If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Sun)   What humans will look like...IN THE YEAR 3000 (w/pics)   (thesun.co.uk) divider line 226
    More: Interesting, double chins, Lancaster University  
•       •       •

35032 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Oct 2012 at 8:22 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



226 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-06 03:17:08 AM
Wow, all that in 1000 years. Too bad we have no way of knowing how much we've changed in our previous 1000 years. Oh, wait....
 
2012-10-06 04:57:27 AM
Yeah. Maybe 100,000 years.
 
2012-10-06 05:38:51 AM
Well that was incredibly stupid.
 
Pud [TotalFark]
2012-10-06 07:38:14 AM
In just 1,000 years? No, it'll probably be more like ....

t3.gstatic.com
 
2012-10-06 07:51:47 AM

Relatively Obscure: Well that was incredibly stupid.


Well it is the Sun.
 
2012-10-06 08:04:41 AM
In the year two thousaaaaaaaaand
 
2012-10-06 08:15:45 AM
Oh for fark's sake BIOLOGY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY
 
2012-10-06 08:16:09 AM
Pretty much what I see when I read most posts on fark.
 
2012-10-06 08:26:00 AM
What will the page 3 girls look like then?
 
2012-10-06 08:27:01 AM
Complete and utter pish. If it was anyone other than The Sun I might make a comment about it being a new low.
 
2012-10-06 08:27:59 AM

Cuchulane: What will the page 3 girls look like then?


See "Pud", above. ^
 
2012-10-06 08:28:55 AM

Pud: In just 1,000 years? No, it'll probably be more like ....

[t3.gstatic.com image 356x297]


Looks like i have a new fetish.
 
2012-10-06 08:30:06 AM
I see in my crystal ball that Y3K people will be laughing their asses off at this stupidity.
 
2012-10-06 08:30:21 AM
images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-10-06 08:30:49 AM
I looked at the pic and thought it was the Jackie Wright from Benny Hill
www.runstop.de
 
2012-10-06 08:30:56 AM

Cuchulane: What will the page 3 girls look like then?

that's the only thing i liked about the sun.
I didn't know you could get that much bullshiat on a page
 
2012-10-06 08:31:21 AM
That's one of the stupidest Goddamn things I've seen in print.
 
2012-10-06 08:31:48 AM
If man is still alive...
 
2012-10-06 08:31:55 AM

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: Oh for fark's sake BIOLOGY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY


Yup, that was going to be my rant too. Do they really think that using iPhones is going to be a selection criteria?
 
2012-10-06 08:32:19 AM
I thought it was just religion the media was so clueless about. I see science is part of the group of topics the media has absolutely nothing useful to speak of. Evolution doesnt follow a logical pathway based on transient social trends. we have many traits that serve no purpose simply because there was no selection against it. if evolution followed a logical plan it would be called intelligent design. and lets not go there.
Maybe the media should just stick to entertainers and their drug addictions.
 
2012-10-06 08:32:25 AM
i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-10-06 08:32:32 AM
This article is obviously mistaken since at some point someone would have to have sex with someone who looks something like that... and obviously that won't happen.
 
2012-10-06 08:32:41 AM
I can't fap to this.
 
2012-10-06 08:33:07 AM
I particularly like the bit about how we're going to somehow have smaller brains because of computers.

Computers have been responsible for the EXPANSION of knowledge more so than perhaps any other tool in history.
 
2012-10-06 08:33:30 AM
So I guess in the year 3000 everyone will be looking for "My Precioussssssssss....."
 
2012-10-06 08:33:32 AM
Probably not. The large population and the interbreeding of people from different parts of the world are brakes to evolution.

The biggest change should be that we all look the same, but that won't be much different than what we look like now. Some smaller outlier groups with distinct appearances may disappear like South African Bushmen or Australian Aborigines. Polynesians may not be so diabetes prone. I suspect they will be like everyone else. White people will probably be gone, and so will really black people.

Unless something awful happens, then all bets are off.
 
2012-10-06 08:34:14 AM
southparkstudios.mtvnimages.com

As long as they don't take our jobs..
 
2012-10-06 08:34:24 AM
Add a pot belly and that looks pretty much like the average British pub inhabitant.
 
2012-10-06 08:34:42 AM
deadhomersociety.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-10-06 08:36:32 AM

leevis: If man is still alive...


If woman can survive, they may find...
 
2012-10-06 08:36:50 AM
www.forevergeek.com
 
2012-10-06 08:37:07 AM

RolandGunner: This article is obviously mistaken since at some point someone would have to have sex with someone who looks something like that... and obviously that won't happen.


I see you're new to the Internet.
 
2012-10-06 08:37:32 AM
'Smaller brains, more wrinkles, fewer teeth'

So they'll all be Republicans?
 
