovers" a new species. Every effort is made to call every tiny difference equal a new species. This is not practiced when studying homo sapiens because anyone brooking the subject is immediately accused of many heinous agendas, true or not. Perhaps far into the future we might adtually and honestly look at differences within humans for the pure benefit of knowlege. For now the wounds are too raw and the blood too hot to even seriously contemplate it. The time frame you advocate for seperate species is not enough to heal the wounds. If the haves in your time frame are still able to breed with the have nots and produce viable offspring then they will both be considered the same species.

Eloi and Morlocks?!?!? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_Machine) :eek: :eek:

Thats what I thought too.

The Earth's resources will not last forever, Oil is the world's best source of Economy, and it is dwindling, we will move out of Earthly zones when we are ready(or when shortages force us to)

do you know what oil actually is?

and best source of economy Surely that would be some high skill jobs

ohforgodssake we cant stop men from fucking SHEEP and this guy thinks that there will come a time when rich men will lose their taste for lower class women?

Only 2 species?

If we were say, birds, rather than humans the apparant biological differences between us would have us classified as perhaps as many as a dozen different species. If you add cultural differences like haves vs have nots to it you could make a case for fifty species of human.

Part of the reason for so many species in non-human critters is due to the status bestowed on anyone who "discovers" a new species. Every effort is made to call every tiny difference equal a new species. This is not practiced when studying homo sapiens because anyone brooking the subject is immediately accused of many heinous agendas, true or not. Perhaps far into the future we might adtually and honestly look at differences within humans for the pure benefit of knowlege. For now the wounds are too raw and the blood too hot to even seriously contemplate it. The time frame you advocate for seperate species is not enough to heal the wounds. If the haves in your time frame are still able to breed with the have nots and produce viable offspring then they will both be considered the same species.
There's just one significant difference: other bird species can't mate with each other and produce children. We can.

ohforgodssake we cant stop men from fucking SHEEP and this guy thinks that there will come a time when rich men will lose their taste for lower class women?

Are hookers going to be the saviour of the human race? :eek:

the other type is :

http://web.mit.edu/margret/www/myndir/comics/bush_chimp.jpg

There's just one significant difference: other bird species can't mate with each other and produce children. We can.

Are you claiming that two different species cannot mate and produce offspring?

Are you claiming that two different species cannot mate and produce offspring?

Presumably, seeing as that is the definition of species. :p

Presumably, seeing as that is the definition of species. :p

Viable offspring is different from offspring. Otherwise horses and donkeys are one species or *gasp* you are wrong.;)

well there's a definite difference in appearence between the public (private) school people at my uni and the ordinary people. all the posh people look the same. of course this could be because they all have the same hairstyles and clothes but there are certainly some features in them that you don't really see so prolifically in any other social group around here. height is one of them, they're mostly above average height, most have blonde hair, all of them tan, prominant cheekbones is another one and straight noses. still this could just be that their mothers are frequently gold digging ex-models but who knows?

Viable offspring is different from offspring. Otherwise horses and donkeys are one species or *gasp* you are wrong.;)

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not a scientist. All I knows is what me dictionary says.

Are hookers going to be the saviour of the human race? :eek:

yes i believe they are. just another reason to support the legalization of prostitution.

it just seems silly. what men marry and what men fuck are 2 different things. (well there should be SOME overlap.) with the decline in marriage, it is no longer necessary for a woman to pass off her child as being fathered by someone of her own class. she can do as she pleases.

there is not going to be any segregation by class in the bedrooms of the future.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not a scientist. All I knows is what me dictionary says.

A horse and a donkey can mate. The offspring is a mule. Does that make a horse and a donkey the same species?

A horse and a donkey can mate. The offspring is a mule. Does that make a horse and a donkey the same species?

but that offspring is sterile

A horse and a donkey can mate. The offspring is a mule. Does that make a horse and a donkey the same species?

You're dying to tell me.

but that offspring is sterile

that’s a myth they can breed they just have difficulty doing so

but that offspring is sterile

Yes. It is not a viable offspring. It cannot successfully breed.

Anyway if it came to pass that humans remained so split by class differences for so long that no offspring could come from mating then it would become even more popular for the well to do to go out slumming.

Okay, firstly the assumption that the rich-poor gap is widening everywhere in the world, and will continue to widen forever is just dumb. In fact, one would expect that as the resources available to humans become more and more plentiful the gap would get narrower.

Secondly, explicitly ripping off H. G. Wells does not count as science.

Thirdly, the image of the human is implausible, I don't see how a frame like that would even be able to hold all the necessary organs.

And fourthly, I doubt humans will survive that long in the first place.

well there's a definite difference in appearence between the public (private) school people at my uni and the ordinary people. all the posh people look the same. of course this could be because they all have the same hairstyles and clothes but there are certainly some features in them that you don't really see so prolifically in any other social group around here. height is one of them, they're mostly above average height, most have blonde hair, all of them tan, prominant cheekbones is another one and straight noses. still this could just be that their mothers are frequently gold digging ex-models but who knows?

That can probably be attributed to diet. The preppy kids would have obviously been fed on fresh salads and Waitrose's finest meals prepared by mummy dearest. Whereas the ordinary people would have been raised on a diet of chips and Turkey Twizzlers.

Eloi and Morlocks?!?!? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_Machine) :eek: :eek:

Yeah, really. Time Machine on the brain.

Bollocks.

It's garbage as is, though I'm sure it has some valid political point to make. The "haves" and "have-nots" may seem constricted, somewhat, but there is certainly room in society for moving up and down the economic chain. The intelligent poor (myself for example) can get educated and get jobs and become "haves," and "haves" frequently fail in the stock market (plenty of "haves" went utterly broke and occasionally committed suicide in the 20s in the States) or go bankrupt through lawsuits.

There is also plenty of differentiation between the very bottom and the very top, but the middle class is on the rise, not the decline. There doesn't have to be a "pauper to prince" scenario occuring for there to be a shift in a familial line's wealthiness; more likely it will be gradual. People can get stuck, but in recent history, steps are more often taken to help move people from those situations into better ones (welfare, affirmative action, etc.).

