What is Digg?516 Comments
- geddon, on 11/14/2007, -11/+709100,000 years? Take a trip to Wal-Mart. The split is already happening!
- sarazen, on 11/12/2007, -5/+433Hey, I like reading H.G. Well too! But I think it was the ugly goblins who were the rulers. The pretty people were for eatin'.
- angusm, on 11/10/2007, -6/+330The assumption is that the beautiful people will mate only with beautiful people, and the rest of us 'normal folks' will be left to have sex with our fellow untermenschen. The refutation is obvious: just think of all the times you've seen some stunningly hot chick on the arm of either a pencil-necked nerd or a jut-jawed gorilla whose hairline starts at his eyebrows. Or all the times you've seen a plain chick walking round with a hot guy. Or - more to the point - just find a picture of Anna Nicole Smith and J. Howard Marshall.
One thing that is certain, however, is that the Digg User gene will be bred out of the population, as everyone knows that Digg users don't have sex. - inactive, on 11/10/2007, -40/+187Alex Jones is not a "top scientist". Buried.
- izzybr, on 11/10/2007, -13/+153You guys realize The Daily Mail is like a British version of The Onion, right?
- richgustavson, on 11/10/2007, -7/+138I doubt the human race will be around 100,000 years from now lol....
- Blah_Blah_Blah, on 11/12/2007, -4/+119alcohol won't let that happen
- krets, on 11/10/2007, -11/+120I, for one, welcome our beautiful yet vapid overlords.
- Dradis, on 11/10/2007, -6/+101This guy must never have been to a college before, where hot women hanging off Neanderthalic douchebags abounds.
- ToadLeg, on 11/12/2007, -4/+83This is called "Social Darwinism" and has been around long before Darwin even existed. It is a sort of updated form of the idea that the Pope and Kings receive their power from God and can do what they want to those under them because God has given them the power to. It is an excuse that wealthy use to act as if hurting poor people is morally right, claiming that poor people are poor because they are less intelligent. The idea that the human population will split into an intelligent and less intelligent species is simply taking it a step further into Nazi territory, similar to what James Watson said about blacks being less intelligent than whites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism - Ajajadude, on 11/10/2007, -2/+73In other news, top scientists mixes speech notes with H.G. Wells book transcript.
- rgodfrey, on 11/10/2007, -1/+62I heard this same thing on the radio, on KLOI: "Less talk, morlock."
- Error601, on 11/10/2007, -4/+59Mixing up intelligent and attractive?
- jmpeagle, on 11/10/2007, -3/+57it's basically a little more professional than a tabloid, but it isn't like The Onion
- spanglegluppet, on 11/10/2007, -13/+63They're called Democrats and Republicans!
*rimshot* - rattenmaus, on 11/10/2007, -3/+49this ***** comes up every few months, and it doesn't get more likely in the meantime.
- ZenMojo, on 11/12/2007, -1/+45This guy's retarded, so can someone explain to him that Western style aesthetics don't apply in the rest of the real world? Most of the world is full of Chinese people, 20 years ago hairy men were the Western aesthetic ideal and still are in much of the Middle East, in Africa breasts aren't even sexualized, and the same for Brazil and much of South America where it's all about the ass.
Furthermore, stupid beautiful women are marrying smart ugly men all of the time. That is more than enough to throw off the curve. If anything, the average intelligence will drop over time since stupid people are less likely to use birth control or plan their childbirths. - wageslaven, on 11/10/2007, -1/+44"I like shopping at the Dollar General because I dont have to get dressed-up like I do when i goto the Wal-Mart."
...actually saw a scan of a newspaper article that said that. My wife and I repeat it for a chuckle all the time. - garbs, on 11/10/2007, -1/+39we will probably remove our species from the planet before this happens...
- davidjunit, on 11/10/2007, -4/+42I'm so glad there's a college within 1 mile of [one of] my local wal-marts. It really lightens the experience.
- reddfox321, on 11/10/2007, -4/+42I wish I could digg you twice.