2012-10-06 08:37:52 AM
In the year 4545, however, you ain't gonna need your teeth. Won't need your eyes. You won't find a thing to chew. Nobody's gonna look at you.

Well, not YOU, specifically, since you'll be dead, but, you know. . . .
 
2012-10-06 08:39:45 AM

billgulch: [southparkstudios.mtvnimages.com image 400x300]

As long as they don't take our jobs..


Derka durrrr.
 
2012-10-06 08:40:05 AM
It sucks that our genitalia will have The Sun tattooed on them.
 
2012-10-06 08:40:39 AM
I just want to point out the machines will rise up against before that time.
 
2012-10-06 08:42:50 AM

Trance750: 'Smaller brains, more wrinkles, fewer teeth'

So they'll all be Republicans?


i742.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-06 08:43:24 AM
taaaaax cuuuuts

img.thesun.co.uk
 
2012-10-06 08:43:37 AM
img.thesun.co.uk

I know this guy!
 
2012-10-06 08:45:09 AM
Evolution implies that people with unwanted genetic traits or diseases will not be reproducing, how are we going to selectively breed If these traits? If we can't then we'll never "evolve" past what we are. We'll just keep bandaging our bodies and living longer with them. All the while making more of us that will all be allowed to reproduce with the same defective parts.
 
2012-10-06 08:45:11 AM
The year 3000? Pfft. We will have killed each other off long before then.
 
2012-10-06 08:45:55 AM
WOW, they already look like that in Tennessee
 
2012-10-06 08:46:18 AM
The fine people at Planet Express would like a word...
 
2012-10-06 08:47:14 AM
What about BRACES?
 
2012-10-06 08:47:46 AM
upload.wikimedia.org 

Obscure?
 
2012-10-06 08:47:55 AM
Oh, yeah, and the last sentence is a nice touch:

And there will be darker skin as people move around the planet and races mix.

...as opposed to the light skin all people enjoy today, right, Sun?
 
2012-10-06 08:48:28 AM
FTFA: Osteopath Garry Trainer, from north London, says: "The average American is about one inch taller than in 1960."

This isn't true: Americans stopped growing in average height about 50 years ago and recent evidence says that because of poor childhood nutrition we are getting shorter -- and fatter. This from a 2004 article in The New Yorker titled "The Height Gap: Why Europeans are Getting Taller -- and Americans Aren't":

But sometime around 1955 the situation began to reverse. The Germans and other Europeans went on to grow an extra two centimetres a decade, and some Asian populations several times more, yet Americans haven't grown taller in fifty years.

The average American man is only five feet nine and a half-less than an inch taller than the average soldier during the Revolutionary War. Women, meanwhile, seem to be getting smaller. According to the National Center for Health Statistics-which conducts periodic surveys of as many as thirty-five thousand Americans-women born in the late nineteen-fifties and early nineteen-sixties average just under five feet five. Those born a decade later are a third of an inch shorter.


Link
 
2012-10-06 08:48:30 AM
Someone needs to explain the difference between adaptation and evolution to these people, and then slam their heads together.
 
2012-10-06 08:48:49 AM
So women will be selecting for ugly, hairless, tiny penis, strange looking men?

More likely we will have good looking idiots who can just about function in life and can get laid...

What do the women look like who will want these supermen?
 
2012-10-06 08:49:13 AM

Trance750: 'Smaller brains, more wrinkles, fewer teeth'

So they'll all be Republicans?


img20.imageshack.us
 
2012-10-06 08:49:37 AM

Bacon is not Your Buttie: [upload.wikimedia.org image 340x329] 

Obscure?


Thank you. That article is stupid.
 
2012-10-06 08:50:03 AM

Proteios1: if evolution followed a logical plan it would be called intelligent design.


Or eugenics, or gene therapy.
 
2012-10-06 08:50:28 AM
www.iwatchstuff.com
 
2012-10-06 08:54:30 AM
I'M GONNA SUE!

They took that artwork straight from my family album. Doctor it up all you wish, but I know my wife when I see her. Poor dear is in tears over this.
 
2012-10-06 08:55:59 AM
Amazing amount of BS passed off as science by this esteemed publication..

I suspect we will look more like the current population of Brazil--an attractive blending of various racial characteristics. The males will wear pointy shoes. The females will have major foobies. Everyone will be the color of cafe au lait. None of us will ever know. 

I'm sad now.
 
2012-10-06 08:58:18 AM
And there will be darker skin as people move around the planet and races mix.
 

media.giantbomb.com 

/I keed
 
2012-10-06 09:00:11 AM
I'm convinced. Better start watching my diet... Oh wait, forgot I'm just going to adjust eventually. Awesomesauce.
 
2012-10-06 09:00:38 AM

uE:

I know this guy!


...and img0.fark.net is there. I mean right THERE covering those naughty bits.
 
