he, having been part of both classes, pulling himself out of the gutter and transforming himself into the upper class leader of the working man's town, would appreciate this new revelation by one of London's premier evolutionary theorists. Or maybe Bounderby would have been disappointed, himself a truthless denial that man can transcend social class, to see the lie that he believed so whimsically dismissed.
I say whimsically, because I have read the BBC story. Go ahead, read it for yourself of follow along here the Wellsian story (I should think they will appreciate it, if it indeed does not violate copyright). I'll try to retell.
Oliver Curry, of the London School of Economics Department of Philosophy and Natural History, has jokingly (surely?) suggested that we will see a genetic split among humans in the next few thousand years. Interesting indeed, is his social application of his darwinism scholarship, that the human race will divide along class lines into distinct sub-species within, possibly, 10,000 years.
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. Indeed and interesting idea, which sparks a certain image I just can't put my finger on...
Social skills, such as communicating and interacting with others, could be lost, along with emotions such as love, sympathy, trust and respect. People would become less able to care for others, or perform in teams. This sounds somewhat familiar, and I know I've read it somewhere...
The logical outcome would be two sub-species, "gracile" and "robust" humans similar to the Eloi and Morlocks foretold by HG Wells in his 1895 novel The Time Machine. Aha!! That's it! Err, wait.?. Can you just take a 111 year publication and contrive its theme as your own theory?
Well, maybe you can. If you're tall, dark, handsome, and smart enough I guess. I'm just too short and stupid to understand how this is reportable news. Or, were it news, how it would be useful. Certainly, predictions with theories of prevention (or any sort of course guidance) have use. And sometimes its good to know what will happen even if you can't prevent its occurrence. But is this prediction of any real scientific or societal value (notwithstanding the arguments that might be made that technological advances may take away the class gap, or the prevalence of the middle class)?
I don't know, but at least it's not my tax money. Maybe tonight I'll go home and do some research of my own, tax free of course. Hmmm... what will it be? I guess I'm just too dim-witted to make up my mind; I'll have to go to the bookshelf to decide. I hope the book I want to research isn't on the top shelf.
1 comment:
Let me suggest some research for you: in the belly of your wife is a baby.
It doesn't seem too tall yet, though it does like to kick at various regions beyond its uterine confines. Recent ultrasounds suggest healthiness but not necessarily attractiveness or intelligence.
With very poor social skills, the baby prefers keeping to itself, though if asked the bean would probably reveal great trust in its excellent mother, what for the nutrition and warm home she has provided for the past 7 months.
The child clearly takes after its father.
Will the bean be gracile or robust? Time will indeed tell.
Post a Comment