This BBC report on a possible dramatic split in the future within the human race based on superior and inferior genetics provides an interesting sci-fi twist to our recent discussions about genetics and IQ. Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics predicts that by the end of the next millennium, human beings will fall into two distinct sub-species based of physical stature and beauty in which current day racial differences will have been ironed out to give rise to a uniform race of coffee-colored people.
Update: According to Razib: this guy’s an idiot. he pulled this s–t last year.
Update # 2: Okay, Oliver Curry is not an idiot after all. That honor goes to the journalists.
Humanity may split into two sub-species in 100,000 years’ time as predicted by HG Wells, an expert has said.
Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics expects a genetic upper class and a dim-witted underclass to emerge.
The human race would peak in the year 3000, he said – before a decline due to dependence on technology.
People would become choosier about their sexual partners, causing humanity to divide into sub-species, he added. The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative and a far cry from the "underclass" humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures.
Race ‘ironed out’
But in the nearer future, humans will evolve in 1,000 years into giants between 6ft and 7ft tall, he predicts, while life-spans will have extended to 120 years, Dr Curry claims.
Physical appearance, driven by indicators of health, youth and fertility, will improve, he says, while men will exhibit symmetrical facial features, look athletic, and have squarer jaws, deeper voices and bigger penises.
Women, on the other hand, will develop lighter, smooth, hairless skin, large clear eyes, pert breasts, glossy hair, and even features, he adds. Racial differences will be ironed out by interbreeding, producing a uniform race of coffee-coloured people.
However, Dr Curry warns, in 10,000 years time humans may have paid a genetic price for relying on technology. Spoiled by gadgets designed to meet their every need, they could come to resemble domesticated animals.
Accidental Blogger 
4 responses to “Whither The Human Race?”
PDF of actual article by Oliver Curry
The Elois and Morlocks (HG Wells ‘The Time Machine’) all over again- how tiresome!
LikeLike
Yep it’s the Robert Mugabe story :
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/traps/2007/10/28/human-race-will-split-into-two-species/
LikeLike
More the Elois and Morlocks, this reminds me of the recent movie “Idiocracy.” Of course in Idiocracy, everyone is stupid–but that is more likely the real future anyway. Unless the beautiful and creative people stop staring into their mirrors and start having more babies, that is.
The only way Curry is right is if we develop the artificial womb–a la Huxley’s “Brave New World.” Then we will not only have the tall, beautiful, smart, “creatives”–we will also have several other categories in gradients down to the hardy “menials.”
In the “Brave New World” scenario, we will not grow a large crop of “low lifes and criminals”. Under the “Idiocracy” scenario, that unfortunate category may actually constitute the majority of humans. Shades of Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, Kim’s North Korea, and Saddam’s Iraq?
LikeLike
“Of course in Idiocracy, everyone is stupid–but that is more likely the real future anyway. Unless the beautiful and creative people stop staring into their mirrors and start having more babies, that is.”
Whatever else standardized intelligence tests show, they suggest that this is untrue. Scoring on the “gold standard” tests such as the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scales (WAIS-III), currently in its third revision, and the Stanford-Binet, currently in its fourth revision, have constantly had to be adjusted over their period of existence, because the mean– scored as 100– from which deviations are measured keeps shifting upwards. Credible psychologists have always told me that no one is sure why this is: whether it’s nutrition, education, some other factor, or a host of factors.
Professionally, I became aware of this through the shifty use of older forms by agencies that didn’t want to pay for services and benefits on the basis of mental retardation; someone who tests as having an IQ below 70 (plus/minus 5) on the WAIS-III, may test higher on the WAIS-II. Conversely, this means that, like Marilyn Monroe’s dress size and the US dollar, even Einstein’s IQ is subject to devaluation.
For what it’s worth, having worked a lot with IQ tests and with the individuals tested, I’d say that they certainly test something, however we choose to understand the thing tested. I don’t buy total relativism on this stuff; to say that the tests are meaningless ignores, among other facts, that there are good and bad tests. The WAIS, for example, has twelve scales, which include both “performance scales” that present non-verbal tasks such as putting together puzzles and recreating figures, and verbal scales that present verbal tasks. The test is almost always given together with a test of adaptive function (such as the Vineland Behavior Scales) and a test of academic function (e.g. the Wide Range Achievement Tests). What a psychologist trained in testing will tell you is that the “I.Q.”– an average of the scales on, e.g., the WAIS– doesn’t tell you a whole lot, even about the narrow question of intellectual function. A person with an acquired brain injury might retain very high skills in certain areas, and residual academic knowledge, but serious deficits that lead to a low over-all score. Serious social deprivation can lead to an impaired verbal score that lowers the overall score, but you’ll generally see higher performance scale scores. The same is true in a verbal learning disability– since the I.Q. is an average, it may be normal to lower for that person, even though their performance scales are quite high, suggesting that the person is quite bright in their non-verbal abilities.
Just thought I’d throw that in there. I find “I.Q.” ultimately a pretty boring, because reductive, subject, but neuropsychological testing and the complicated patterns of brain function (which I consider distinct from questions of “worth” or “potential”) pretty interesting.
LikeLike