2012-10-06 09:01:17 AM
"Expect people to have QUADRUPLE CHINS"

media.trb.com
 
2012-10-06 09:02:21 AM
cache.gawkerassets.com
/oblig
 
2012-10-06 09:02:35 AM

Habitual Cynic: The males will wear pointy shoes.


You mean like elves?
 
2012-10-06 09:03:33 AM
Meh. 500 years from now, genetic engineering will be commonplace. We'll be whatever we damn well want and to hell with evolution.

"Honey? It says here the polymastia fad is coming back."
"In your dreams, John."
 
2012-10-06 09:05:28 AM
Based on that photo, I'd say alien encounters are more likely to be human time travelers from the year 4000.

/adjusting tin foil hat
 
SH
2012-10-06 09:06:16 AM
In other news, everyone's penis will have an advertisement for THE SUN on it.
 
2012-10-06 09:06:26 AM
Advancements in nutrition?

skeptisys.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-10-06 09:08:47 AM

phlegmmo: Wow, all that in 1000 years. Too bad we have no way of knowing how much we've changed in our previous 1000 years. Oh, wait....


Exactly what I came here to say
 
2012-10-06 09:10:42 AM
The race mixing thing is probably true and MAYBE the height thing (if the obesity epidemic due to poor nutrition trend changes, which it probably won't). And possibly the shorter intestines, but the rest is absolutely retarded.
 
2012-10-06 09:10:49 AM
My prediction of what all women will look like in the year 3000:

images.askmen.com

/male fertility rate continues to spiral downward because of teh crazy
 
2012-10-06 09:15:03 AM
Old-timey article from 1934:

oi41.tinypic.com
 
2012-10-06 09:15:54 AM

emersonbiggins: My prediction of what all women will look like in the year 3000:

[images.askmen.com image 376x490]

/male fertility rate continues to spiral downward because of teh crazy


So fat then.
 
2012-10-06 09:17:00 AM
No necks? No wonder our future Giraffe overlords will enslave us so easily.
 
2012-10-06 09:23:05 AM

leevis: If man is still alive...


500 years too early for this "article"
 
2012-10-06 09:27:12 AM
The writer forgets one important detail...someone is going to have to want to sleep with this monstrosity.
 
2012-10-06 09:29:34 AM
Thafs what a thousand years of present day English food will do to you.
 
2012-10-06 09:32:45 AM
Humans have gotten larger as food production has allowed, because increased muscle was a selector for survival. Since we've invented computers and robots, the ability to perform big muscle work is no longer going to be a genetic advantage. We're already beginning to shrink, even though our diets are richer than ever, because we are requiring our bodies to do less work every day. Our distance vision will probably get worse from staring at computers all day, as well.
 
2012-10-06 09:35:56 AM
ctrl+f lamarckism
hmmm
scroll down...

Bacon is not Your Buttie: [upload.wikimedia.org image 340x329] 

Obscure?


Ahhh
 
2012-10-06 09:40:48 AM

Craps the Gorilla: phlegmmo: Wow, all that in 1000 years. Too bad we have no way of knowing how much we've changed in our previous 1000 years. Oh, wait....

Exactly what I came here to say


Their prediction (although dumb) is due to scientific advances from now through then. So the prev 1000 years is moot.
 
2012-10-06 09:41:10 AM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Humans have gotten larger as food production has allowed, because increased muscle was a selector for survival. Since we've invented computers and robots, the ability to perform big muscle work is no longer going to be a genetic advantage. We're already beginning to shrink, even though our diets are richer than ever, because we are requiring our bodies to do less work every day. Our distance vision will probably get worse from staring at computers all day, as well.


We're shrinking because we're eating like shiat. Our genetics allow us to be taller. Since just about anyone can find someone to screw there's very little natural selection going on.
 
2012-10-06 09:41:22 AM

andersoncouncil42: [www.forevergeek.com image 411x278]


Came here for Coco. Leaving satisfied.
 
2012-10-06 09:44:21 AM
Don't the readers of the Sun already resemble that picture?
 
2012-10-06 09:45:30 AM
Disturbing. Silly, but disturbing ~shudders~
 
2012-10-06 09:47:53 AM
What quadruple chins may look like:
 
2012-10-06 09:48:03 AM
img.thesun.co.uk

So everyone will look like Tea Party people?

/shudders
 
2012-10-06 09:48:14 AM
I think this is a more realistic picture of the year 3000:

www.wizards.com
 
2012-10-06 09:48:35 AM
Trying that again:

frogmatters.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-10-06 09:49:28 AM
Oh, the stupid, it buuuuurns!
 
2012-10-06 09:53:49 AM
I laugh at the small testicles.

/not my descendants!
 
2012-10-06 09:54:20 AM
I suspect men will be taller. That seems to be the primary trait we're breeding for.

