The future of the human race

[removeduser_4536284751384]

What direction is the evolution of humanity currently headed?

It seems to me that smarter and more financially successful people are far worse at reproducing than people who are neither of those things, something that has never been the case in human history before. What effect will this have on future generations?

Not an evolutionary pressure but the main problem facing the technological advancement of the human race at the moment is academic inflation. With every generation we gain more knowledge and spend more time in education. This has been offset by a corresponding increase in life expectancy, but will these two things continue to increase at the same rate? Are humans capable of handling such vast reserves of knowledge? How will humanity's future evolution impact this?

I would love long and detailed analysis.

[Treize]

It is not going very well.

We are being held back by economic failure and religious folks.

Hench we need to create our own Cerberus style organisation dedicated to the advancement of the human race. We would have to develop all kinds of stuff like nuclear fusion, stem cell research, nano technology, cloning, hydrogen, space colonisation and all that. Screw silly old fashioned morals.

[xcorps]

Yeah. Max Planck set us back 1000's of years. If it wasn't for Francis Collins, we might have already decoded the human genome. He was a sleeper. If Larry Wall had been put up against the wall and shot, we would already be using biological input/output for our handheld supercomputers.

Damn those religious folks and their close minded and divisive dark age repression of thought. Those guys were just a bunch of stupidheads, right?

It seems to me that smarter and more financially successful people are far worse at reproducing

Why do you say that? Do you mean actually making children, or making successful children? If you mean successful children, that's rearing, not reproducing. And again, what makes you say that?

Are humans capable of handling such vast reserves of knowledge?

I'd say things are getting better, at least in socio-economic terms. We are, as a species, more wealthy, better fed, healthier, longer lived, and less prone to systemic self destruction than ever before. Obviously some places are better than others.

Is the handling of say, DNA manipulation, any different than handling the development of cheap and available electricity?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Yeah. Max Planck set us back 1000's of years. If it wasn't for Francis Collins, we might have already decoded the human genome. He was a sleeper. If Larry Wall had been put up against the wall and shot, we would already be using biological input/output for our handheld supercomputers.

Damn those religious folks and their close minded and divisive dark age repression of thought. Those guys were just a bunch of stupidheads, right?

I don't know what this is about.

Why do you say that? Do you mean actually making children, or making successful children? If you mean successful children, that's rearing, not reproducing. And again, what makes you say that?

They are worse at actually making children compared to the general population of people who are not as smart or as financially successful. Middle and upper class westerners are contributing to population decline. 70% of scientists do not have children. Compare this to countries like India where having more than two children is the norm for pretty much every family. I'm saying they are worse at reproducing from an evolutionary perspective, not any other perspective.

I'd say things are getting better, at least in socio-economic terms. We are, as a species, more wealthy, better fed, healthier, longer lived, and less prone to systemic self destruction than ever before. Obviously some places are better than others.

Is the handling of say, DNA manipulation, any different than handling the development of cheap and available electricity?

Yes, sure we are. But as we gain more knowledge, every new generation must spend more time in education. A human lifetime is only so long. That means a delayed and possibly shorter working life. Will human life expectancy continue to grow to cancel this effect?

[Angrychris]

over population then eradication

[xcorps]

I don't know what this is about.

It was in response to another posters comment about the world being held back by religious folks. All the people I mentioned in my reply were religious and rather accomplished scientists. The Father of Quantum Phsyics, the inventor of Unix, Director of the Human Genome Project. The kind of people that have held us back.

They are worse at actually making children compared to the general population of people who are not as smart or as financially successful. Middle and upper class westerners are contributing to population decline. 70% of scientists do not have children. Compare this to countries like India where having more than two children is the norm for pretty much every family. I'm saying they are worse at reproducing from an evolutionary perspective, not any other perspective.

I think that has more to do with lifestyle than evolutionary pressure.

Yes, sure we are. But as we gain more knowledge, every new generation must spend more time in education. A human lifetime is only so long. That means a delayed and possibly shorter working life. Will human life expectancy continue to grow to cancel this effect?

It would have to be more than an increase in life expectancy, which has increased. It would have to be an increase in the years of productive life, and the amount of productivity in those years. Having a 120 year life expectancy isn't really an accomplishment if you are still to old to work at 65.

Productivity increases are more likely to make up for the loss of time. People in the US are working more hours and getting more done than say, 50 years ago. I think the education system will evolve as well. It's already made a lot of changes since the 20 years I was in school (not that it's making the USA smarter, but that's due to politics more than education).

[Menelik_I]

It seems to me that smarter and more financially successful people are far worse at reproducing than people who are neither of those things, something that has never been the case in human history before.

None, because the supposition that ''smartness and financial success'' is hereditary is completely wrong.

The son of two Nobel price winner might have 0.5% increased intelligence than the kid of two hillbillies, this is not something that a disorganized personality, lack of priorities and procrastination can't destroy.

Personally I knew people who where so smart as to become CEO's, Secretary of State and Ambassadors out of political smartness, but whose kids are a bunch of broke pot smocking losers. So don't me that ''successful people are far worse at reproducing'' because success is not a genetics attribute you give your kids.

What effect will this have on future generations?

No effect at all. The only thing that could affect future generations is work ethics, personality and not succumbing to the time that is the internet.

[Nutsack]

Well male and female attraction is mostly driven by sexual appeal and appearance, money, power & intelligence. Now this means that humans probably will experience a split some time far off into the future between the handsome, tall, intelligent and fit and short, ugly, fat and dumb.

This isn't helped by the fact that we can genetically engineer our genes, which might be very expensive. If genetic engineering is cheap then I believe homo sapiens won't experience a genetic split, but if it is expensive it will increase the gap as it will make the richer smarter, more attractive and etcetera.

[Phier]

Based on the number of extremely overweight people I see, my guess is an obvious trend will either be to people who do not gain weight easily, or those who do not suffer fertility loss for being fat.

[alexanderswift]

Based on the number of extremely overweight people I see, my guess is an obvious trend will either be to people who do not gain weight easily, or those who do not suffer fertility loss for being fat.

That is if the trend continues, it really hasn't been around very long and I don't think anyone can say at this point if it will remain long enough for there to be any great evolutionary effects of it. While a lot of people are overweight, a lot of people are also more conscious of their fitness/eating habits so it could really go both ways.

[chamaeleo]

Based on the number of extremely overweight people I see, my guess is an obvious trend will either be to people who do not gain weight easily, or those who do not suffer fertility loss for being fat.

Folks usually stick it out until at least menopause before dying of obesity issues, and although our cultural preference is skinny...when you and <50% of the pop is fat, you'll prolly just take what you can get.

Your fertility point stands.

One thing for which I think we're now being selected...

The ability to navigate a large, loosely connected, relatively superficial, immediately accessible social group instead of a small, tightly-knit, deeply interpersonal group. We're all becoming politicians. You can blame social media for this trend.