Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jennifer Ulean Breedlove on December 27, 2010 at 3:03pm

I hope not!

Permalink Reply by Lilla Bertalan on December 27, 2010 at 3:21pm

Seen Idiocracy? Pretty much explains it.

Permalink Reply by Mo Trauen on December 27, 2010 at 3:41pm

A smaller population would definitely be a good thing.  How we get there, however, could be horrifically tragic.

Permalink Reply by Doug Reardon on December 27, 2010 at 3:50pm

well, I hope. at least, it's not one of those yucky male ones!

Permalink Reply by Doug Reardon on December 27, 2010 at 5:20pm

well, if he's got you, I agree, he is lucky!

Permalink Reply by Mo Trauen on December 27, 2010 at 3:53pm

Oh, I didn't mean to say that you were hoping for a catastrophe.  What I meant was that, given mankind's apparent inability to even agree when a plan is necessary, there is a strong likelihood that any drastic change in our population will almost certainly be a result of a catastrophe.

 

All of this is really a tangent.  The question really is whether we descend into a semi-animalistic dystopia--a new, better armed, dark age.

Permalink Reply by Serzon on January 20, 2012 at 3:38pm

I'm wondering if we are still evolving anyway.... or are we?

Permalink Reply by Dale Headley on April 1, 2013 at 6:44pm

Given enough time, genetic drift could lead anywhere, but the timescale required probably means the human species is more likely to have become extinct before any significant changes occur by that mechanism.

Evolution is primarily driven by the emergence, usually from genetic mutations, of characteristis that tend to provide a reproductive advantage.  Any characteristic that appears, but makes no difference on the chances of survival to a reproductive age will not continue to evolve, linearly.  Therefore, "backwards" evolution through natural selection is highly unlikely.  Furthermore, what counts as "backwards" is culturally biased.  But that does not mean that we can't see significant changes in our morphology for reasons other than evolution.

We have become a taller species, especially in the U.S., in just the last 100 years.  But that is NOT evolution.  That is a result of medical and nutritional changes.  True, a case could be made that tall men have a reproduction advantage over short men, in which case we would indeed evolve to become a taller species.  But that takes many more years than just a century.  

However, there is one caveat: if the Republicans and the Jesus freaks take over the country, being stupid may indeed provide a better chance of survival.  If so, we could be looking at a future as envisioned in the Luke Wilson film, “Idiocracy.”

The evolution pictured in “Idiocracy,” however is not so much driven by survival as it is by choice.  The writer, Mike Judge (“Office Space”), imagines that the ACTUAL FACT that stupid people are reproducing at a much faster rate, BY CHOICE, than are smart people, means that future populations are sure to be less intelligent.  Can’t really disagree with that.  Beware the G.O.P.!   

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page