/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5134530]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/4575024/Youll-have-smaller-brains-more-wrinkles-and-fe
wer-teeth.html


The sun takes a crack at predicting what we will look like in 1000 years. Lulz ensue.

[Anonymous No.5134540]

>This is what British people actually believe

[Anonymous No.5134547]

>>5134530
So basically... it'll look like the average British person today.
In all seriousness, holy fuck thats retarded. How fast do they think this stuff works? Durr been using my iPhone for a thousand years now gonna have ET fingers.

[Anonymous No.5134550]

>>5134547
Sounds like Lamarckism all over again.

[Anonymous No.5134551]

>not taking technology development into account
Nigga, we will have designer babies in about 100 years thanks to genetic engineering

[Anonymous No.5134553]

I would love to meet the men and women who would allow this to enter into the gene pool.

[Anonymous No.5134554]

>>5134551
Bet you five bucks we won't.

[Anonymous No.5134557]

I'd like to point out that we'd get smaller as we aren't dependent on physical labor anymore really

[Anonymous No.5134560]

>>5134557
Go ask /fit/ how many of them do blue-collar work.

[Anonymous No.5134564]

>>5134560
That has nothing to do with it anything really.

As a species, we've decreased the amount of physical labor we do since we have machines.

[Anonymous No.5134573]

>>5134564
Just because something is useless doesn't mean it becomes a negative criterium.
Being small doesn't bring any reproductive advantage.

[Anonymous No.5134571]

>>5134564
I think that it does. Physical size, strength and overall healthiness channeled through fulfilling the male sexual stereotype of attractiveness have remained stable over the centuries and are selected for in terms of fucking for offspring, to this day and we have come a long way.

[Anonymous No.5134580]

>iphones will be used for another 1000 years

[Anonymous No.5134583]

“The average American is about one inch taller than in 1960.”
so that obviously means we will be 20 inches taller in 1000 years

[Anonymous No.5134585]

>Everyone will have the same shape of NOSE because climate is having less influence on broad or narrow hooters thanks to air conditioning and central heating.

that makes no sense, if anything it means no shape of nose would be more desirable than another

[Anonymous No.5134586]

>>5134551
more like 50, at the most

[notfaggot No.5134590]

>>5134573
Uses less food.
In fact, on the contrary having a bigger build might be selected for since someone larger could eat more before being considered overweight.

[Anonymous No.5134601]

Human infant circa 2200 AD

[Anonymous No.5134614]

Is this predicition from the same group of people that gave us Phrenology?
Well, I guess they must be right then, again.

[Anonymous No.5134619]

[Anonymous No.5134645]

>>5134601
wat

[Anonymous No.5134650]

>>5134619
Sun...dusky waiting in the shower?

[Anonymous No.5134692]

>>5134601

[Anonymous No.5134702]

This is stupid. Humans do not breed for the same reasons animals do, and I think that this difference is key when considering our future evolutionary path. Humans for the past 12,000 years have consistently valued certain aesthetics. Our preference for the symmetrical, the musclebound, and the voluptuously well proportioned has pretty much stayed the same despite drastically different cultures and time periods.

Since humans have the privelage of having quite the well documented history of their ancestors, we have always been comparing and modeling ourselves after these ideals. As long as we have records of our past we will definitely not regress into some sort of fucking gooback mongoloid like the one in this picture.

[Anonymous No.5134739]

>Our preference for the symmetrical, the musclebound, and the voluptuously well proportioned has pretty much stayed the same despite drastically different cultures and time periods.

Our preference for some traits such as facial and other symmetries, skin free from blemishes, limb proportions, etc. have been fairly constant, but other preferences have changed. Ironically, those you mentioned have been some of the most prone to change and still exhibit diversity within modern cultures.

The contemporary western ideal for females is thinner and less voluptuous than it was in the 50s, for example. The idealized male in Korean and Japanese culture is far less musclebound and more androgynous than the western model. You're on 4chan... but you must not have watched much anime or seen many J-pop groups if you haven't observed the difference.

[Anonymous No.5134747]

>>5134702
>Our preference for the symmetrical
About that... every study gives a different result. I think it's typical soc science bullshit and there is nothing there.
>musclebound
This is what bodybuilders actually believe.
>voluptuously well proportioned
Proportions are cultural.

[Anonymous No.5134761]

>>5134739
I would still argue that if one were to somehow take a meta analysis of sexual preference studies, they would come to very similar conclusions as to what is attractive and what is not. And even if there outliers in regards to what is deemend attractive, it would still fall onto a continuum of attractiveness we observe in varying cultures and time periods.

And even if there are significant difference in mate preferences, I simply cannot fathom being as bizarre as what that article is speculating. I simply cannot foresee such drastic physiological changes occurring in 1000 years, especially considering that the human form for the past 12000 years has stayed essentially the same. Evolutionary divergence is more likely to occur in isolated populations anyways, as observed in the obvious morphological distinctions within certain geographic regions. If anything, as the human populous becomes more and more homogenized we will have a convergence of morphological traits that will resemble that of someone who is mixed race. This amalgam of traits certainly wont look like the picture though.

God dammit I gotta stop fucking procrastinating, I got a journal article to summarize.

[Anonymous No.5134780]

British people are already like this.

[Anonymous No.5134785]

>>5134761
Well, I agree that article is bullshit. I was just addressing your specific claim.

I don't give much credence to your "If we conducted a study we would find..." reasoning. Social science studies are already not very persuasive in many cases, now you want me to consider the *putative* conclusions of a *hypothetical* social science study.

Meanwhile the particular facts I cited are readily verifiable: WWII pin-up girls were audaciously voluptuous compared to modern models and the Japanese love their fine-featured, lithe, elegant bishōnen types.

Incidentally, your predicted racial convergence will probably not occur as expected for many traits such as skin colour. Most people from from a variety of present cultures prefer fair skin. Of course, no social scientists want to study this because social sciences are distorted by political correctness.

[Anonymous No.5134821]

>the sun

lol

how the fuck could humanity change more in a thousands years than in 100 000?

[Anonymous No.5134828]

>>5134821
Research "punctuated equilibrium."

As in >>5134785 I'm not defending the article, its just that people keep attacking it for bullshit reasons.

[Lizerd No.5134856]

>>5134601
Looks like a pig to me.

Man, this book would have been good if the author/illustrator didn't rip it from....

[Lizerd No.5134860]

>>5134856
This guy.

[Anonymous No.5134874]

[Anonymous No.5134881]

[Anonymous No.5134892]

>>5134881
a glorious future awaits!