Women...well, women will be resistant to Monsanto's chemicals, because the ones that weren't will be infertile. I suspect in 100 years the population will be constant simply because of the huge percentage of couples who can't have kids. If you're infertile, doesn't matter what the rest of your traits are, you are the weakest link. Goodbye.
 
2012-10-06 09:56:09 AM
So what is an actual selection pressure that we face today? How about driving skill? We had a highway fatality of a young-ish girl recently. She's not passing on any of those slow reaction time genes.
 
2012-10-06 09:58:36 AM
missedee.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-10-06 09:59:45 AM
FTA:

ytrewq.com
 
2012-10-06 10:01:13 AM
"fingers will increase because of the greater use of devices such as iPhones that need complex eye-hand coordination."

If we're going to be using iPhones in 1,000 years we might as well just freaking end it now.
 
2012-10-06 10:04:20 AM
egwincorporated.files.wordpress.com

Thanks The Sun, for inspiring me to check Netflix for Aeon Flux.
 
2012-10-06 10:08:47 AM

rhiannon: "fingers will increase because of the greater use of devices such as iPhones that need complex eye-hand coordination."

If we're going to be using iPhones in 1,000 years we might as well just freaking end it now.


It'll be twice as thin with 2" of greater screen real estate and a battery life of at least several hours by then, so at least there's that.
 
2012-10-06 10:09:24 AM

rhiannon: "fingers will increase because of the greater use of devices such as iPhones that need complex eye-hand coordination."

If we're going to be using iPhones in 1,000 years we might as well just freaking end it now.


www.iphonespies.com
 
2012-10-06 10:10:56 AM

untaken_name: rhiannon: "fingers will increase because of the greater use of devices such as iPhones that need complex eye-hand coordination."

If we're going to be using iPhones in 1,000 years we might as well just freaking end it now.

It'll be twice as thin with 2" of greater screen real estate and a battery life of at least several hours by then, so at least there's that.


images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-10-06 10:12:58 AM

dready zim: More likely we will have good looking idiots who can just about function in life and can get laid...


That would be the Eloi. The article only deals with the Morlocks.
 
2012-10-06 10:15:24 AM
No.

//that is the dumbest thing I've read all week and I've been reading teabagger tweets.
 
2012-10-06 10:16:09 AM
I suspect not much will have changed, but we'll live underwater.
 
2012-10-06 10:18:30 AM
I imagine in 1000 years, we'll have long since been killed off by some supervirus of our own making.
 
2012-10-06 10:18:39 AM
DO NOT WANT Poster Girl:

Oh for fark's sake BIOLOGY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

"We'll have SMALLER BRAINS, maybe because so much memorising and thinking is done by our computers."

Okay everybody, it's time to turn off those silicon-chip appliances. Humans now are mainly just taller, fatter and not as ridden by parasites and infectious diseases than we were 1000 years ago, but now because of computers we'll all evolve into subhuman CHUDS.

And vote Republican and praise Jesus.
 
2012-10-06 10:21:07 AM
Bhruic:

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: Oh for fark's sake BIOLOGY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

Yup, that was going to be my rant too. Do they really think that using iPhones is going to be a selection criteria?


It already is. Been to a college campus lately?

What I liked was this: "And there will be darker skin as people move around the planet and races mix." Hooray!
 
2012-10-06 10:22:41 AM

crazypete: Evolution implies that people with unwanted genetic traits or diseases will not be reproducing, how are we going to selectively breed If these traits? If we can't then we'll never "evolve" past what we are. We'll just keep bandaging our bodies and living longer with them. All the while making more of us that will all be allowed to reproduce with the same defective parts.


no it doesn't. "evolution" isn't a force. Evolution doesn't want anything. There are no unwanted traits, there just ARE traits."Evolution" doesn't label traits as good or bad. Depending on the environment, different traits give one individual a SLIGHT, TEENY, TINY advantage over another. Over millions of here the entire population changes.

And then you have to add in the fact that humans have the ability to pass on knowledge to their progeny. It changes the game. But people act like because we are passing on knowledge and building up more knowledge that evolution is over and we are going to screw things up. No, THAT IS HOW WE EVOLVED. Giant turtles live longer than us but they don't keep their progeny around for 18 years educating then about what they've learned in their lifetime. Our brains are so big that it is worth the increased damage to mothers during birth.
 
2012-10-06 10:25:02 AM
mimg.ugo.com
 
2012-10-06 10:25:37 AM
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-06 10:26:51 AM
www.allurelibre.ch
 
2012-10-06 10:30:18 AM
Longer fingers because of devices we use? Kinda short sighted to think we'll still be pushing buttons and screens in 1000 years let alone 50 years.
 
2012-10-06 10:30:57 AM
Looks British. That is the female, isn't it?
 