This article is fallacious on a lot of things. Hairlessness, large eyes, pert breasts... bright future, right?! Maybe. All of these things are attractive in the NOW but as history has shown us, the concept of beauty changes from century to century... and sometimes decade to decade, even from culture to culture. Not that I doubt that statistically we would have a number of giant, bug-eyed, hairless women with pert (heh) breasts... its a matter of will they be considered attractive in THEIR time.
Bottom line: beauty (and even intelligence) is in the eye of the beholder. - drewquinton, on 11/10/2007, -8/+44damn. i was hoping nobody beat me to an H.G wells joke...
- Battleloser, on 11/10/2007, -0/+32There were no smart people in that movie.
President Dwane Elezando Comacho was a 5 time ultimate smackdown champion and a porn superstar. And while no doubt a great man, was no genius. - dynacrylic, on 11/10/2007, -2/+33Plastic surgery doesn't play a part in the gene pool- ("ugly" + plastic surgery) + ("ugly" + plastic surgery) = ("ugly" that will need plastic surgery). All it guarantees is more plastic surgery for their future generations.
- geddon, on 11/10/2007, -2/+30Many believe that in the next 50 years we'll see major advances in Medical Science, such as robot surgeries, organ building, along with a bevy of health maintenance technologies. The result being that the average adult could live to be 100 - 150 years old -- IF they have platinum level health insurance. Another half century of disparity between the rich and the poor will effectively lead to the end of the "underclass" (or a devolution as the author claims).
- ThndrShk2k, on 11/10/2007, -4/+32Article has nothing to do with reality. Buried.
- spyd3rweb, on 11/10/2007, -7/+33Article has nothing to do with Alex Jones. Buried.
- JoshChan, on 11/10/2007, -1/+26What about singularity?
- quickricky, on 11/10/2007, -1/+26This dude is reading too much Time Machine.
- 68024, on 11/10/2007, -2/+26Now I now the Daily Mail isn't a top quality paper, but now they're recycling one-year-old articles from the bbc? Oct. 17, 2006: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm
- inactive, on 11/10/2007, -23/+46Or an Apple store.
- inactive, on 11/10/2007, -4/+26Dear natural selection,
Please let me have a large penis hanging off my forehead.
Thanks. - saifatlast, on 11/10/2007, -2/+23You're in the thread where everything ends with buried, dumbass. Buried.
- Oronar, on 11/10/2007, -0/+21It's The Time Machine, not Time Traveler.
- asskey, on 11/10/2007, -8/+28Speak for yourself :P
- mushoo, on 11/10/2007, -5/+25I would take that guy over our current Comancho in Chief.
- inactive, on 11/10/2007, -5/+25I've said this before, but it applies again...how bad is your life? Seriously? My guess is, if we followed your around for the day, we would see something like this:
FRIEND: You want to go get something to eat?
YOU: Nah..and you want to know why? Because that ***** George Bush has poisoned the food with his policies!
FRIEND: Did you watch he Office lst night. It was hilarious!
YOU: I couldn't watch The Office because my electricity bills are too high thanks to that ***** George Bush!
KIDS AT YOUR HOUSE NEXT WEDNESDAY: Trick or treat!
YOU: Sorry kids, but you better be expecting a big TRICK when you see the future that that ***** George Bush has made for you!
YOUR DAD: Hi son.
YOU: George ***** Bush! - GRTWHT, on 11/10/2007, -11/+30I've never seen "some stunningly hot chick on the arm of either a pencil-necked nerd", sure they go for the brain dead gorillas, but not geeks (well, at least not if they aren't multi-millionaires, which doesn't count...you could look like Quasimodo and have beautiful women literally killing each other for the opportunity to be with you as long as you have tons of money).
- jmpeagle, on 11/10/2007, -10/+29intelligent people tend to have higher incomes and therefore better hygiene. A lot of attractiveness is also merely presentation.
