Posted on 10/19/2006 7:10:22 AM PDT by presidio9
"Dr Curry also suggested that increased reliance on processed food would make chewing less important, possibly resulting in less developed jaws and shorter chins."
A Lamarckist.
Didn't know they still existed anywhere.
Evidently so.
(None are Jewish. Every Jewish biologist would know better.
Think about it for a minute.)
"Bull. Rich people have intermarried and had children with poor people from day one. Hell, slave owners and slaves had children. The idea that people from different classes eventually won't get together is insane."
Sure!
Being a wealthy man means that you can get a lot of sex from poor girls (or slave girls). Always has.
But today pregnancy generally doesn't result, or if it does, it's nipped in the bud.
They already have:
Conservatives, who basically make the world safe for both species to live in, and
Liberals, who, if left to their own devices, would allow the world to be destroyed by Islam
I do look around me.
In New York and Connecticut, sex is universal, but BREEDING is very stratified indeed.
Of course in all caste societies, women of the lowest caste sometimes marry men of the highest caste...the classic "Cinderella Story". The woman lower caste woman's beauty is her ticket out. (Nobody ever heard of "Handsome and the Beast").
The converse has never been true. Women almost never marry or breed below their caste. "Beauty and the Beast" invariably involves a beast with a castle.
"Cause the boy with the cold hard cash is always Mr. Ri-ight." - Madonna, The Material Girl.
It may be less common, but the idea that we are going to actually evolve into two different species is still completely ludicrous.
IMO there are already verifiable signs that it has happened.....how do you explain Democrats?
"as long as each primary color was included in the mix, the resultant color was a muddy grey."
"A Lamarckist."
Funny, if you look at the result of such inbreeding in the Middle Ages, or in ancient Rome, you get a hardy lower class fellow and a sterile upper class lord.
--This is Adriana Lima.--
The ultimate argument in favor of human cloning!
Couldn't go that far...he was one of the chief proponants of "Free Love" in the era. Still, his "Wings Over the World" socialism did have a Samuri-ish componant. Hummmm....
Liberals...and lawyers.
That's what happens in the dryer lint filter, too.
"You may be in the last generation that has to die.
But you're in it."
I know and that bugs me. The people 3,000 years from now will look at us and say "those poor bastards had to get old and die"...
"All your predictions forgot about two things.
Liberals...and lawyers."
Your right, it will take 10,000 years instead or 3,000 LOL
"I know and that bugs me. The people 3,000 years from now will look at us and say 'those poor bastards had to get old and die'..."
True, but the great ultra-low tech solution to worrying about all that remains faith. That nature of life has always required fatalistic realism. But faith allows a sunny disposition about the ultimate outcome. Without that, you're made of dust, and you'll be food for worms, and there's nothing whatever to look forward to or even live for.
3000 years from now when, you postulate, nobody will die of illness, life will be incredibly slow and cautious. Nobody will ride horses or fly airplanes anymore. Too dangerous. People will be very careful about taking any risks at all, because in a world where nobody dies except of accidents, accidents are MAJOR TRAGEDIES. Kids today ride bicycles and swim in lakes. 3000 years from now, when the only way to die is an accident, nobody will ride bicycles anymore: people DIE that way, sometimes.
There will also be no risk taking in business, and no military forces. Today, when somebody starts a business, there's always a degree of swashbuckling risk taking, and there's a little bird in the background that says "Well, if I really screw this up and crash, it doesn't ULTIMATELY matter, does it?" But in a world where you get to live with the consequences of your bad early decisions for thousands of years, indeed, where early decisions one way or the other will act with compounded interest over endless lives, there will be very little tolerance for early risk.
Also, in a world where nobody gets old, young people, which all of us will be, will get stuck in the deadly-dull-drone jobs for hundreds and hundreds of years. The top won't clear out, and there will always be vastly older and more experienced people in charge. Today, the real difference between the brash 29 year old entrepreneur and the 60 year old establishment man is ONLY 31 year of experience. That's enough to make a difference, but not enough of a difference for the brash 29 year old to be totally unable to win in intellectual competition. But no 29 year old will EVER be able to outwit, outguess, out-anything a healthy, strong, fit, mentally aler 2500-year old. We do learn more and more as we get older, and wisdom matters. Today, nobody's got more than half century advantage. But q 2 century advantage would be invincible.
"True, but the great ultra-low tech solution to worrying about all that remains faith. That nature of life has always required fatalistic realism. But faith allows a sunny disposition about the ultimate outcome. Without that, you're made of dust, and you'll be food for worms, and there's nothing whatever to look forward to or even live for."
If your Christian faith the bible specifically says in Revelations that "I will wipe every tear from their eyes and death will be no more". It was our original design to live eternally accroding to the bible, getting back to it is God's plan and since it is becoming a reality every decade, seems to be simply a fulfillment of prophecy.
"3000 years from now when, you postulate, nobody will die of illness, life will be incredibly slow and cautious. Nobody will ride horses or fly airplanes anymore. Too dangerous. People will be very careful about taking any risks at all, because in a world where nobody dies except of accidents, accidents are MAJOR TRAGEDIES. Kids today ride bicycles and swim in lakes. 3000 years from now, when the only way to die is an accident, nobody will ride bicycles anymore: people DIE that way, sometimes."
Nah, I don't think that's true. Our human spirit will still propel us to take risks. Consider space travel. We will lose lives as we begin exploring new solar systems and eventually galaxies. Perhaps surfing will be less interesting then solar surfing but we humans like to have fun. If your an athiest and don't believe in the afterlife does that mean you don't cliff jump? Nope!
"There will also be no risk taking in business, and no military forces. Today, when somebody starts a business, there's always a degree of swashbuckling risk taking, and there's a little bird in the background that says "Well, if I really screw this up and crash, it doesn't ULTIMATELY matter, does it?" But in a world where you get to live with the consequences of your bad early decisions for thousands of years, indeed, where early decisions one way or the other will act with compounded interest over endless lives, there will be very little tolerance for early risk."
The risk of business is failure. Most business people either have some jobs to refine their skills to succeed or entrepenuars fail and start over again. Success will still be important but the drive to suceed before age 60 and have a solid retirement will likely diminish. The counter balance in the free market to this slowdown will be the millenia of wealth build up. Theoretically, most people on the globe could become ultra rich and stay that way permanently.
"Also, in a world where nobody gets old, young people, which all of us will be, will get stuck in the deadly-dull-drone jobs for hundreds and hundreds of years. The top won't clear out, and there will always be vastly older and more experienced people in charge. Today, the real difference between the brash 29 year old entrepreneur and the 60 year old establishment man is ONLY 31 year of experience. That's enough to make a difference, but not enough of a difference for the brash 29 year old to be totally unable to win in intellectual competition. But no 29 year old will EVER be able to outwit, outguess, out-anything a healthy, strong, fit, mentally aler 2500-year old. We do learn more and more as we get older, and wisdom matters. Today, nobody's got more than half century advantage. But q 2 century advantage would be invincible."
I think that certain people in general have higher intelligence and do better at certain things. I think of playing my guitar. Despite playing for almost 20 years, I know 18 year olds who kick my ass. In business some people will still eb better then others after hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of years.
My wife saves lint for up to two months in a plastic bag hanging from a nail and then tosses it in the trash; seems silly to me since I placed a 30 gallon trash can two feet from the dryer.
I think lint has magical properties.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.