What is Digg?177 Comments
- Mejogid, on 10/25/2007, -9/+281Translation:
I like to think that my failed life has at least contributed to human evolution.
My WoW aviator is tall and good looking, and many compliment me on his appearance. Unfortunately I have freckles and glasses, as well as an overly pasty complexion.
I also feel insecure about the size of my penis, but telling anonymous strangers on the internet how large it is makes me feel better about it.
I wish I had a girl friend. - felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+118Dude, if this is you, then I think you're right about the evolutionary chain - you're just on the wrong end of it: http://www.chriswickens.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=14&pos=3
- thefirelane, on 10/12/2007, -2/+79>but I'm sure abortion, contraception, pornography, sex before marriage and many other things accepted today would have been out of the question 1000 years ago
Ha ha ha ha... stop viewing history through rose colored glasses. We've found sheep skin condoms from Egypt in the pyramids. We've unearthed pornography from Pompeii.
All the things you described are simply human traits that happen constantly throughout history... not some recent invention of our moral decline.
There's a reason its called "the world's oldest profession" - erkokite, on 10/12/2007, -11/+82I know what people tell you about certain other things! They tell you that you're an arrogant asshat!
- AlexApetrei, on 11/11/2007, -13/+54Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics is a wanker .
This man is so ***** retarded, i dont even know where to begin criticising his "theory".
Perhaps with the goblins... whilst these sorts of people exist in our world today take a walk down the streets outside your comfortable neighborhood and you'll see them. Or the coffe coloured people, been to Cuba lately, or anywhere in latin america ? there are some fine coffe coloured people (ladies) over there.
We live in a wonderful world of genetic variation caused by promiscuity and substance abuse, to say that within 1000 years everyone will give up promiscuity or any of the other stuff is silly.
And that ***** about receding chins due to processed food, i have yet to see a man not enjoy a nice piece of BBQd steak, it'll be a sad day when men will stop enjoying frying their own meat.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+44Man, he even has a photo linked to hot or not: http://hotornot.com/r/?eid=ALARNSG-YSS lets see how long that 9 rating lasts ;)
- ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -4/+35LOL! felchdonkey FTW!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+39http://www.chriswickens.com/gallery/albums/mainalbums/steveandkids/normal_024_24.JPG
Is that you with the fat chick? Damn... what a loser. - mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31You display a shocking lack of knowledge of history and sociology, Mejogid. All of the things you mention "abortion, contraception, pornography, sex before marriage and many other things" have mostly been accepted practices throughout history, and have only been proscribed at certain times among certain peoples. And even when they have been proscribed there's never been total compliance with the proscription.
- e36wheelman, on 10/12/2007, -6/+29superpwned.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27Wow, that was great, all of you have really done your research and gave me a good laugh!
I have dugg this, not because of the article, but for this first thread of comments! HAHAH! - returnofmalv, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26I am going to have to agree with the rest of the audience here; definitely not sperm doner material.
- TyRaNNOus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24I don't even think I could photoshop you into evolution ... Did those ladies donate the rug for your chin?
- ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24The South has Jacksonville, the North has Boston. It takes all types to make a dumbass salad.
- DrSkrud, on 11/11/2007, -4/+25That article is pretty ridiculous ... where is the information coming from? It looks like idle speculation to me.
"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."
I'm going to overgeneralize a bit here but it seems to me that "intellgent" and "creative" people (for example, the people making breakthroughs in research in technology and science, etc.) aren't usually the attractive, tall, slim types.
If anything, I would postulate that if evolve into a binary race, we'll have the intelligent, creative, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures and the attractive, tall, slim, dim-witted creatures. - pidge, on 11/11/2007, -0/+21The "dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures" are the ones which tend to reproduce more and have more kids so it would be itneresting to see who wins out.
- jakatak, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24That's not him with the fat chick. He is the fat chick.
- PapaBoojum, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22"Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics is a wanker .
And that ***** about receding chins due to processed food, i have yet to see a man not enjoy a nice piece of BBQd steak, it'll be a sad day when men will stop enjoying frying their own meat."
Totally agree... for an alleged evolutionary theorist, he seems to have a flawed understanding of evolutionary theory.
His biggest idiocy is the claim that chins will recede due to processed food. What BS. There is absolutely no selective pressure that would cause the chins to receed. Not only that, such a claim directly contradicts his other claim regarding mate selection. If anything, the weaker chin would be selected out by such selectiveness. - inactive, on 11/11/2007, -4/+22Like were going to be around in 100,000 years, we will be lucky if humans survive the next 100.
- BasouKazuma, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20It's too bad that he's not around to get pissed off. That wouldve been fun.
- vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18@"When I said 1000 years ago, I was specifically reffering to the churches stance towards these issues"
You mean like being able to get your sins forgiven by going off to some unbelievers land and kill all of them to get a ticket to heaven? - verifex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13This guy is a fruitcake, he says men will "look athletic, and have squarer jaws, deeper voices and bigger penises."