- Niddik, on 11/10/2007, -2/+20There's a bit of a problem with this. The more intelligent seem to have fewer children to compensate for employment and childrens' expenses, while the less intelligent seem to have more children. If we do happen to split into two different species, the more intelligent part will be the minority.
- Asianwaste, on 11/10/2007, -3/+20No, in a few years there'll be us, the homosapiens, and the optic-laser shooting, pyromancing, telepathic, metal skeletoned, genetically super-powered mutant *****-superior. There's also Captain America.
- smrekar, on 11/10/2007, -1/+18halloween costumes...they were fakes
- aukxsona, on 11/11/2007, -6/+23Brittany Spears
Lohan - Pilot85, on 11/10/2007, -0/+15Hah. Way to predict the next 10,000 years completely accurately, ruling out advances in technology dramatically altering our evolutionary destinies. (I'm talking genetic manipulation/nano technologies/other physically fundamentally altering tech.)
- aukxsona, on 11/11/2007, -6/+21Brittany Spears
Lohan - yoda17, on 11/10/2007, -0/+14not this crap again.
- MaTT2011, on 10/26/2007, -8/+22Ouch.
With humor like that i take it you are a part of the future Goblin gene pool? - shahruz84, on 12/17/2008, -3/+17hahahah. no im actually not THAT anti-bush. just really thinks he looks like a goblin
- ToadLeg, on 11/12/2007, -2/+15"Intelligence, for instance, is a trait that has been shown to be vastly more influenced by genetics than environment."
I guess the people who go to universities are all suckers?
"The idea that certain traits will see a great division isn't exactly a ludicrous claim."
Study evolution some more. All humans can mate with all other humans (of opposite sex, with the capacity to mate) and there are no current, or foreseeable future forces to drive a separation of the species, without some radical Social Darwinist idea: For example, everyone prefers to mate with more attractive people, and there is no shortage of attractive people, and how attractive a person is largely depends upon their health (evolution prefers healthier members of the species because they are probably the most adapted to survive (which makes them healthier), so the species "sexual selection" has been made to be attracted to markers of health, like smooth skin and shiny hair), so there is no reason for the species to split based on attractiveness - the idea that unattractive people are going to run out of attractive people to "find and mate with", or something, is absurd, partially because unattractive people can often become attractive by changing their habits, like exercising and taking vitamins.
To cause a split in the species, there would have to be two completely isolated groups of human mating partners, for at least thousands of years. If any people within the two groups ever mated with the other group before the complete split occurred, the split would not happen. The odds of that happening, with the human species becoming more and more connected every day, is extremely absurdly low.
If you accept Social Darwinist ideas, it might make sense to you that poor people, being inherently less intelligent and less attractive, would be unable to find mates with the elite highly intelligent, very attractive people, so they would choose to mate with other poor, less intelligent, less attractive people. Here are two (more) reasons why that will not occur: People regularly move up and down the social ladder, so the offspring of poor people sometimes become very wealthy, and vice versa. Peoples' taste in mates vary widely (for example, some people like mates with brown or blue eyes, brown or black or blond or red hair, and darker or lighter skin) so a poor person might happen to be extremely attractive to a wealthier person, and vice versa.
I apologize for the extremely long post, but the extreme ignorance of your comment seemed to call for it, and the ideas of evolution fill libraries. Here is the Wikipedia article on speciation (when a species splits): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation Notice that none of the processes that cause speciation apply to humans without Social Darwinist ideas.
If I was to take a guess about the future evolution of humans, I would guess that we will in general become more intelligent, attractive, and less flawed/genetically predisposed to illness. But I think the reasons for this will not be because more adapted people will reproduce more; I think the opposite will occur: The less adapted, bottom of the bell curve of the species will slowly, imperceptibly, have a lower chance of reproducing, and will quietly leave the gene pool. The more we try to fight evolution, and come up with absurd narcissistic ideas about how we are superior to each other, the slower the process will occur.
We are not monkeys anymore, and we need to start acting like it. - JHattendorfII, on 10/26/2007, -0/+13you took that well, and i applaud that.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 499 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is