I'm thinking it could happen with medical advancements. Perhaps all kinds of treatments that the poor couldn't afford, that led to longer life or enhanced physical features and abilities, until the rich are all Apollo-like and live 400 years while the poor continue to have shorter and shorter life spans due to accumulated pollution and toxins.

That would only remove the ultra-rich from "the rest of us," which aren't necessarily all that poor. Until chromosomal differences are made - which is HIGHLY unlikely, and would almost certainly need to be done through artificial genetic manipulation - the rich and poor will remain the same species.

I'm thinking it could happen with medical advancements. Perhaps all kinds of treatments that the poor couldn't afford, that led to longer life or enhanced physical features and abilities, until the rich are all Apollo-like and live 400 years while the poor continue to have shorter and shorter life spans due to accumulated pollution and toxins.

ya but remember how the greek gods kept cavorting with human women?

why would the "gods" of the future do any different?

ya but remember how the greek gods kept cavorting with human women?

why would the "gods" of the future do any different?

Because the rich women would be made hotter too? Like unbelievably hot. And slutty. And the rich guys could sleep with any of them they wanted. And the rich women would only be able to have kids if they signed a prenup first. It would be programmed into them. Of course.

You're dying to tell me.

White Bass (Morone chrysops) and Striped Bass (M. saxitilis) can breed and make a hybrid bass which can breed and make viable offspring. Still they are considered seperate species. Go figure.

http://aquanic.org/publicat/usda_rac/efs/srac/300fs.pdf

Because the rich women would be made hotter too? Like unbelievably hot. And slutty. And the rich guys could sleep with any of them they wanted. And the rich women would only be able to have kids if they signed a prenup first. It would be programmed into them. Of course.

oh of course

my bad.

lol

There is still too much interaction between the two for a species division. The existence of the middle class creates room for genes to move from one to the other. And social changes can totally redraw class boundaries, as the poor rise to prominence and the rich fall - or die.

The author is confusing social structure with biological science - he's an idiot. And in any case, it would take millions rather than thousands of years for that much disparity to develop.

Uh, no.
The classes aren't static enough, not in any evolutionarily significant manner anyway.

No, this wont happen, threwout ALL of human history, when the "haves" have to much, and when the "have nots" have not and have had enough. Blood spills, and the have nots become the haves. America, France, Russia, Austria, Germany, Spain, Cuba and any other communist country prove this. And besides, Communism is never going to go away, as much as people think it is dead its not, its just as alive as ever. That will surely serve as a great equalizer comrades!

-snip-.

This further proves me and you are connected via the mind. I was going to make a thread about human evolution and whether or not Humans have actually put a hault to their own evolution. I think we have in some respects. For example, we are a species that can live in any enviroment, including space. We have the technology to live in the ice caps, or in the sahara, or even under water. To me, that shows we don't have a need to adapt physically to an enviroment, since we can live in any.

Also, I'd like to note how we don't weed out "inferior" fellow people anymore(for the most part, and i don't think they are inferior, only in a evolutionary standpoint) We have people with diasabilities, and handicaps, that now can live as comfortable as other "normal" humans. As we are saring for them, and giving them a better life, instead of them dying off, they have now a greater possibility to spread their genes.

So in whole, I think human evolution, for at least the time being has been haulted, or reduced very heavily. It would take a world wide nuclear holocaust to produce another noticable change in our species. But thats IMO.

OP snip

That is one hell of a massive assumption in this guy's part that people will manage to maintain a social separation without interbreeding based solely on economic income for long enough for speciation to occur. That would require several millenia of complete separation without genetic exchange between the two classes to allow the groups to separate into two distinct species.

Frankly, humans are too horny to let something silly like economics to keep them from getting it on. Not to mention that we would never be able to sustain a separation purely on economic terms long enough for speciation to occur.

The author is confusing social structure with biological science - he's an idiot. And in any case, it would take millions rather than thousands of years for that much disparity to develop.


What if it were aided by genetic engineering? Could this speed the process if the upper crust desired to distance itself from lowlives?

Won't happen for several reasons.

The author bases his "research" on current trends. Current trends never last very long. And certainly not for centuries. Things are always changing.

For one thing the haves and have nots regularly switch places over the ages. Through revolution or conquest, the have nots rise up and take from the haves and the haves are thus turned into have nots. The classes get "churned" every few hundred years or so.

Also (as has been pointed out) wealthy men often take trophy wives, have sex with hookers, or knock up a one night stand after a drunken binge. Women also often have one nights stands, extramarital lovers, boy toys, and the like. Many men from all classes are raising children who aren't biologically theirs without knowing it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4137506.stm

Edited to add: Ah ha! The BBC has an article on this "research" with pictures. It's rather amusing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm

"Social skills, such as communicating and interacting with others, could be lost, along with emotions such as love, sympathy, trust and respect. People would become less able to care for others, or perform in teams.

Physically, they would start to appear more juvenile. Chins would recede, as a result of having to chew less on processed food.

There could also be health problems caused by reliance on medicine, resulting in weak immune systems. Preventing deaths would also help to preserve the genetic defects that cause cancer."

This further proves me and you are connected via the mind. I was going to make a thread about human evolution and whether or not Humans have actually put a hault to their own evolution. I think we have in some respects. For example, we are a species that can live in any enviroment, including space. We have the technology to live in the ice caps, or in the sahara, or even under water. To me, that shows we don't have a need to adapt physically to an enviroment, since we can live in any.

Also, I'd like to note how we don't weed out "inferior" fellow people anymore(for the most part, and i don't handicaps, that now can live as comfortable as other "normal" humans. As we are saring for them, and giving them a better life, instead of them dying off, they have now a greater possibility to spread their genes.

So in whole, I think human evolution, for at least the time being has been haulted, or reduced very heavily. It would take a world wide nuclear holocaust to produce another noticable change in our species. But thats IMO.