He is preaching popular science, look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_science
Read the second paragraph down and you'll see exactly what this guy is doing; He is misinterpreting advanced scientific concepts. - gill1109, on 11/11/2007, -2/+13Did you know that it's a constant of all human societies (from head hunters in Borneo to Wall street executives in Manhattan) that 10% of children have different fathers from the father everyone thinks they have? Presumably the mothers know but the fathers usually don't. This comes out nowadays when they do mass DNA profiling of remains after disasters (air crashes...). It turns out that lots of people are not related to the people they thought were their father. The point of this story: for the survival of a woman's DNA it is advantageous to pair it with different men's DNA.. Apparently small babies are genetically programmed to look like the person everyone thinks is their father even if he isn't... This has been proven by tests where people are supposed to say whether a baby does or does not look like its parents (and in half the cases the parents aren't the parents). Statistically it doesn't make a difference.
I was told the first story by a Korean anthropologist who had actually lived with the Borneo head hunters. They thought that Koreans were a pretty primitive people, naming their children after their putative fathers, when everyone knows... - Shawnosaurus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Send me $19.99 today to secure your elite membership to the beautiful race. You don't want to be a goblin do you?! Buy 5 get 1 free, think of your family! Offer limited while supplies last. Lifetime warranty included.
- pixelmixer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15He most definitely did. Thats the first thing I thought of when reading the title. H.G. Wells, The Time Machine. Check it out people, its a great book, and it suggests the same outcome as the article.
- Jagdhund, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16@skyshock
Before you make asinine statements such as those, actually visit civilised areas in the South. I've seen rednecks in northern states too, you fool, as well as very intelligent people in the South. - Misanthrope, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Wow, you look JUST like this Child Molester guy I used to know. I mean...he was my friend in grade school and grew up to be a child molester that looks JUST like you. I wish I was joking.
Some girls told him certain things about certain things as well....they were 12! - vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Why not just not mess with surgery and get a full prosthetic body like Ghost in the Shell?
I mean in 200 years from now we'll have robotics down to an art so there won't be a point in having a fleshy weak body even if it is a genetically engineered blonde haired blue eyes musle covered superbody. It will still get its butt beat by a 10 foot tall mech with machine guns and metal claws. ;) - vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10By then we will have had a Technological Singularity making having children a moot point... Or being human for that matter.
- zephc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10The shorter person sort of looks like the MadTV character Miss Swan. And the other one? He looka like a man.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11But what about the year 2525? If man is still alive, if woman can survive they may find....
- JorgeGT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Affordable genetic manipulation will be also availiable.
Maybe in 2x1 packs!
Remove your genetic diseases + ultimate face lifting and... get blue-eyed childs now for FREE!*
*Offer restricted to cases when reproduction is availiable and/or legal. - rodrigo74, on 11/11/2007, -1/+8Evolution rule #1: you can't predict evolution. The thing is just too damn complex.
Besides that, the process to split a species in 2 takes dozens of thousands of years, so to stretch the current trend for so long is stupid. - mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Really? 10 billion humans (the number we will have in 20 years) will all have access to advanced medical techniques for assisted sexual reproduction?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The Morlocks and the Eloi. And, we know who comes out on top and who eats who.
Bwahahahahah.... pass the long pig. - darkamster07, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11this guy is a ***** jock metal poser! he is not true metal. he hangs around with fat wanabe goth chicks! I hope he reads this! hahaha!
- mkjones, on 10/12/2007, -10/+16Its 100,000 years away people. You can relax.
- monergism, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13H.G. Wells made the same social commentary.
- nj10ii, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10"it'll be a sad day when men will stop enjoying frying their own meat."
Or Wanking their own meat. - jabelar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7>Seeing how this guy is working stereotypes so hard, you'd think he would realize
> that mixing a tall person with a small person creates a relatively average-sized person.
> My dad's short, my mom's side of the family is tall, I came out a couple of inches
> below average height.
Actually, that is NOT how genetics works -- you do not get the average of the two genetic profiles. You will usually get one or the other, and sometimes a reemergence of a recessive trait. You probably have your dad's family's shortness but just with better nutrition and growth hormones in food.The reason why some things appear to average (like skin color) is because multiple genetic traits are in play (e.g. basic pigmentation, and skin transparency, and tanning ability, etc.) to create the end effect. - Pharaoh777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Whether you believe in a singularity or not - the fact remains that there is little chance the human species will be primarily biological in 100 years, let alone 100,000.
- starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5i think he has completely missed what will drive the changes. i think its likely that humans and the earth will have diverged. looming climate change... diminishing resources... the likelihood of a collision with an asteroid or comet... will simply kill us off or reduce our numbers to something less. there are mechanisms in nature that regulate populations. if i recall the wording of the law of population control its:
"If a species over runs its range its numbers will be reduced by intra species violence, famine or disease."
i see nothing going on right now that indicates that is wrong. we'll need to extend our natural range if we are going to survive.
but i do see things coming that might cause humans to diverge into many sub species. first, we now have all the basics for eliminating aging and disease. in the next 50 years i suspect many older people will spend money they have perfecting how its done- trying to save their own lives. i don't doubt there will be failures but if you're going to die anyway you might as well drop some cash on a promising attempt to live longer. it will happen sooner rather than later. all of us alive today will likely benefit and live very long lives.
i think this is the thing that will drive the move off the earth. once we don't die or live extremely long lives then the earth will be unable to support our numbers for sure. staying will require living on fewer and fewer resources per capita. when that happens humans will start living in many different physical environments.
humans living with less gravity will be taller and thinner and will be unable to go to earth or higher gravity places-without some genetic therapy to strengthen bones and muscles. there's your giants. humans living with more gravity will short and stocky and can go anywhere without genetic therapy. humans that live without gravity will be thoroughly altered genetically to cope with that and won't tolerate gravity wells at all.
i suspect that in a few generations humans born off the earth would find going down a gravity well a stupid idea good for science and research -but limited resources that are difficult to extract won't make it inviting compared to the variable gravity environments, unlimited resources and energy of open space. the true definition of poor is not having access to energy and resources. the true definition of wealthy is having access to energy and resources.
humans will fill every environmental nitch and our physical shape will be effected by that... and we will further modify ourselves genetically to fit more specific challenges of each nitch. there will be thousands of human sub-species and most if not all humans will be born somewhere other than earth in a 1000 years... i think.
if i was speculating on what i see right now... it seems to me that the divide has something to do with religion- possibly involving some physical part of the brain that has been selected for... a religion gene? at any rate it seems like there is a large gulf between people of religion and people without religion. the people of religion generally seem to be more violent. they don't deal well with drastic changes brought on by technology. when you say humans are not going to die or at least live very long lives its the religious that object to it. "we are supposed to die."
so in real terms the meek may very well inherit the earth while the rest of us join the universe. when i look down the road- if any of this happens, what will living indeterminate long lives do to us. will be become afraid to explore and risk dying? probably. :D - felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13I'm pretty sure this has happened already.
http://www.christers.net/veeps/dick-cheney-2.jpg - Solarux, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6RTFA
- JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5My first reaction --- this says more about British society than anything else. The ultimate expression of "class" would be different sub-species. This article is simply a reflection of the extent to which the "class" concept permeates British society.
- Stevethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I don't think we'll continue to reproduce much longer. At least not enough for Darwinian evolution to make itself felt. Besides -the countries which are poor today- "low-class" citizens may become history since nanotechnology would be as it is imagined: close to infinite resources to make anything you want, high efficiency that a grain of sand could power up cities for years to come. Of course all these are wild dreams for now but not improbable, at least not less probable than the notion of HG Wells.
As for me I think all these predictions of the far future are a lot more fiction than science you can't take account what changes new technologies can bring to humankind. I mean if the last 20000 years people drove cars, nowadays people would instinctually have better reflexes than people used to (people with higher reflexes on driving would be more that those of lower ones in the end). And let's be serious, Darwinian evolution has so small impact to us compared to the technological evolution of the last 100000. Technological evolution is a better paradigm to predict humankind's future than the Darwinian one... poor selection from HG Wells, even Kurzweil with his far-fetched predictions is a lot more accurate than Mr Wells. - AlexApetrei, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@ nj10ii
***** great, i make a coment about BBQs and you turn it into something to do with masterbation.
There's too many ***** wankers out there. - tjmasco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Anyone who takes this seriously is a complete dumbass. I bet half of you didn't know that an attractive woman just a couple hundred years ago was fat and pale! So to think that our current trend of attractiveness will not only hold steady but increase in its importance is utterly retarded. It would almost be a better article if he made short people more favorable since over population will eventually allow for less living space. (joke there, can you tell I'm 5 foot 6, of course you can!!!)
But if you want to be serious you might as well state that the human race will most likely end, or get close to it, long before 3000 due to extermination from either current or future weapons. We can kill ourselves many times over already, won't be long before we finally do. - ABadInAlbany, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5orson != hg dumbass, not to mention this point has been brought up about 8 times already.
- ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8What an idiot.
Penis size will not determine your reproductive fitness. A penis too large is useless, a penis too small fails to entertain, but regardless of your penis size your son will easily be able to inherit it with artificial insemination. Besides, women love to check out the ass first before the package ... typical for a man to focus on a guy's junk instead of the bum.
For a guy who loves talking about how technology will make us lazy and pass on our genetic weaknesses, he ignores that growth hormone can make us taller, pec implants can give us shapely legs, breast implants can give us perky ta-tas (well, not me, but some of us).
Let's face it. The stereotypical attractive guy is tall, the stereotypical attractive woman is small. Seeing how this guy is working stereotypes so hard, you'd think he would realize that mixing a tall person with a small person creates a relatively average-sized person. My dad's short, my mom's side of the family is tall, I came out a couple of inches below average height. -
Show 51 - 100 of 176 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 
