Disclaimer: You are looking at a post I wrote some time ago. The information and opinions contained within may be outdated and may differ from my current views. Please proceed accordingly.

Dear Oliver Curry:

Oct 18, 2006 10:52 AM
Tags: blogging, politics, science

H. G. Wells called. He wants his idea back (The Time Machine):

Human species 'may split in two', over-blogged "science" story.

Think about how different our lives are, compared to a thousand years ago. And this guy is making pronouncements about the biological state of mankind in 3000. Ridiculous.


Comments: Dear Oliver Curry:

What a kook. Everyone knows we're going to evolve into robots, not goblins...

Posted by: Nicardo Autobahn on October 18, 2006 11:58 AM | permalink

It was way off base when he said that the 2 species would be called the British and the Americans.

And where does the Cylon race coming back to destroy us fit into this?

Posted by: Kearns on October 18, 2006 1:17 PM | permalink

I'm OK with robots as long as they vibrate.

Posted by: Joe Grossberg on October 18, 2006 5:11 PM | permalink

The year 3000 prediction isn't unreasonable. We already have a bit of class-related segregation. Ivy League families (quite often smarter people, genetically) breed amongst themselves while the rest breed in their own group. It's not a perfect divide, but the bias is definitely there.

No comment about the rest of his predictions.

Posted by: Od*ll on October 19, 2006 1:26 AM | permalink

And you think this is more the case than it was, say, a few hundred years ago?

If anything, I think the trend is moving in the opposite direction. Sure, there are stll (blurry, permeable) class lines, but the aristocracy is less clearly delineated than before, in terms of race, religion and heritage.

Posted by: Joe Grossberg on October 19, 2006 7:03 AM | permalink

Did he say whether it was the ivy league famillies or the proles who would mutate into goblins? Wonder which direction his clever chromosomes are heading..

Posted by: JTD on October 19, 2006 11:56 AM | permalink

I'll agree that the class lines are somewhat permeable, but the sharpness of the division depends on how exactly you want to define class, and there are so many ways to do it. The division between the ruling elite and the poor is quite sharp.

It's true that you don't have to be a Kennedy, Bush, or Rockefeller, to be of the "ruling class," but odds are that you won't be unless you were born into some wealth. Religion, race, and heritage are held somewhat constant for the aristocracy because of this. Despite a big change in demographics, the aristocracy is still pretty much WASPS and Jews, and will be that way for a long time.

Posted by: Od*ll on October 20, 2006 2:27 AM | permalink

(While the BBC article has aroused much complaints about this weird "research", this blog seems to be among the few places that have mentioned Haskell (as a programming language), so I'm raising the topic here.)

Is this Oliver Curry related to Haskell B. Curry in anyway? The latter is perhaps among the most important theoretical computing scientist, and there is a programming language named after him. It would be surprising to know that Haskell Curry have such a descendant.

Posted by: epicure on October 25, 2006 5:07 AM | permalink

epicure:

I have heard of Haskell, and my adoration of list comprehensions in Python has piqued my interest in the lanugage it was borrowed from.

But I have no idea if there is a connection; perhaps someone will comment on this page at a later date.

If you're interested, there is a feed for the comments on this page: http://www.joegrossberg.com/archives/comment_feeds/002785.rss

Posted by: Joe Grossberg on October 25, 2006 11:36 AM | permalink

Interesting that men's penises will get larger, but what about women's clitori?

Posted by: Dan Brown on October 26, 2007 12:51 PM | permalink

No more comments! Either someone has violated Godwin's Law, I'm tired of the discussion or, most likely, the ten-week window has closed. You can, however, contact me through email.