I'll be dead by then, so I doubt I will care. But wait, I am already 6 feet tall, with blond hair and green eyes. Guess I got the goods.

I'm hoping the scientists words were mangled in translation...Implying that cosmetic surgery somehow affects genetics? Bad science!

This is just an "alaming prediction". Hmm, I can make my own prediction. In ten seconds people will read my comment and will upvote me and eventually I will garner enough karma to raise me a level. In the future I will gain enough karma over time to make me a Plime Elite.

Just for that, I'm not going to upvote you. Ha!

Pure bulls**t and fabricated out of thin air with no data whatsoever. This was first reported earlier this year.

There is no reason and none given of course on why the change would take place.

Evolution can wrought changes, but humans are no longer evolving or if they are, they are doing so at an even slower pace than evolution normally works.

Evolution works based on the idea that certain mutations are beneficial and those with such mutations survive to reproduce more on the average.

With modern science and intelligence, the vast majority of people, no matter their status, viability, or any other benefit or detriment can and will reproduce.

Since there would be no mutational benefit that would ensure the recipient of a better chance to reproduce, such mutation is unlikely to be selected for.

Certainly such mutations as explained above wouldn't be selected. Perhaps mutations such as longer fertility, better constitutions, a better ability to fight off disease and whatnot would allow for a higher chance to reproduce. That would be about it though.

You mean I wont be able to shoot lazers out of my eyes or fly??? Crap.....Scientists better step it up and get me some cybernetics. How am I expected to fight crime if I cant at least fire a plasma beam out of my hand.

No ugly, goblin-like, intelligent creatures?


I hope they're not planning on having computers in the future, because there won't be anyone to program them and keep them running.


/Speaking as a programmer.

I'm inclined to agree with the author but only slightly. Already we see a sort of divorce between the haves and havenots of our society. Go to a real upscale part of your local city and see how many underprivileged "hotties" there are. Sure you'll see some, but the ratio could be seen in one direction. I'm also talking about the areas of schools, shopping centers, everywhere there are people.

I live in North Texas where there are some ridiculously wealthy families all living in these enclaves (North Dallas, Westlake, Southlake, etc.) and growing up here it's apparent that a lot of families have grown with the concept that money and looks are the things to have.

Take that concept and run it for 30,000 years of natural selection where the desired traits are not physical prowess or child bearing ability but instead big knockers and surviving anorexia as long as possible and I'm left to wonder...

I think his example is a little extreme, but I'd like a real scientific study on this concept and how it can already be taking shape within the framework of the Modern Eloi.

I think people are still evolving. For instance, I have only 24 teeth (average human has 32). My wisdom teeth and 2 others never developed and 2 others never cut through the gums and had to be removed surgically. I've met a few others with this (not related to me). I've been told this is an evolutionary change because humans need less teeth now since we don't eat the kinds of foods that require all the molars and all the incisors. Not saying it's a human improvement, mind you, just a change. In fact wisdom teeth have pretty much out-lived their usefulness in all humans, most people have them extracted.

I don't necessarily agree with the author on what changes will take place though, that remains to be seen. But humans do tend to be much lazier and inactive than ever before. We have computers which we sit in front of for hours on end when we used to be out hunting and gathering, building our shelters and forming some sort of body covering. Our machines and devices make many of our body parts less necessary, cars, food processors, washing machines, heck ride-on lawn mowers.

And the real question is, can the human race even survive it's own "progress" to be able to evolve beyond a few innocuous mutations (like less teeth)? Seems far more likely we'll destroy our own existence long before we evolve, else we'll all be grotesque creatures with noses that look like mesh screens, and withered bodies and pasty almost transparent skin (due to things like breathing pollutants, lack of water and energy and inability to go out in the sun at all). Sounds lovely.

whats up?

Of course there's the theory that humans never evolved at all and that we're the same as we were when we were first put on the Earth.

*Patiently waits for downvotes and ridicule for creationism crazy talk*

Based on personal experience, I'd have to agree. You'll end up with beautiful, tall, managers and ugly, goblinlike IT professionals.

:P

One word: Bullsh*t.

Bulls**t. We'll be three species. The attractive, intelligent ones; the dumb goblinlike ones, and Chuck Norris.

Maybe our brains are evolving much more noticeably than our bodies.

That's not a theory, it's a hypothesis. Find some facts to support that hypothesis and you've got a theory.

I think evolution is a subtle process. But where the fuel for change used to be survival and reproduction, it's altogether different for humans now. Survival has taken on a whole different set of criteria. What was demanded of you to make it through life 1000, 100, 50, 20 years ago is not necessarily the same today. I like to see it as evolution itself evolving past the point of only changing physical characteristics to impacting our conscious itself. With the introduction of newer technology and the ever expanding internet, things are going to get very interesting within our lifetimes.

Of course this is all hypothetical jargon ... but hey it's fun when you let the mind meander a bit.

Actually, even calling it a hypothesis is generous.

I don't agree with the author specifically but saying further evolution of our species is bulls**t is like the official in 1900 that wanted to close the patent office because everything of value had been invented.

There's no reason an evolutionary branch is not possible.

It's human ego to assume that a mutation would not be useful. The mutation might be the more brilliant and beautiful branch and we might be
the dimmer witted underclass.

I didn't say there was no more human evolution, just that the time to bring about changes has increased tremendously.

Any major evolution change takes eons.

My point is the chances of a mutation that will make me more likely to reproduce isn't great. The methods and reasons to pick a mate or to just pick a quick f somewhere are different than in the early years of mankind.

Sure some might arise that would improve my chances but the force demanding such changes is not as great.