How will evolution change people in the near future

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Jack May

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 2:05:56 PM12/11/07
to
Since it has been discovered that people are evolving 160 times faster than
our ancestors, what changes might be happening next?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071211-human-evolution.html


"Explosive population growth is driving human evolution to speed up around
the world, according to a new study."
"The pace of change accelerated about 40,000 years ago and then picked up
even more with the advent of agriculture about 10,000 years ago, the study
says."

"For example, in Europe natural selection has favored genes for pigmentation
like light skin, blue eyes, and blond hair. Asians also have genes selected
for light skin, but they are different from the European ones

"I think the two most prominent changes will come from technical people on
the west coast marrying each other and movie stars producing kids."

"The researchers' analysis found that 7 percent of human genes have been
undergoing rapid, recent evolution."

(Chimp DNA is only 4% different from humans)

"The biggest changes have come since the end of the last ice age, about
10,000 years ago, which opened up new environments for the quickly expanding
human population to grow from millions to billions"

"For example, Europeans as recently as 8,000 years ago developed lactose
tolerance, which allows adults to drink fresh milk-a staple of the
agricultural economy. Genes that suppress body odor and dry ear wax are
spreading rapidly in Asia. In Africa, a speed-up is found in genes that
thwart malaria."

"Many of the evolving genes appear related to changes in diet that
accompanied the widespread adoption of agriculture, Harpending noted. For
example, Europeans can easily digest cereal grains, but Kalahari bushmen in
Africa, Australian Aborigines, and Native Americans often become diabetic
when eating a high-carbohydrate diet."

I think the marriage of the technologist on the west coast and the marriages
in the creative industries such as movies and music will lead to changes in
genetics.


William P. Baird

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 2:59:03 PM12/11/07
to
On Dec 11, 11:05 am, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:

> I think the marriage of the technologist on the west coast and the marriages
> in the creative industries such as movies and music will lead to changes in
> genetics.

Why?

Far more likely is that we will end up tinkering with ourselves and
change things far, far faster than anything natural selection can do.

Will

--
William P Baird Do you know why the road less traveled by
Home: anzhalyu@gmail. has so few sightseers? Normally, there
Work: wba...@nersc.go is something big, mean, with very sharp
Blog: thedragonstales teeth - and quite the appetite! - waiting
+ com/v/.blogspot.com somewhere along its dark and twisty bends.

Message has been deleted

Jack May

unread,
Dec 12, 2007, 12:30:08 PM12/12/07
to

"William P. Baird" <anzh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:08654f5c-f1c2-461c...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> On Dec 11, 11:05 am, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I think the marriage of the technologist on the west coast and the
>> marriages
>> in the creative industries such as movies and music will lead to changes
>> in
>> genetics.
>
> Why?
>
> Far more likely is that we will end up tinkering with ourselves and
> change things far, far faster than anything natural selection can do.

We are already seeing geographic skill concentration evolution in society.
The kids of couples that are movie stars often do well. The kids of stars
that don't do good will not be in the "star" social group very strongly.
They will have much less change of having kids with a star.


Jack May

unread,
Dec 12, 2007, 12:32:43 PM12/12/07
to

"nth" <n...@trivial.invalid> wrote in message
news:1en9jl7w...@ijkl.mkji...

> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:05:56 -0800, Jack May wrote:
>
>> Since it has been discovered that people are evolving 160 times faster
>> than
>> our ancestors, what changes might be happening next?
>
> my guess is we will start looking like those ugly aliens in
> the movies.

But we are now developing the capability to manipulate genes. People with
money will be thin and beautiful. People without a lot of money may not
have access to gene manipulation and must live as they are born.


James Nicoll

unread,
Dec 12, 2007, 12:35:48 PM12/12/07
to
In article <2PqdnSfyxv6vhv3a...@comcast.com>,
So the rich will have genes that we _think_ are advantageous
and the poor will have genes that have actually been shaped directly
by natural selection. I'm seeing a centralized economy vs market
economy analogy here.