I'd say, currently, we're playing more into sexual selection. Sometime in the fairly near future, I'd expect to see some selective pressures coming through, in the form of viruses or something similar.

The problem with the theory is there would have to be an adaption in an individual then that individual would have to be isolated enough that interbrreding would take place to isolate that adaption. The European Royalty tried that for a while but abandon the interbreeding before it could take effect.

I'm thinking it could happen with medical advancements. Perhaps all kinds of treatments that the poor couldn't afford, that led to longer life or enhanced physical features and abilities, until the rich are all Apollo-like and live 400 years while the poor continue to have shorter and shorter life spans due to accumulated pollution and toxins.

Actually it would be the poor that would advance under this idea. The rich would become weaker as weaker individuals were allowed to breed. The weak among the poor would die off and only the strong would breed.

Actually this theory has no credibility for a very simple reason: Projecting human society for the next 1,000 years, let alone 100,000 is eminently impossible. Human society, in an even vaguely organized fashion, has existed for a slight bit more than 4,000 years. Attempting to project 25 societal trends for 25 times longer than society has really existed is an exercise in stupidity. However, let's go after a few more of the reasons this argument is pure BS.

Go back 10 generations in your family and guess what happens? You discover that all of a sudden you're related to a massive proportion of the human race. Interbreeding is not, and never has, been an issue on the mass scale. There is a reason people always laugh at the the royalty of the pre-modern European society...they were the ultimate interbreed group. No other group has come close to that. Hell, even the argument that the rich stay rich and the poor poor has very little credibility. Go to most rich Americans and guess what their ancestors were? Poor peasants.

Frankly put, humanity is one of the more interesting species in the world because it is not evolving in any noticeable fashion, nor is there anything which could currently make it do so. Because of how society functions, beyond intrinsic natural selection (intelligent people tending to wed other intelligent people, etc) there is no real separation of the gene pools. The weak aren't dying. Whereas virtually every other species in the world is still forced to evolve because of the basic Malthusian principle (food increases slower than population increases), humanity is not affected by this. We cure the weak and keep them alive. There is no selection going on beyond mating choice, and even that is so variable that without some other outside factor there is little to no chance at true evolution taking place.

Basically this article is written by an idiot for other idiots to read and go "OMGZ!!!!!!?!!1111! that s sucks!!!!11"

That article looks like a load of BS to me. :p

There's just one significant difference: other bird species can't mate with each other and produce children. We can.

Missed the point. Over time, through "selective breeding' it may be possible for two, totally different, species to evolve, if the genetic pools were to become isolated.

Not sure how exactly the possiblities, but is possible.

Frankly put, humanity is one of the more interesting species in the world because it is not evolving in any noticeable fashion, nor is there anything which could currently make it do so.

But we are still evolving. We're not splintering into many species, but we are still evolving. And noticibly so in some cases.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4643312.stm

http://sxxz.blogspot.com/2005/01/are-humans-still-evolving.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4222460.stm

That 'article' if you want to call it that, is utter, utter bullshit. Letting alone the fact that it has the definition of subspecies all wrong, one question jumps to mind: if sexual selection is all that, why hasn't this happened already in large population centers?
Clearly, the people we choose as mates aren't linear with their "fitness" - humans have complicated things a bit.

White Bass (Morone chrysops) and Striped Bass (M. saxitilis) can breed and make a hybrid bass which can breed and make viable offspring. Still they are considered seperate species. Go figure.

http://aquanic.org/publicat/usda_rac/efs/srac/300fs.pdfyeah - newsflash, but the 'biological species concept' only works until first year. After that, it's wrong. Think radically different plants that can be easily crossed. Think sticklebacks. Think asexual species that have no gene pool at all. Philosophy's dictionary may be satisfyingly somple, but it isn't accurate. What, exactly, is a species is something biology is grappling with.

Two human species?
I can see it now...

Kid #1: My mommy's species is better than your mommy's species.
Kid #2:*crys*
Teacher: Now, children, we live in America, where all species are created equal...
Ah... good times. Why do I feel like Homer Simpson having a flashback right now?

What if it were aided by genetic engineering? Could this speed the process if the upper crust desired to distance itself from lowlives?

Good point. This could be entirely possible. The rich could add genes from other animals and repair defective genes. Then if they only interbred they could quickly evolve into a separate subspecies if not species.

Good point. This could be entirely possible. The rich could add genes from other animals and repair defective genes. Then if they only interbred they could quickly evolve into a separate subspecies if not species.
This is still faulty. Species are things that don't usually interbreed (regardless of whether they technically can or not). In some cases, different species' gametes are so different that they simply will not fuse with each other. In other cases, different species' gametes will fuse if brought together, but simply enver come together in nature because of major differences in their mating system's morhology, ecology, behaviour, polinators, whatever. In both cases, the differences that define the seperate species are essentially caused by genetic differences in their mating systems - that is the root of their isolation from each other.

I doubt we can change our 'mating system' to make it an isolating factor with gene therapy, breeding or whatever. It is a more complicated and essential than we can design or mess with right now. Given that social mixing is increasing, not decreasing, I doubt if behaviour and so forth would ever be enough to create true biological seperation. Basically, if your mating system is the same, and you live in the same place, and you mix, there is not a chance.

I think economic reasons would never create enough practical differences to speciate humanity.

I can think of several types of humans that are collecting into mini-societies in a fashion that would exert far greater genetic pressure. The foremost two groups would be people born with dwarfism(midgets) and down syndrome people. Its common for both to marry a similar person.

in the case of down syndrome people, they actually have an extra chromosome. I am having a heck of a time finding out if they may carry a baby to term though.. Google is no help!

Looks like they can...
http://www.ds-health.com/issues.htm

yeah - newsflash, but the 'biological species concept' only works until first year. After that, it's wrong. Think radically different plants that can be easily crossed. Think sticklebacks. Think asexual species that have no gene pool at all. Philosophy's dictionary may be satisfyingly somple, but it isn't accurate. What, exactly, is a species is something biology is grappling with.

I thank you for that. Now I can let my first post stand again at face value.

Take it with a buge grain of salt.
It was written for a 'mens' satellite program. Hence the description of women evolving to have 'pert' breasts, big eyes and hairless skin (I think he's been watching too much manga) and men having bigger cocks.

Take it with a buge grain of salt.
It was written for a 'mens' satellite program. Hence the description of women evolving to have 'pert' breasts, big eyes and hairless skin (I think he's been watching too much manga) and men having bigger cocks.

Most men do have bigger cocks than women.

Most men do have bigger cocks than women.

Not Russian woman shotputters.

<snip>
Basically this article is written by an idiot for other idiots to read and go "OMGZ!!!!!!?!!1111! that s sucks!!!!11"

LOL. QFT!

My question is does it seem possible that Homo Sapien will divide into two different species based on class differences?


I think it is very unlikely. We've had societies with strong class barriers (like in ancient Rome, with citizens and slaves, or traditional India, or the US before abolition of slavery), but this has never blocked inter-class, inter-group mating.

The dumb thing is the predictions at the bottom run contry to the predictions at the top.

The one I can really see happening is the gradual emergence of one human 'race' as taboos of racial intermarriage are rapidly breaking. So all the bigots will just have to find new reasons to hate.


I hope this is a bit of irresponsible reporting rather than an accurate depitction of the scientists work. Aside from the contry predictions the whole work rests on the assumption that the human race will live in a constant state free of civil turmoil, warfare and social upheavals for 10,000 years. Hell - it's hard enough to find somewhere on earth thats managed to not go through major social change for 100 years!

The dumb thing is the predictions at the bottom run contry to the predictions at the top.

The one I can really see happening is the gradual emergence of one human 'race' as taboos of racial intermarriage are rapidly breaking. So all the bigots will just have to find new reasons to hate.


I hope this is a bit of irresponsible reporting rather than an accurate depitction of the scientists work. Aside from the contry predictions the whole work rests on the assumption that the human race will live in a constant state free of civil turmoil, warfare and social upheavals for 10,000 years. Hell - it's hard enough to find somewhere on earth thats managed to not go through major social change for 100 years!

Of course the think with predictions, is that they are just that and we can't really say one way or another what will happen.

It is an interesting thought though. That there will always be a gap between the rich and the poor, I think is a valid point. Couple this with advances in medical, geneitic and nano technology I can easily see us being devided into those that can afford enhancement and thoses that can't.

Heh a tad scifi? Perhaps, but a valid vision of the future never-the-less.

It is an interesting thought though. That there will always be a gap between the rich and the poor, I think is a valid point. Couple this with advances in medical, geneitic and nano technology I can easily see us being devided into those that can afford enhancement and thoses that can't.

Heh a tad scifi? Perhaps, but a valid vision of the future never-the-less.
There will always be the rich and the poor. But the same groups do not always stay rich and the poor do climb up often enough.

For example - reading the newspaper yesterday the 5 most wealthy landowners in Scotland are all self made, from average or poor backgrounds. Totally edging out the established 'nobility'.

In some ways being rich during a period of social unrest (it's not like there won't be many of those in the next 10,000 years) is a major health hazard as you are a giant target for the masses.
See the French aristocracy.
The wealthy chinese before the cultural revolution
Russian Tzars and their families
Countless wealthy families who had just ONE irresponsible generation. (happens a lot)

Just some examples.

The predictions here assume that the rich peoples descendants will stay rich, and the poor peoples descendants will stay poor, for 10,000 years. A concept that is not supported by even a 1000 year period of history in many places, let alone a 10,000 year period.

You'd expect the far-upper class to be ugliest; I mean they do interbreed an awful lot. Genetic engineering could change everything though.

The European Royalty tried that for a while but abandon the interbreeding before it could take effect.

Actually they had an effect: Queen Victoria spreaded haemophilia around the royal families of Europe.

This article is nonsense. There needs to be genetic variation first, before there can be speciation at at all. Haves and have nots are not based on genes, but on social interactions that are not heritable. Granted, riches are usually passed on, but not nearly always, and riches can be lost very easily.

There won't be reproductive isolation between rich and poor, nor intelligent and less intelligent. The traits are not heritable. Therefore, the appearance of the two groups can not differentiate, nor will they at any point be uncapable of creating viable offspring. Biologically speaking, this makes no sense.

Socially speaking, might be a whole different matter. But I wish they didn't make evolutionary pictures based on that.

There won't be reproductive isolation between ... intelligent and less intelligent. The traits are not heritable.
There is a very strong link between the intelligence of the parents and the intelligence if their child.

Education is not heritable, but base intelligence is.

BUT most people who make themselves self made millionaires do so not through intelligence but through their ability in social interactions - leadership, negotiation, selling, etc.

This article suggests that, in 100,000 years, humans could divide into two species. Rather than the standard cause of evolution (geographic isolation of species), he suggests that it could be a socioeconomic issue. The two species would be divided between "haves" and "have nots". While I don't agree with this theory, I also don't disagree.

Sadly, the article isn't quite detailed enough, but there are some bits of information that make it plausible.

Those who are poor, tend to stay poor. Those who are rich, tend to stay rich. This is true in most societies.
Now, add to that social circles. Those who are rich tend to live near each other. Their children go to the same schools. They tend to attend similar universities. They tend to get similar jobs.
Poor people function the same way. Most neighborhoods are defined by SES more than any other single factor.

This would mean that the rich are meeting more other rich people, and therefore more likely to marry another rich person. Again, same for poor. If this is the case, is it all that inconcievable that there will start to be genetic drifts based on these lines?

I don't agree with his assessment of what these humans will look like, but that is really not the point.

My question is does it seem possible that Homo Sapien will divide into two different species based on class differences?

The article (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13547374,00.html)
Note: the article also mentions some other predictions about the future of human evolution. Feel free to discuss these as well, or add your own predictions.
At the rate humanity is going, we will have rendered this planet inhospitable to human life long before we have a chance to evolve as he describes. We're already more than 4 billion humans over the carrying capacity of this planet, and not slowing down yet.

At the rate humanity is going, we will have rendered this planet inhospitable to human life long before we have a chance to evolve as he describes. We're already more than 4 billion humans over the carrying capacity of this planet, and not slowing down yet.


Man I'd like to see where you got tha 4 billion stat from?

At the rate humanity is going, we will have rendered this planet inhospitable to human life long before we have a chance to evolve as he describes. We're already more than 4 billion humans over the carrying capacity of this planet, and not slowing down yet.

Stupid fear mongering.

Stupid fear mongering.

Heheh anybody else see the irony here?:p

Heheh anybody else see the irony here?:p

Only ignorant people who doesnt know about some statistical projections.

Only ignorant people who doesnt know about some statistical projections.


Hahahahah sheesh you kill me!;)

Man I'd like to see where you got tha 4 billion stat from?
I discussed this on other threads, as well.

Carrying capacity refers to the maximal population size of a given species that an area can support without reducing its ability to support the same species in the future. In this case, the species is human, and the "area" is our planet.

The key here is the part about "...without reducing its ability to support the same species in the future." Clearly, humanity is well past the carrying capacity of this planet already, since we are only able to support our current population by depleting resources far faster than they are replenished. This includes our use of fresh water (a notable example being the depletion of aquafers), the spreading problems with soil exhaustion, and numerous other resources.

Technology and social advances can only do so much, since the Earth has a finite area and there is a finite amount of biomass and other resources available to us.

I've studied this subject for quite some time, since I found the concept interesting when I first encountered it a number of years back. Based on a lot of reading that I've done, I agree with the evaluation of researchers who estimate the carrying capacity of the Earth at about 2.5 billion humans, assuming that we want to maintain a European standard of living for all those humans.

Obviously we could support more humans if we were willing to sacrifice quality of life, but I would rather have 2.5 billion well-fed and healthy humans than have an extra several billion who are starving. I certainly don't like the way our world currently works, where a lucky minority live in luxury at the expense of others.

Hahahahah sheesh you kill me!;)

I really didnt mean to :(

Stupid fear mongering.
Facts exist regardless of how people feel about them. If it scares people to realize that humans are past the biophysical carrying capacity of Earth then I am sorry to hurt their feelings, but that's just reality for you. I'm sad that rape and murder exist, but that doesn't make somebody a "fear monger" if they point out that rape and murder exist.

Considering your own concerns about the increase in the Muslim population of Europe (as evidenced by a current front-page thread), I am surprised that you would decide to refer to this information as "fear mongering." Are you intentionally seeking to "monger" some fear? Or is it only "fear mongering" when overpopulation is viewed as a global, species-level concern, as opposed to a race war?

I discussed this on other threads, as well.

Carrying capacity refers to the maximal population size of a given species that an area can support without reducing its ability to support the same species in the future. In this case, the species is human, and the "area" is our planet.

The key here is the part about "...without reducing its ability to support the same species in the future." Clearly, humanity is well past the carrying capacity of this planet already, since we are only able to support our current population by depleting resources far faster than they are replenished. This includes our use of fresh water (a notable example being the depletion of aquafers), the spreading problems with soil exhaustion, and numerous other resources.

Technology and social advances can only do so much, since the Earth has a finite area and there is a finite amount of biomass and other resources available to us.

I've studied this subject for quite some time, since I found the concept interesting when I first encountered it a number of years back. Based on a lot of reading that I've done, I agree with the evaluation of researchers who estimate the carrying capacity of the Earth at about 2.5 billion humans, assuming that we want to maintain a European standard of living for all those humans.

Obviously we could support more humans if we were willing to sacrifice quality of life, but I would rather have 2.5 billion well-fed and healthy humans than have an extra several billion who are starving. I certainly don't like the way our world currently works, where a lucky minority live in luxury at the expense of others.


In 100,000 years we'd probably colonize other planets, maybe build planets ourselves or at least space floating cities and farms and whatever. So "animal area" is irrelevant. Shortly, trying to predict 100,000 years later is sci-fi, to pretend that it holds some sorta acedemic weight is stupid.

In 100,000 years we'd probably colonize other planets, maybe build planets ourselves or at least space floating cities and farms and whatever. So "animal area" is irrelevant. Shortly, trying to predict 100,000 years later is sci-fi, to pretend that it holds some sorta acedemic weight is stupid.
Our ability to develop new technologies will be significantly hindered by mass starvation, lack of drinking water, global pandemics, and many of the other consequences of overpopulation.

And that doesn't even get to the fact that it's pretty philosophically weak to say that we can just solve our problems by moving on to new planets. That's like seeing that your undiciplined children have made a mess of your house, but deciding that it's easier to just buy them a new house all for themselves than to actually teach them responsibility.

Facts exist regardless of how people feel about them. If it scares people to realize that humans are past the biophysical carrying capacity of Earth then I am sorry to hurt their feelings, but that's just reality for you. I'm sad that rape and murder exist, but that doesn't make somebody a "fear monger" if they point out that rape and murder exist.

Considering your own concerns about the increase in the Muslim population of Europe (as evidenced by a current front-page thread), I am surprised that you would decide to refer to this information as "fear mongering." Are you intentionally seeking to "monger" some fear? Or is it only "fear mongering" when overpopulation is viewed as a global, species-level concern, as opposed to a race war?

It's fear mongering when you try to predict a time frame of 100,000.
It is analyzing trends when you consider projections of 50 years later.

Shortly, trying to predict 100,000 years later is sci-fi, to pretend that it holds some sorta acedemic weight is stupid.

Trying to predict 100 years is sci-fi.

Look at society 100 years ago. Any similarity with the culture we live in today?
Could they have imagined the world today?
Are social attitudes remotely similar?
Technology?

