• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Was H. G. Wells' Vision Of The Future Correct?

Xanatico

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
1,105
Well, some guy calling himself Evolutionary Theorist has been paid by TV channel Bravo to make a report on what humans of the future would be like. I personally wonder what qualifications this guy has, seems like down right bullshit. I imagine he might simply have taken the easy option, rented the Time Machine movie starring Guy Pearce and written down what happens in it. Here´s the article anyway:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm
 
In the novel, it was the Eloi who were good looking, but dim.

The Morlocks may be nasty, but at least they keep the technology working.

It's probably bollocks, becuase it assumes our society's going to go continue on its present lines into the future. Also it assumes that being smart and good looking will necessarily ensure long term survival. It assumes that evolution has a direction.
 
I think it is bollocks, because it doesn't take into account lots of random factors that affect our evolution. It assumes we will continue on our present course for the next 100,000 years.

However, having said that, there is a kind of precedent - look at the middle ages. During the middle ages, the peasants were small and undernourished, whilst the English nobility were huge strapping chaps. If that situation had continued for 100,000 years, our evolution might have turned out like the article says.

The prediction is that the 'beautiful ones' will end up being 7 feet tall, and will have symmetrical features, whilst the short people will be ugly.
From my own experience, I haven't seen many very tall people who have 'symmetrical features', but I have seen plenty of small beautiful people (i.e. small but perfectly formed). So, it'll probably take quite a leap in evolution to achieve this prediction...

As for being coffee-coloured, that may eventually come true. It's already happening on council estates... :)
 
Is it feasible that the rich will evolve into a new species by virtue of being able to afford genetically engineered offspring? Not to mention cybernetic enhancements.
 
graylien said:
Is it feasible that the rich will evolve into a new species by virtue of being able to afford genetically engineered offspring? Not to mention cybernetic enhancements.

Parents choosing the sex of their baby, tests for various conditions and illnesses which lead to abortions etc., etc.. will all play their part too.
 
Without natural selection I expect we'll all eventually look like the morlocks and be smart as the eloi. Except we'll rely on technology to not die outright from all our genetic problems.
 
It's already happened. You'll notice that England are playing with Crouch and Rooney up front.
 
I think it's a load of crap, especially with the idea of a "genetic underclass", and was quite shocked to see it published so widely.
 
H_James said:
I think it's a load of crap, especially with the idea of a "genetic underclass", and was quite shocked to see it published so widely.

I'm not so sure about the 'genetic underclass' idea being that crap. I think Myth was on the mark with his mediæval example. I actually think the potential division between two genetic classes is possibly bigger now than it was then. I wouldn't be surprised if the underclass then weren't actually eating as well then if not better than many are now in this country. We definitely eat more now, but do a lot of people actually eat better?

Also, whilst money could buy you (better) doctors then and now - or at least a quicker appointment - what those doctors are now capable of must contribute to a division where one group of people's healthcare will be far better served than a different group. Also, because of other socio-economic influences it's rare and unlikely that a these two* groups will intermix, instead reinforcing their own genepools.

*I'm not saying these two groups are the only groups but groups on the other end of the spectrum.
 
It doesn't sound very scientific, and there is no scientific background in the article. It sounds more like he is looking at various trends and then guessing. Oh wait - he's an economist.
 
Human beings don't seem to have changed all that drastically over the past 50,000 - 100,000 years so I don't expect 'em to change all that much over the next.
 
Human beings don't seem to have changed all that drastically over the past 50,000 - 100,000 years so I don't expect 'em to change all that much over the next.
I agree and it seems that the soft/easy life is detrimental to humans. Will we see the rich searching council estates for genetic stock to bolster their failing and puny offspring?
 
I suspect that the future of the human race is always carried down at the intersection of Wretched Street and Dismal Road rather than up in Billionaire Heights.
 
Rynner - note that this has little to do with the actual thread topic - maybe start a new thread?
 
Thanks for that Ryn, looking forward to the second episode. :yeay:
 
James_H2 said:
Rynner - note that this has little to do with the actual thread topic - maybe start a new thread?
Thread title edited for a better one-size-fits-all fit.

