Human species 'may split in two'

[ColdPhoenix]

We shouldn't be too harsh on the BBC. Reporters don't always know a lot about science.... and it is a funny story! Also, I think the last sentence about Bravo will let a lot of people know that it's not the most serious of science papers.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme
Seems obvious this guy is a science fiction novelist not a biologist.

Fixed.

[C0ckney]

i'm sure this same article was posted on here quite recently.

[ColdPhoenix]

It's not the first time I've heard it. I'm sure I've heard about this a long time before that BBC article came out. Must have been a slow news day.

[Proteus_MST]

The human race would peak in the year 3000

Is "peak" a new english word for "be extinct"?

[Dinner]

Crap article. Beep should be ashamed of running such tosh.

That said I can see a minor "evolution", to use the word very badly, in some humans over the next century as scientists gain the ability to fiddle with genes. Parents who could afford it would likely want designer babies with traits they've selected and they'll likely want to remove traits they consider negative.

The upside is for people who can afford it they might be able to get a with every genetic advantage their parents can give them without any of the bad stuff. The downside is no one will know the long term impacts of these changes until the kids have grown up and by then you could have royally screwed up that person's life because their parents were vain ****heads. If such designer babies ever do become a reality then the children of the rich would actually be genetically superior to most of the rest of us. Those who couldn't afford a designer baby would just have to gamble the old fashioned way.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by ColdPhoenix
We shouldn't be too harsh on the BBC. Reporters don't always know a lot about science.... and it is a funny story! Also, I think the last sentence about Bravo will let a lot of people know that it's not the most serious of science papers.

You seem to be contradicting yourself.
If the last sentence is good enough to let readers know it's not serious, then how is the fact that REPORTERS don't know enough about science a defense?

[ColdPhoenix]

I think it was put in almost as a fun article. Does it really matter what will happen in 1000 years if we can't do anything about it now? We can't predict what will happen to people that far ahead anyway. The reporter might not have known enough about genetics to realise that it won't happen but won't have written it intending it to be a serious science article like a cure for cancer or something.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by ColdPhoenix
I think it was put in almost as a fun article. Does it really matter what will happen in 1000 years if we can't do anything about it now? We can't predict what will happen to people that far ahead anyway. The reporter might not have known enough about genetics to realise that it won't happen but won't have written it intending it to be a serious science article like a cure for cancer or something.

Except for the fact that the actual content is extremely dumb when carefully examined, there is no indication that this is a fun article.
That's like finding a news article full of lies or fact error, and excusing it because it might be a fun article.

Also, whether we can "do something about it" or not has nothing to do with science and I don't see how that's relevant to the quality of the article\science.

I am sorry if I come off as stern or rude, but I have been witness to this many times. Many if not most laypeople will not be able to tell that this is a "fun" article (IF it is one). They will take this at face value. Multiply this by a few hundreds such articles, tv shows etc.. and you get a mass disinformation campaign.

[Kuciwalker]

Humanity may split into two sub-species in 100,000 years' time as predicted by HG Wells, an expert has said.

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.

This is unfounded nonsense. LT is spot on.

[Zkribbler]

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.

Sounds kinda like the run up to the French Revolution. The Aristos were tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative, a far cry above the peasantry. But then, suddenly, they went extinct.

[ColdPhoenix]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme
Except for the fact that the actual content is extremely dumb when carefully examined, there is no indication that this is a fun article.

Well it gave me a laugh... But I get your point.

[Riesstiu IV]

Originally posted by ColdPhoenix
We shouldn't be too harsh on the BBC. Reporters don't always know a lot about science.... and it is a funny story! Also, I think the last sentence about Bravo will let a lot of people know that it's not the most serious of science papers.

I haven't studied biology or evolution beyond two university anthropology courses and high school sciences but this article is utterly ridiculous even to those who only know a little about evolution. The News isn't meant to be funny or entertaining but to inform and while many praise the BBC, they're just as bad as most television news media these days.

[Zkribbler]

Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics

Master Zen should tell this guy that he is an idiot. I don't think he realizes he's an idiot. If he did, he'd keep his idiot mouth shut.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Adagio
I believe the movie idiocracy is closer to the truth

CAMACHO!