Can we even begin to guess 100 years from now?
What social upheavles will there be?
What crisis will we face?
What technology will change the world?

Our ability to develop new technologies will be significantly hindered by mass starvation, lack of drinking water, global pandemics, and many of the other consequences of overpopulation.

And that doesn't even get to the fact that it's pretty philosophically weak to say that we can just solve our problems by moving on to new planets. That's like seeing that your undiciplined children have made a mess of your house, but deciding that it's easier to just buy them a new house all for themselves than to actually teach them responsibility.

More stupid fear mongering. We have already "mass starvation, lack of drinking water, global pandemics, and many of the other consequences of overpopulation" in our world, yet our technology develops really fast.
And moving to other planets is just there to debunk your ridiculous claims about the surface of Earth being insufficient for 100,000 years. I'm sure by then we'll have many terraforming technologies to reverse damages, not to mention much much cleaner technologies that'll stop or minimize any environmental damages at the first place. You've got 0 imagination.

It's fear mongering when you try to predict a time frame of 100,000.

Then I guess the OP of this thread was the source of the "fear mongering."

I simply stated that if we continue as we are going, we're going to have much bigger problems than some fanciful notion of diverging human subspecies. That's like saying that if you drive straight east from my house, you're going to hit an ocean before you hit China.


It is analyzing trends when you consider projections of 50 years later.
As a biologist, I find your notions of scale very quaint, if rather irrelevant.

I really didnt mean to :(

Hehe which makes it all the more delcious and ironic!:)

More stupid fear mongering. We have already "mass starvation, lack of drinking water, global pandemics, and many of the other consequences of overpopulation" in our world, yet our technology develops really fast.
And moving to other planets is just there to debunk your ridiculous claims about the surface of Earth being insufficient for 100,000 years. I'm sure by then we'll have many terraforming technologies to reverse damages, not to mention much much cleaner technologies that'll stop or minimize any environmental damages at the first place. You've got 0 imagination.


Actualy I can't remember when we had the last pandemic, but I'm sure it was 100 years or so ago?

Then I guess the OP of this thread was the source of the "fear mongering."

I simply stated that if we continue as we are going, we're going to have much bigger problems than some fanciful notion of diverging human subspecies. That's like saying that if you drive straight east from my house, you're going to hit an ocean before you hit China.


Oh and you see future trends THAT linear?


As a biologist, I find your notions of scale very quaint, if rather irrelevant.

As a biologist or whatever, you are in no position to predict really complex effects of sociological and technological issues for 100,000 years!! You cant analyze trends that far. 50 years makes sense though.

More stupid fear mongering. We have already "mass starvation, lack of drinking water, global pandemics, and many of the other consequences of overpopulation" in our world, yet our technology develops really fast.

Yes, it develops. Progress continues. I never said it didn't.

However, since you seem to dislike the idea of looking forward, allow me to recommend a brief look back in time. Say, 50 years or so? (A time frame you appear to like.) In the 1960s it was widely claimed that technological advances would provide food, health care, and education for 5.5 billion people. Nuclear agroindustrial complexes were one glowing example held up by the champions of human innovation.

We all know how that one turned out, don't we?

Instead of simply counting on future generations to make things all better, why not behave responsibly now? Instead of passing on your debts to your children, under the assumption that they'll all grow up and get rich so they can easily pay off your debts, why not simply behave like a grown up in the first place? Don't consume more than you can sustain. Don't spend more than you earn. Seems pretty simple, doesn't it?


And moving to other planets is just there to debunk your ridiculous claims about the surface of Earth being insufficient for 100,000 years.

That doesn't really debunk my claim, does it? I mean, I'm saying the Earth would not be able to sustain the human population in 100,000 years (assuming our current growth rate), and our migration to other worlds wouldn't disprove that in the least. Indeed, if we need to be moving to other planets, then I've pretty much been proven right, haven't I?


I'm sure by then we'll have many terraforming technologies to reverse damages, not to mention much much cleaner technologies. You've got 0 imagination.
And I'm the one accused of "science fiction." I love it! :D

Actualy I can't remember when we had the last pandemic, but I'm sure it was 100 years or so ago?

How about AIDS in some African countries?

Oh and you see future trends THAT linear?

Some are, some are not.


As a biologist or whatever, you are in no position to predict really complex effects of sociological and technological issues for 100,000 years!! You cant analyze trends that far. 50 years makes sense though.
You can choose to criticize analyses, or to disagree with predictions that have been generated, but we are all in the position to make such analyses and predictions. We can evaluate the data we have, and make predictions based on our evaluations. This is a normal, routine part of science. In some fields (such as my own), we would never bother talking on the scale of 50 years because it's far too tiny a window of time. Other fields focus on hundredths of milliseconds. It's all about your point of view, I guess.

How about AIDS in some African countries?

Yeah it's bad, but not Pandemic.

Yes, it develops. Progress continues. I never said it didn't.

However, since you seem to dislike the idea of looking forward, allow me to recommend a brief look back in time. Say, 50 years or so? (A time frame you appear to like.) In the 1960s it was widely claimed that technological advances would provide food, health care, and education for 5.5 billion people. Nuclear agroindustrial complexes were one glowing example held up by the champions of human innovation.

We all know how that one turned out, don't we?

Instead of simply counting on future generations to make things all better, why not behave responsibly now? Instead of passing on your debts to your children, under the assumption that they'll all grow up and get rich so they can easily pay off your debts, why not simply behave like a grown up in the first place? Don't consume more than you can sustain. Don't spend more than you earn. Seems pretty simple, doesn't it?


I'm not debating against being responsible. I'm debating against "Earth will probably be inhospitable by then". I'm not debating against Kyoto agreement or emissions cutting, I'm debating against "Oh noes let the population drop in just small part of this world, it's good" kinda thinking. It's stupid at best to advocate population drop in technology advancing countries while turning a blind eye (or almost) to Africa.


