Eloi and Morlocks, Part Deux

Apparently Aquaman's British cousin has foreseen the evolutionary paths of the human race, and it's H.G. Wells as adapted by porn stars:

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.

There's so much wrong with this article that I hardly know where to begin.

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.

Because we all know that being tall and skinny is highly correlated with teh smart.

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.

I'm not sure how these square jaws get passed down only to the men, or glossy hair to the women.

And it's just coincidence that the next thousand years will push us toward a beauty standard that's been the norm for a century at most.  That's going to be a more interesting question - how are beauty norms going to "evolve"?  We've seen an increase in emphasis on being thin in the first world now that famine and hunger are more rare, and a shift from pale to tan as the ideal skin tone (for whites, anyway) as melanin moves from an indicator of working in the fields to an indicator of vacations at the beach.  Increased presence of mass media combined with image editing techniques (airbrushing, Photoshop,.etc.) has also changed our standards - we compare each other to what we see on television or in movies rather than to "real life" people.

Of course, most of what's put forth as beautiful is bunk - it doesn't have much to do with who I'm actually attracted to.  And I think that's sufficiently the case to confound any idea of beauty standard as natural selection - an overwhelming majority of people reproduce if they want to.

Racial differences will be ironed out by interbreeding, producing a uniform race of coffee-coloured people.

Maybe Europe will homogenize as interracial relationships become less stigmatized, but I'm not seeing Asia or Africa changing its racial makeup significantly without some major upheaval.

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.

Social skills, such as communicating and interacting with others, could be lost, along with emotions such as love, sympathy, trust and respect. People would become less able to care for others, or perform in teams.

Not this again.

Assuming we've left the realm of genetic evolution and are talking more about memetics, it's still bunk.  When I talk on the telephone with someone, I am communicating and interacting with them.  If it's on Skype, that's still communication and interaction.  Same for AIM, or on a blog - it still counts.  In addition, communications technology has let me interact with *more* people than I otherwise would.  All this talk of communication in decline, when it's really more prevalent than ever before, is just "kids these days" ranting.