No serious physical anthropologist uses the concept of race any more. There are population clines etc, but no 'races'. Race is a social concept. This sounds like the kind of junk one would expect from an economist. With apologies to that particular tribe. Carol
----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian McNett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <silklist@lists.hserus.net> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:23 PM Subject: Re: [silk] Human species 'may split in two' > On 10/18/06, Udhay Shankar N <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Humanity may split into two sub-species in 100,000 years' > > > > time > > > > > > > Racial differences will be ironed > > > > out by interbreeding, producing a uniform race of > > > > coffee-coloured people. > > > > > >ROTFL > > > > > >The article contradicts itself. > > > > While I am not very impressed with the article either, race is not > > the same as species. So the above does not necessarily imply a contradiction. > > The problem with the racial-mixing theory is that it requires > considerable mass-migration in order to make it work. We're just not > seeing that in real life. In fact, technology is making it easier for > people to STAY put, while at the same time reducing CULTURAL > differences between distant peoples. > > Saying that mankind could evolve into two distinct species in as > little as the next thousand years is ALSO a stretch. It ignores the > fact that wealthy people with good education and medical care are > having FEWER children, such that new supplies of genetic material for > future generations of wealthy will have to come from the ranks of > poorer people with less educations and medical care. > > The author is writing, much as H.G. Wells did, from that standpoint of > the highly-stratified English class structure, and presuming that the > classes are fixed and immobile, and don't intermingle. While this may > be true of England, and might be true in other places across the > globe, it's far from being UNIVERSALLY true. > > But the thing that gets me is what is an evolutionary theorist doing > in a school of ECONOMICS? That part simply doesn't compute. > > While I find the article amusing, I don't see it as being a plausible > future scenario. > > --Brian > >