That doesn't really debunk my claim, does it? I mean, I'm saying the Earth would not be able to sustain the human population in 100,000 years (assuming our current growth rate), and our migration to other worlds wouldn't disprove that in the least. Indeed, if we need to be moving to other planets, then I've pretty much been proven right, haven't I?


And I'm the one accused of "science fiction." I love it! :D

You were saying Earth would be inhospitable because all animals need some surface and Earth not having enough surface blah blah. I'm saying other planets increase that surface; i.e: importing resources from other planets. Get it now?

Yeah it's bad, but not Pandemic.
Please pay a visit to South Africa.

Yeah it's bad, but not Pandemic.

No?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_pandemic

"Presently, Southern Africa is the hardest hit region, with adult prevalence rates exceeding 20% in most countries in the region, and even 30% in Swaziland and Botswana."

Actualy I can't remember when we had the last pandemic, but I'm sure it was 100 years or so ago?


No, actually there have been a few influzena pandemics in the 20th century.

For example, the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918-1919 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu) which was estimated to have killed 5% of the world's population and 25 million in 25 weeks (comapre to AIDS which has taken the lives of as many people in 25 yrs- not to belittle AIDS or to say that it is not a pandemic)

There was also an Asian Flu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Flu) pandemic in 1958 which claimed the lives of 1-4 million people.

So, see pandemics have occured quite recently.

For those who get the Focus, here is a more realistic view on human evolution with genetic alteration in mind:

http://www.focusmag.co.uk/cover.asp

HUMAN 2.0
Our technological advancements are usurping our natural evolution. So where will humanity be in the future?

One million years from now, descendants of humankind are scattered across the far reaches of space. Isolated in environments very different to those on Earth, populations have adapted to the point of speciation, and look very different to the humans of today. On one colonised planet, swollen-headed beings coated in fur struggle in the cold.

On another, humans have developed photosynthetic abilities to make up for unsustainable levels of oxygen. Meanwhile, back on Earth, humanity in its physical form comprises little more than sedentary blobs of flesh plugged into a virtual reality...

Something else to consider - why would the creation of a slave class be necessary with sophisticated robotics? Presuming the ability to engineer said slave class means our level of technology would be highly advanced. Ergo, this class of Epsilon Minus Semi-morons a la Brave New World may be redundant. The idea of the Alpha Double Plus elite is cool though. :)

Another problem with it - the majority of the world population (excluding most whites and some tribes of blacks) is relatively short. Even if the improvements in the article were to come into play, the average height globally (except among this elite, on the assumption that height is a sexually attractive trait - ergo prestigious) would not alter significantly, unless genetic engineering were to be employed. Regarding skin colour - this naturally all rests on the asusmption that brown skin is preferrable - who is to say that it is though? Genetic engineering could allow white skin, or black skin, or any colour, to become predominant. It further neglects something else - a racial "melting pot" of this sort does not eradicate genes found in certain races. Various skin, hair and eye colours will still exist - so it's perfectly possible for these "brown" people to have white or black, or asian children.

The final error is that if fails to take into consideration already mixed countries like Brazil, where usually amongst the elites whites are most common - in these countries (e.g. Mexico), there is indeed an almost fanatical worship of blondism, and whiteness in general. In addition, skin colour is for the most part an adaptation to environmental phenomena. I would think, with sunscreens and more clothing, overall global populations will lighten, as the sun's rays will be mitigated by artificial "appliances". So, all in all, it's a nice bit of fiction, but it neglects many issues.

Here is the original article: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-2190000,curpg-1.cms

The woman used in this article isn't even brown skinned, and is half-European. Her Indian half is likely rather light, and given certain similar phenotypal traits between Indians and Europeans (e.g. progressivism), the mixture is still relatively harmonious. The entire basis of this projection is a bit spurious to me.

http://www.spiritofindia.com/img/saira_mohan_1.jpg

Attila in Europe said it before... the strongest will survive.
Are you strong with AIDS?
The new race will be the race of the riches.
The others will slowly commit auto-genocide.
The Pope in Roma does help, the good man.

In a certain way, how can you survive without money on that crazy planet? To survive they need a god to give them faith in a better world.

Atheists must be rich...

Please pay a visit to South Africa.

Look up the word pandemic.

Look up the word pandemic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_pandemic Read this.

...

No?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_pandemic

"Presently, Southern Africa is the hardest hit region, with adult prevalence rates exceeding 20% in most countries in the region, and even 30% in Swaziland and Botswana."

Again look up the word pandemic. Epeidemic, yes i'll grant you, pandemic nope.

Only 2 species?

If we were say, birds, rather than humans the apparant biological differences between us would have us classified as perhaps as many as a dozen different species. If you add cultural differences like haves vs have nots to it you could make a case for fifty species of human.

Part of the reason for so many species in non-human critters is due to the status bestowed on anyone who "discovers" a new species. Every effort is made to call every tiny difference equal a new species. This is not practiced when studying homo sapiens because anyone brooking the subject is immediately accused of many heinous agendas, true or not. Perhaps far into the future we might adtually and honestly look at differences within humans for the pure benefit of knowlege. For now the wounds are too raw and the blood too hot to even seriously contemplate it. The time frame you advocate for seperate species is not enough to heal the wounds. If the haves in your time frame are still able to breed with the have nots and produce viable offspring then they will both be considered the same species.

Humans are only considered on species because they all have similar behavior, can interbreed easily, and are genetically very similar. There are no two human beings on earth that are so genetically different that they can not reproduce with each other. Few people realize how insignificant genetic differences among human populations are.
Some people even think we should share a genus with chimpanzees, they're THAT similar, and we're all THAT MUCH the same genetically. There is no practical or meaningful way to even suggest that humanity may contain more than one species.

No, actually there have been a few influzena pandemics in the 20th century.

For example, the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918-1919 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu) which was estimated to have killed 5% of the world's population and 25 million in 25 weeks (comapre to AIDS which has taken the lives of as many people in 25 yrs- not to belittle AIDS or to say that it is not a pandemic)

There was also an Asian Flu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Flu) pandemic in 1958 which claimed the lives of 1-4 million people.