2012-10-06 10:40:13 AM

wambu: Looks British. That is the female, isn't it?


Yes, smoking hot too!
 
2012-10-06 10:41:00 AM

Erom: Longer fingers because of devices we use? Kinda short sighted to think we'll still be pushing buttons and screens in 1000 years let alone 50 years.


In 50 years I fully expect computers to be driven by thought.
 
2012-10-06 10:41:03 AM
i3.ytimg.com

EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!


/really I'm the first?
//we're still under sexual selection pressure. Primarily woman selecting for men, as men will stick it in about any beast. Men will be taller and that's about it.
///Cool study from a few years ago: women shown pictures of men, 75% always chose the tallest as the most attractive, researchers started trying to make the tall men less attractive. (tall man is poor, tall man is abusive so on...) Only when they were told tallest man was a convicted murderer did his rating as most attractive drop below 50%.
 
2012-10-06 10:41:11 AM

Erom: Longer fingers because of devices we use? Kinda short sighted to think we'll still be pushing buttons and screens in 1000 years let alone 50 years.


"Mister Spacely made me push the button almost SEVEN times today, Jane!"
 
2012-10-06 10:46:56 AM
My Sun penis really gets the chicks hot.
 
2012-10-06 10:47:59 AM
i'm actually curious about how our bodies would evolve once we leave earth and start living in space in zero gravity.
 
2012-10-06 10:48:34 AM

emersonbiggins: My prediction of what all women will look like in the year 3000:

[images.askmen.com image 376x490]

/male fertility rate continues to spiral downward because of teh crazy


What is wrong with this woman's tits? Every pic I see of her has them squashed up or down or pointed in different directions.

Bags of sand?
 
2012-10-06 10:51:03 AM
Where's the unlikely tag?

Memeslave

She must be wearing various different types of bras.
 
2012-10-06 10:51:44 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Erom: Longer fingers because of devices we use? Kinda short sighted to think we'll still be pushing buttons and screens in 1000 years let alone 50 years.

In 50 years I fully expect computers to be driven by thought.


Subvocalization and tracking eye and hand movement is so much cheaper, why bother?

We're still using a steering wheel a hundred years after the invention of the car simply because people like having something that makes them feel in control. It'll take a long time for humans to get used to the idea of controlling things via thought.
 
2012-10-06 10:54:33 AM
This article is absurd for another reason I haven't seen in the thread. Human beings in 1,000 years will not be organic.
 
2012-10-06 10:59:20 AM
weknowmemes.com
 
2012-10-06 11:04:42 AM

RolandGunner: This article is obviously mistaken since at some point someone would have to have sex with someone who looks something like that... and obviously that won't happen.


I dunno about that. Slump buster gone wrong? But yes. I personally think people will become more tan and maybe more resilient to disease as antibiotics stop working.
 
2012-10-06 11:04:47 AM

The One True TheDavid: Do they really think that using iPhones is going to be a selection criteria?

It already is. Been to a college campus lately?

What I liked was this: "And there will be darker skin as people move around the planet and races mix." Hooray!


Really? People are choosing their sexual partners based on how well they can use an iPhone?
 
2012-10-06 11:05:06 AM
The official logo for The Sun is modelled after a penis from the distant future?

That actually explains a lot. We've all learned something today.
 
2012-10-06 11:08:18 AM

phlegmmo: Wow, all that in 1000 years. Too bad we have no way of knowing how much we've changed in our previous 1000 years. Oh, wait....


SO this.
 
2012-10-06 11:14:49 AM

Aboleth: [images2.wikia.nocookie.net image 525x341]


I call dibs on Luornu. Cute, smart, makes multiple copies of herself, and has doesn't mind if you're carrying a few extra pounds. The perfect girl for any comic book fan.

BTW, is that from Sueprman: TAS? I know the JLU ep backwards and forwards and it looks nothing like the abortion that was the LoSH cartoon. Time to fire up the DVD's...
 
2012-10-06 11:17:01 AM

abhorrent1: I can't fap to this.


Amateur.
 
2012-10-06 11:17:20 AM

RolandGunner: This article is obviously mistaken since at some point someone would have to have sex with someone who looks something like that... and obviously that won't happen.


Honey Boo Boo's mom has had 4 kids.

/Freaky deakies need love, too.
//Freaky deakies need love, too...
 
2012-10-06 11:17:51 AM
So everyone in the future has Ankylosing Spondylitis?
 
2012-10-06 11:18:47 AM

kronicfeld: In the year two thousaaaaaaaaand


www.bravermania.com

In the year two thousaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand
 
2012-10-06 11:19:17 AM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: We're still using a steering wheel a hundred years after the invention of the car simply because people like having something that makes them feel in control.