--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)

William P. Baird

unread,
Dec 12, 2007, 4:40:08 PM12/12/07
to
On Dec 12, 9:35 am, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
> So the rich will have genes that we _think_ are advantageous
> and the poor will have genes that have actually been shaped directly
> by natural selection. I'm seeing a centralized economy vs market
> economy analogy here.

Oh so this is what spawned the LJ discussion. Interesting.

It all depends on the model that is followed. Is there a Federal
Genome Administration that makes the calls from on high?

Is it a case of different 'organizations' directing their members to
select certain genes for their ideal? Whether racist or religious
or whatnot.

Or is it a case of the rich and their aesthetics driving this?

Or Hollywood?

Or...

describe the scenario, James. :D

William P. Baird

unread,
Dec 12, 2007, 5:03:30 PM12/12/07
to
On Dec 12, 9:30 am, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:

> We are already seeing geographic skill concentration evolution in society.
> The kids of couples that are movie stars often do well. The kids of stars
> that don't do good will not be in the "star" social group very strongly.
> They will have much less change of having kids with a star.

Supporting data? How is this trend different from the ones with the
Robber Barons in the 19th Century? Or lots of the Old Rich? or...?
I think you are mixing up a short term trend for something much longer
term.

I am, however, willing to be convinced if you have data.

Thy Bone

unread,
Dec 15, 2007, 1:06:52 AM12/15/07
to
Jack this is an excellent interogatory -

Intelligence, physical and emotional stamina, and wealth
are definately being selected for at a very rapid rate. But
the three above can conflict! Being stupid with money and
physical-emotional stamina is no guarantee. People sustained
on welfare long term with the above qualities are doing very
very well - I know concrete examples. Welfare includes government
welfare to corporations so we arent just talking about poor people
on welfare.

Everyone across all age and social status boundaries else who
does not have some of the above qualities is going to hell in a handbag very
quickly and there will not be anything to pull them
back (in America at least. That includes me). We have now many
generations since 1960 who have had everything including normal
opportunities stolen away from them, decade after decade. It has
been the longest running Depression in the history of the USA. It
has been either social or economic depression since about 1960
disrupting many generations lives. We are looking at a massive loss
of the traditional middle class in the next five years and 50% of these will be
dead prematurely because they died abandoned
literally without resources...

These are the nuts amd bolts that natural selection works with
and of course a nuclear war could end everything for everyone.
It might come mercifully compared to the lousy lives people are
now living across this over populated planet.

NS could play a trick and go the opposite direction selecting for
stupidity and humility as a means of mass survival, which would
lead directly to a World Government and massive social controls
selecting even further for those who are humble and able to stay
subverted,but stay healthy enough to live to propogate and work
for a time.

Humans have envoked a set of conditions on the planet which
Nature itself here may not be able to suck up and continue with.

Environmental change is certain now. Now way back! The loss
of human population looks inevitable at this point. The only question
is who and where and how.

Thy Bone

unread,
Dec 15, 2007, 1:25:04 AM12/15/07
to

"William P. Baird" wrote:

> On Dec 12, 9:30 am, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > We are already seeing geographic skill concentration evolution in society.
> > The kids of couples that are movie stars often do well. The kids of stars
> > that don't do good will not be in the "star" social group very strongly.
> > They will have much less change of having kids with a star.
>
> Supporting data? How is this trend different from the ones with the
> Robber Barons in the 19th Century? Or lots of the Old Rich? or...?
> I think you are mixing up a short term trend for something much longer
> term.
>
> I am, however, willing to be convinced if you have data.
>

Gravity does no require you be convinced to any degree! You
being convinced or unconvinced is irrlevant. The 'trends' will continue.

The issue is not now social trends or even larger cultural trends
or even 'species trends', but ecological astro-physical facts set
in motion. Somewhere between it being a mere social trend or
cultural expression it triggered actual physical changes in the
finite global environment which are now irreversable. Soon
we will all be scrambling disrupted severely, rich and poor alike.

That is the only "fact" you need. Everything else follows from it
in the human equation (what greed will do, what the poor must do,
what the starving will do, what biology on Earth will do, etc).
Many will be waiting still looking for "facts" .............

I think the Bible said something about that! (I am an Atheist!).

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages