What are your thoughts on this?

Question

I want to know what everyone's thoughts are on this article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=489653&in_page_id=1965

Do you think that evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry is making a big discovery or do you think he's completely insane?

"Men will have symmetrical facial features, deeper voices and bigger penises, according to Curry in a report commissioned for men's satellite TV channel Bravo.

Women will all have glossy hair, smooth hairless skin, large eyes and pert breasts, according to Curry."

What do you think of this statement? Do you think that the characteristics listed here are personal, or that all of mankind desire these traits? What about this statement.."Racial differences will be a thing of the past as interbreeding produces a single coffee-coloured skin tone. " Irrational or rational?

Setting aside religion, what are your true thoughts-your first instincts?

Answer 1

Interesting theory but I don't think Curry is taking everything into account. How you look doesn't just depend on your mother and father but your whole gene pool. Also according to most evolutionary theories, evolution is adaptation out of need to survive or constant exposure, like our immune system weakening from medicine or becoming hairier because of cold weather, so bigger penises and smooth hairless skin seem unimportant in this case. A single skin color does seem possible but not in the next 1,000 years. I'm Christian but looking at this scientifically, it does not seem rational.

Answer 2

Curry cites no evidence to support his science fiction account of the future. I see no reason to suspect those with less money value beauty less than the wealthy. However one might look at Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, et al, & conclude we are breeding a witless crew of attractive self serving females.
I do think a case for an evolved economic model akin to Serfdom can be made... but wealthy men tend to find attractive females & reproduce, regardless of their looks. Recent research has indicated those with an IQ below 90 are 4 times as likely to produce offspring as those with an IQ above 125... this holds true for both sexes. Therefore we are selectively breeding for a lower IQ. We are still argueing about how well IQ measures intelligence.
The crystal ball is always murkey & we very seldom get things right when attempting to predict the future. I'd love to talk to Curry & see if he can produce any evidence to support his hypothesis.

Answer 3

How, especially in an age of plastic surgery and make-up, are we going to select for those things? And what about those of us who don't fit the genetic ideal- do we just not ever get laid again? Only the gorgeous and the butt-ugly have kids? And how are women's skin tones supposed to get lighter if everyone's ending up coffee-colored? Also, populations tend to get fatter as they get richer and more well-fed, so why are people getting slim? And isn't it _funny_ that the Elois are getting closer to the western ideal of beauty? Huh.

I'm going to give that guy the benefit of the doubt and say he was pressured for an article he either didn't want to write or had too much writer's block to right, so he just got drunk and mined _The Time Machine_. He had to have been drunk, 'cuz he messed it up. About the only thing that I can get behind here is the coffee-colored skin thing, although I really doubt that everyone's going to come in one shade someday. My guess is that we'll have a nice range of light brown to dark brown someday.

Answer 4

My first thoughts are that Curry is assuming that people with these characteristics will have more children, when this is not true.
Beautiful women, for example, who marry rich men, do not choose them for their looks. They also may not go on to have large families, increasing the gene frequency for good looks. In fact, affluent families in western society are smaller than those from lower socio-economic groups.
Also, men who look for these ideal qualities in women, don't choose them for their child-bearing abilities, or to have children with them.
Looks are not as important for men, in that there is a broader range of what is good-looking or acceptable. Sexual selection tends to be along the lines of ability to provide a stable lifestyle. Symmetry would be a very minor component of sexual selection.

Answer 5

Some parts, like the over dependence on the medication is ringing true now. We can't fight off the very things we create (ie super bug).


First instinct was this is about a hundred years after hg wells wrote his book.

Man will be dead long before this has a chance to happen.

But if we were allowed to continue on, I could see something like this happening. A definite two+ species world.

Answer 6

Interesting theory, but I would like to see the science behind it and not large pictures of goofy films in the middle of the article. It is conceivable, if the human race will continue to exist that far into the future. I tend to think it will be more of a "Children of Men" sort of ending.

Answer 7

It is speculation on sexual selection trends over the next 100,000 years.What big discovery? Sexual selection has always been a big driver in humans.

Why is it that people on YA always go off half-****** on everything?

Evolutionary theory can tell you about the past and the present, but is a poor predictor of future evolutionary processes.

I am tired of answering this question and seeing the moronic responses from others. So, why don't you people find some other one day wonder?

Answer 8

If we really were trying to devolve into two distinct species we would have by now. He's read "the time machine" one time too many.

Answer 9

Totally rational, which means its probably wrong. Rationality seems to have no place in human society!

Answer 10

It is not reasonable. The fact that ugly people can have beautiful children shows how it won't happen.