I thought we were using steering wheels because they're a direct mechanical interface to moving the front wheels of a car/truck, so they're very robust, fairly simple and cheap to manufacture, and easy to figure out. It'd be simple to drive-by-wire with a {joystick, mouse, control pad, subvocalized voice thingy} but that'd introduce another point of failure and cost more.

Within the next 10-20 years, I expect most cars that still exist will be computer-driven. Humans will still manually control cars for racing and possibly emergency situations, but for going to work and the mall, people will let AltaGoogleBingVistaBot drive. That way, people can spend more time playing SkyWorldOfFarmCraftRim and texting their BFFs.

It'll take a long time for humans to get used to the idea of controlling things via thought.

Not really. All it will take is for the thought/subvocal interface to be more convenient than pushing buttons and moving mice. This may take a few years.

TwoBeersOneCan: This article is absurd for another reason I haven't seen in the thread. Human beings in 1,000 years will not be organic.


1000 years is a long time to make predictions for, but it's possible that we may run into fundamental physical constraints that either prevent brain uploading or make it insanely expensive. Also, we don't know if running human intelligence on a non-meat platform will work. We do know that running it on meat works, so I think research will first be put into improving the meat rather than building non-meat that may not work.

crow202.org
I Could Be Wrong and things could go in a completely different and much sillier direction, though.
 
2012-10-06 11:21:04 AM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Erom: Longer fingers because of devices we use? Kinda short sighted to think we'll still be pushing buttons and screens in 1000 years let alone 50 years.

In 50 years I fully expect computers to be driven by thought.

Subvocalization and tracking eye and hand movement is so much cheaper, why bother?


Because as manufacturing capacity inevitably increases, the machine to read your mind will become very inexpensive, just as microphones and cameras have become far cheaper to manufacture today than they were 50 years ago.
 
2012-10-06 11:22:30 AM

Sock Ruh Tease: "Expect people to have QUADRUPLE CHINS"

[media.trb.com image 325x425]


ytrewq.com
 
2012-10-06 11:30:12 AM

danceswithcrows: The Jami Turman Fan Club: We're still using a steering wheel a hundred years after the invention of the car simply because people like having something that makes them feel in control.

I thought we were using steering wheels because they're a direct mechanical interface to moving the front wheels of a car/truck, so they're very robust, fairly simple and cheap to manufacture, and easy to figure out.


While it's true that in theory you can drive a minivan without using power steering, most of the drivers can't do it. If you're using power steering, you have the same number of points of failure.
 
2012-10-06 11:31:19 AM
Really? I'm the first?

regmedia.co.uk
 
2012-10-06 11:35:43 AM

RoyFokker'sGhost: BTW, is that from Sueprman: TAS? I know the JLU ep backwards and forwards and it looks nothing like the abortion that was the LoSH cartoon. Time to fire up the DVD's...


Nah. That's from the post Legion Lost / Legion Worlds series Legion by Abnett and Lanning and drawn by Olivier Coipel from back in 2001 or thereabouts.

All sluiced into limbo now twice since.
 
2012-10-06 11:36:44 AM
Hogwash, and not even new hogwash.

Konstantin Lysenko proposed 100 years ago that environment would shape human form: People who lived in cold climates would adapt to it, etc.

Has not happened.

Here comnes the science: There is no science there.
 
2012-10-06 11:36:44 AM
Unlikely, since we'll look like this in 2525:
epguides.com
 
2012-10-06 11:37:17 AM
How about in 2525?
Link
 
2012-10-06 11:39:04 AM
www.galacticbinder.com
 
2012-10-06 11:39:04 AM

The_Original_Roxtar: I imagine in 1000 years, we'll have long since been killed off by some supervirus of our own making.


One can only hope.
 
2012-10-06 11:47:49 AM
imageshack.us

What I picture people to be like in Y3k.
 
2012-10-06 11:50:49 AM

randomjsa: I particularly like the bit about how we're going to somehow have smaller brains because of computers.

Computers have been responsible for the EXPANSION of knowledge more so than perhaps any other tool in history.


Computers brought us Fark Politics threads and YouTube comments, so yes, computers will make the human brain smaller from lack of use. It's called atrophy.
 
2012-10-06 11:54:11 AM
- Our most used extremities will change dramatically. ARMS AND FINGERS get longer to reduce the need to reach too far and nerve endings in hands and fingers will increase because of the greater use of devices such as iPhones that need complex eye-hand coordination.

Lamarck would be proud. Darwin would weep for your ignorance.

Unless, of course, skillful use of the iPhone becomes sexually desirable. Maybe Apple will come out with a new iForeplay app to make people better lovers?
 