So, see pandemics have occured quite recently.

Ahhh cheers, it was actualy the Spanish Flu pandemic I was thinking about.

Again look up the word pandemic. Epeidemic, yes i'll grant you, pandemic nope.
From dictionary.com

1. (of a disease) prevalent throughout an entire country, continent, or the whole world; epidemic over a large area.
2. general; universal: pandemic fear of atomic war.
I'd say its prevalence in South Africa alone is enough to give it pandemic status.

From dictionary.com


I'd say its prevalence in South Africa alone is enough to give it pandemic status.


Yeah I use dictionary.com as well.

However see this.

http://www.hotqa.com/generic-health-2/1385-hotqa-com.html

Yeah I use dictionary.com as well.

However see this.

http://www.hotqa.com/generic-health-2/1385-hotqa-com.html


Answers:
The size and scope of the diseases effect...epidemics can be local, pandemics can be global.

Other Answers:
Pandemics spread over the whole world, Epidemics are a lot of people sick in one community.

Given AIDs overall prevalence, how can it possibly be said to be local? It's spread out on a global scale. To be a pandemic doesn't mean it has to exist all over the world - just that it exists in a significant portion of it, which it does.

Given the "Other answers" I'd say neither definition is adequate - AIDs would be considered an in-betweener. Failing that, it's best considered a pandemic.

Considering your own concerns about the increase in the Muslim population of Europe (as evidenced by a current front-page thread), I am surprised that you would decide to refer to this information as "fear mongering." Are you intentionally seeking to "monger" some fear? Or is it only "fear mongering" when overpopulation is viewed as a global, species-level concern, as opposed to a race war?
Considering NY doesn't think of Muslims (or damn near every other race other than his beloved European arctype) are human, I'd guess he doesn't think the world is overpopulated with "humans" per se.

This article suggests that, in 100,000 years, humans could divide into two species. Rather than the standard cause of evolution (geographic isolation of species), he suggests that it could be a socioeconomic issue. The two species would be divided between "haves" and "have nots". While I don't agree with this theory, I also don't disagree.


That's stupid. Even if different classes did not intermarry in significant proportions (which they do) it would still be foolish to believe that they don't interbreed.

It's physically possible, but there is nothing going on that would lead it to happen.

Besides. If humans had it within them to form different species, then we'd have formed something of a ring species by now with all the seclusion that different populations have had from one another.

Given AIDs overall prevalence, how can it possibly be said to be local? It's spread out on a global scale. To be a pandemic doesn't mean it has to exist all over the world - just that it exists in a significant portion of it, which it does.

Given the "Other answers" I'd say neither definition is adequate - AIDs would be considered an in-betweener. Failing that, it's best considered a pandemic.

Sheesh,

Okay The CDC (an americain organisation) puts it thusly. An outbreak of a disease or virus, is deedmed an epedemic if after counting all weekly deaths(for the country)the amount of deaths caused by the disease or virus equals 7.7%. This figure is changable dependant on the actual diesase/virus, it's capacitie to spread, and the amount of people in the country.

The point being it needs a high percentage of deaths due to the disaese/virus than normal.

A pandemic takes at the root these basic % and applies it globaly, or across an area larger than a country.

If you are saying to me that in the whole of the African continent, that out of all weekly deaths at least 7.7% are because of AIDS, then I'll agree that there is an AIDS Pandemic in Africa.

Sheesh,

Okay The CDC (an americain organisation) puts it thusly. An outbreak of a disease or virus, is deedmed an epedemic if after counting all weekly deaths(for the country)the amount of deaths caused by the disease or virus equals 7.7%. This figure is changable dependant on the actual diesase/virus, it's capacitie to spread, and the amount of people in the country.

The point being it needs a high percentage of deaths due to the disaese/virus than normal.

A pandemic takes at the root these basic % and applies it globaly, or across an area larger than a country.

If you are saying to me that in the whole of the African continent, that out of all weekly deaths at least 7.7% are because of AIDS, then I'll agree that there is an AIDS Pandemic in Africa.
Strange definition for an epidemic.

Kinda means you cannot have an epidemic of non-fatal illnesses. Like saying the fact 15% or so of the UKs teenagers have Clymadia does not make clymadia epidemic.

But anyway...

About 2.5 million africans died of aids last year. (From the wiki source earlier)

Africa has 13% of the world's population, and 69% of the world's HIV or AIDS cases. Still, the population of the African continent is expected to rise from 800 million now to 1.8 billion in 2050, because the fertility rate of 38 births per 1,000 people is still much higher than the mortality rate of 14 deaths per 1,000. Also, 43% of the continent's population is under age 15 (http://www.overpopulation.org/Africa.html)

So africa has 14 deaths/1000 people and 800,000,000 people.

This equals about 11.2 million deaths a year.

2.5 million of those are due to AIDS.

Therefore AIDS makes up 22% of all deaths in Africa. Almost THREE times the threashold for an epidemic. Applied over a very large continent. Pandemic yet?

So africa has 14 deaths/1000 people and 800,000,000 people.

This equals about 11.2 million deaths a year.

2.5 million of those are due to AIDS.

Therefore AIDS makes up 22% of all deaths in Africa. Almost THREE times the threashold for an epidemic. Applied over a very large continent. Pandemic yet?

I haven't checked your maths, but if 2.5 million out of 11.2 million does infact render to 22% then I'll agree it is a Pandemic.

If anything, the divide will be between the intelligent and the stupid. The stupid tend to breed the stupider, and the intelligent rarely breed with the stupid.

There was a great SF story on this very point, Cyril Kornbluth's "The Marching Morons."

To bring us back to the original discussion:

I wrote to Dr. Oliver Curry to get the non-hyped version of his story, he sent me this:

"For those of you interested in the original essay, click here: http:// ************/yha88k"

I replied to him with several critical questions. He hasn't replied yet.