P_M
 
It's curious that this sort of rubbish gets air-time? It seems to me very loaded in terms of who are 'successful' human beings & who are going to become a trollish underclass.
The whole theory is as daft as comparing geology to clothing fashions & coming up with a conclusion as to what we'll be wearing in 100,000 years?

'As for being coffee-coloured, that may eventually come true. It's already happening on council estates...' I'm sorry Mytho but that's a horrible statement.
 
shruggy63 said:
'As for being coffee-coloured, that may eventually come true. It's already happening on council estates...' I'm sorry Mytho but that's a horrible statement.

I was trying to be objective, actually - not offensive.
Go to almost any council in a big city in this country, and you will see lots of coffee-coloured children. It's as simple as that, I wasn't being racist or nasty.
 
I'm sorry Mytho, I'm sure you're a good guy but pointing to 'coffee coloured' people on council estates isn't good. What does 'Go to almost any council in a big city in this country', mean?
If you want examples of mixed race people being successful can I suggest Lewis Hamilton & Tiger Woods.
 
shruggy63 said:
If you want examples of mixed race people being successful can I suggest Lewis Hamilton & Tiger Woods.

There's that other guy too...whatshisface...President of somewhere or other....
 
If this template is used then there's going to be more Morlocks than Eloi. The under classes have a propensity to have larger broods.
 
shruggy63 said:
I'm sorry Mytho, I'm sure you're a good guy but pointing to 'coffee coloured' people on council estates isn't good. What does 'Go to almost any council in a big city in this country', mean?
If you want examples of mixed race people being successful can I suggest Lewis Hamilton & Tiger Woods.

Oh, I see your point there.
You're right, but I honestly wasn't trying to insinuate that all mixed-race people end up on a council estate.

My original comment had nothing to do with the perceived financial/social standing of mixed-race people, it was merely an observation of a trend towards the merging or homogenisation of the races. Thousands of years from now, we'll all be the same colour if present trends continue - end of racism!
 
shruggy63 said:
What does 'Go to almost any council in a big city in this country', mean?

That should have been 'Go to almost any council estate in a big city in this country'.
 
Sorry if I came across as the mounted branch of the PC brigade :lol:
 
What is the basis for his predictions? What about potential climate change and a complete change in skills requirement in order to live? Being able to build your own shelter or start your own fire would be easier if you were taller or symmetrical? Perhaps being 'neanderthal' would help you fight off invaders? Bollocks to me I'm afraid.
 
Mythopoeika said:
However, having said that, there is a kind of precedent - look at the middle ages. During the middle ages, the peasants were small and undernourished, whilst the English nobility were huge strapping chaps.

That's a popular misconception - it turns out that medieval folks (in England anyway) were similar in size to us moderns (quoting from memory from the book 1000 ad). People only got small and malnourished with the industrial revolution.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a ... 568132.ece

Over the past five millennia the average height of men in Britain has remained stable at about 170cm (5ft 7in), and that of women at 160cm (5ft 3in).

“The enduring myth that people in the past were much shorter than we are today contains a small element of truth,” writes Sebastian Payne, chief scientist at English Heritage, in British Archaeology. “There have been small changes, and average height has increased by an inch or so over the past 50 years,” he says, attributing the increase to better health and nutrition.

The myth seems to stem from such things as low doorways on some medieval houses, and the small suits of clothes and armour in museums. But Dr Payne says that there are plenty of tall doors, and we simply don’t register
“normally” sized outfits


(And this sort of height change is all to do with nutrition while growing, not genes.)
 
Mythopoeika said:
shruggy63 said:
What does 'Go to almost any council in a big city in this country', mean?

That should have been 'Go to almost any council estate in a big city in this country'.

Because that's where you find all the non-white people, mixed or otherwise...

But if you look at places like Brazil where these has been intense mixing of populations (African, native American and European) for centuries, the population is anything but homogenous.
 
wembley9 said:
But if you look at places like Brazil where these has been intense mixing of populations (African, native American and European) for centuries, the population is anything but homogenous.

Hmmm, interesting point there. Wonder what happened there?
 
Mythopoeika said:
wembley9 said:
But if you look at places like Brazil where these has been intense mixing of populations (African, native American and European) for centuries, the population is anything but homogenous.

Hmmm, interesting point there. Wonder what happened there?

Probably because people don't choose their partners on the basis of what kind of racial mix they have to offer their country.
 
Back
Top