2012-10-06 12:01:15 PM

Proteios1: I thought it was just religion the media was so clueless about. I see science is part of the group of topics the media has absolutely nothing useful to speak of. Evolution doesnt follow a logical pathway based on transient social trends. we have many traits that serve no purpose simply because there was no selection against it. if evolution followed a logical plan it would be called intelligent design. and lets not go there.
Maybe the media should just stick to entertainers and their drug addictions.


www.phdcomics.com
 
2012-10-06 12:03:50 PM
You have to be 'selected' for the traits. That means 'looks' are really all that matters. The reason we're getting taller is not from nutrition bu because women prefer tall men. None of the things mentioned would be attractive (except getting freakishly tall) so it's unlikely this will happen,

In any case, biological evolution is a dead issue for humans. It no longer has any meaningful effect. Biological evolution means an animal is shaped by it's environment. We shape our environment to suit us.

The next step, despite what the losers ruining sci-fi with soap operas might portray, is to become machines. Immortal, tough enough to travel space. To live on harsh moons and planets. Easy to maintain, easy to power, easy to upgrade. I still hope I live long enough to see it.
 
2012-10-06 12:07:31 PM
I've seen any number of articles stating that, over time, variations in human appearance will fade away as genetically dominant traits overwhelm recessive traits.

So, in the future will all nipples be brown or pink?
 
2012-10-06 12:07:52 PM
We'll have SMALLER BRAINS, maybe because so much memorising and thinking is done by our computers

I expect just the opposite - if anything, it would be advantageous to have increased brain capacity to process the information.

Computers are great at storing large amounts of information - something the human brain is pretty bad at - but computers are very bad at things that even a young child can do without effort. Our brains are not really designed for storing information, but for extracting key pieces of information and coming up with patterns and relations among various pieces of information.

AI is getting better, but even that is fundamentally unlike natural intelligence. I see the ultimate role of computers as assisting, not replacing, human thought. Eventually we'll have true brain-computer interfaces, and we can hopefully have the best of both worlds.
 
2012-10-06 12:10:36 PM
Also, if you want to know what humans of the future will be like, look at the folks having babies today. Hint: If you're on Fark, it probably ain't you.
 
2012-10-06 12:19:40 PM
If this article taught me anything, its that the British are stupider even than the Americans.
 
2012-10-06 12:27:44 PM
If Akin's buys into it, it must be true
 
2012-10-06 12:34:03 PM
Hmm, strange that we haven't changed that much in the last 50k years. Must be the radiation from future fallout.
 
2012-10-06 12:35:38 PM

Nick Nostril: Also, if you want to know what humans of the future will be like, look at the folks having babies today.



So they'll look like my cousin Sheila?
 
2012-10-06 12:40:57 PM
1: EVOLUTION DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT!
2: If the internet has taught me anything, it's that women will all have 13" long penises and huge tits.
 
2012-10-06 12:41:17 PM

TheLeftNugget: Erom: Longer fingers because of devices we use? Kinda short sighted to think we'll still be pushing buttons and screens in 1000 years let alone 50 years.

"Mister Spacely made me push the button almost SEVEN times today, Jane!"


I read that as "Mister Spanky".

I need to get out moar.
 
2012-10-06 12:42:35 PM
We'll look like whatever we want to after the Singularity.
 
2012-10-06 12:44:21 PM

Abox: Nick Nostril: Also, if you want to know what humans of the future will be like, look at the folks having babies today.


So they'll look like my cousin Sheila?


Jesus, I hope not.
 
2012-10-06 12:51:56 PM

enderthexenocide: i'm actually curious about how our bodies would evolve once we leave earth and start living in space in zero gravity.


Now that might actually apply some evolutionary pressure. There's no pressure that would select for longer fingers, shorter intestines or smaller brains. For that to happen, people with long fingers, short intestines and small brains would have to have more children and I see nothing that would lead to that.

But a weightless, high radiation environment would almost certainly increase mortality among those not adapted to it.
 
2012-10-06 12:54:37 PM

hitlersbrain: You have to be 'selected' for the traits. That means 'looks' are really all that matters. The reason we're getting taller is not from nutrition bu because women prefer tall men. None of the things mentioned would be attractive (except getting freakishly tall) so it's unlikely this will happen,

In any case, biological evolution is a dead issue for humans. It no longer has any meaningful effect. Biological evolution means an animal is shaped by it's environment. We shape our environment to suit us.

The next step, despite what the losers ruining sci-fi with soap operas might portray, is to become machines. Immortal, tough enough to travel space. To live on harsh moons and planets. Easy to maintain, easy to power, easy to upgrade. I still hope I live long enough to see it.


Not only that, but as a society we've eliminated the need to be able to provide for yourself and your offspring or else your genes didn't get passed on. 4000 years ago you had to be able to provide food, protection, and shelter. 2000 years ago you had to provide those things or have a skill you could trade for them. Now you have to provide those things, have a skill you can trade for them, or tell the government you need them. Basically the only thing you need to pass your genes on now is someone with complementary sexual organs.
 
2012-10-06 12:54:55 PM
Dougal Dixon did it better.

Link
 
2012-10-06 12:57:25 PM
www.driven2divide.com
 
2012-10-06 01:07:10 PM
Wow, and I thought Fox Science [sic] was bad.
 
2012-10-06 01:09:58 PM
i996.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-06 01:19:41 PM
www.velcro-city.co.uk

It's been done.
 
2012-10-06 01:20:16 PM

I Browse: [www.velcro-city.co.uk image 500x500]

It's been done.


Busted!
 
2012-10-06 01:23:41 PM

jso2897: That's one of the stupidest Goddamn things I've seen in print.


You sure nailed it!
Evolution just doesn't work that way, I might though be open to suggestions that writers for the Sun would develop this way...Small testicles, small brains and long typing fingers.
 
2012-10-06 01:25:55 PM
At least it gives midgets and dwarfs hope.
 
2012-10-06 01:31:51 PM
From this article, I have learned that the experts on human evolution are dentists, plastic surgeons, museum employees, and psychologists.
 
2012-10-06 01:33:34 PM
Someone in the art department: Hahahahahaaaa. Look at this funny picture I doodled on my break.

Editor: AAAHHAAAAHAHAAAAAA! That's hilarious! Hey! Let's write some bogus bullshiat to go with it and we'll run it like its a serious news article.
 
2012-10-06 01:39:58 PM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-10-06 01:40:48 PM
www.dvdjournal.com 

More obscure?
 
2012-10-06 01:41:39 PM

I Browse: [www.velcro-city.co.uk image 500x500]

It's been done.


i560.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-06 01:46:55 PM
I can believe some of this, but I seriously doubt that people will have a SUN logo between their legs
 
2012-10-06 01:48:31 PM

Proteios1: I thought it was just religion the media was so clueless about. I see science is part of the group of topics the media has absolutely nothing useful to speak of. Evolution doesnt follow a logical pathway based on transient social trends. we have many traits that serve no purpose simply because there was no selection against it. if evolution followed a logical plan it would be called intelligent design. and lets not go there.
Maybe the media should just stick to entertainers and their drug addictions.


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-10-06 01:50:23 PM

Omnivorous: FTFA: Osteopath Garry Trainer, from north London, says: "The average American is about one inch taller than in 1960."

This isn't true: Americans stopped growing in average height about 50 years ago and recent evidence says that because of poor childhood nutrition we are getting shorter -- and fatter. This from a 2004 article in The New Yorker titled "The Height Gap: Why Europeans are Getting Taller -- and Americans Aren't":

But sometime around 1955 the situation began to reverse. The Germans and other Europeans went on to grow an extra two centimetres a decade, and some Asian populations several times more, yet Americans haven't grown taller in fifty years.

The average American man is only five feet nine and a half-less than an inch taller than the average soldier during the Revolutionary War. Women, meanwhile, seem to be getting smaller. According to the National Center for Health Statistics-which conducts periodic surveys of as many as thirty-five thousand Americans-women born in the late nineteen-fifties and early nineteen-sixties average just under five feet five. Those born a decade later are a third of an inch shorter.

Link


That study is damned near as flawed as the stupidity in TFA. Ethnicities with shorter mean and median height constitute a large and increasing proportion of the US population. It's not that mean US height didn't plateau, it's that they're misrepresenting the reason why.
 
2012-10-06 01:52:40 PM
D'oh! Should have scrolled more!
 
2012-10-06 01:57:33 PM

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: Oh for fark's sake BIOLOGY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY


And yet the average intelligence of The Sun's patrons should preclude them reading at all.

EXPLAIN THAT, SCIENCE!
 
2012-10-06 02:00:12 PM
Americans as a nationality arent getting taller because an increasing amount of Americans are of shorter hispanic pedigree. If the average height of 250 million people is 5'10 and you suddenly have an influx of 100 million folks whose average height is 5'7, it brings the average down.
 
2012-10-06 02:01:20 PM

RexTalionis: [www.allurelibre.ch image 468x595]


"Is it twue what they say about Morlocks?"

"It's twue! It's twue!"

/obscure?
 
2012-10-06 02:17:15 PM

Cybernetic: I've seen any number of articles stating that, over time, variations in human appearance will fade away as genetically dominant traits overwhelm recessive traits.

So, in the future will all nipples be brown or pink?


One of each. And they will function like the soft-serve machine at McDonald's. In the event of three nipples, the middle one will be "swirl."
 
2012-10-06 02:21:43 PM

PallMall: Sock Ruh Tease: "Expect people to have QUADRUPLE CHINS"

[media.trb.com image 325x425]

[ytrewq.com image 433x567]


OH SWEET JESUS!

/nice
 
2012-10-06 02:23:40 PM

Cybernetic: I've seen any number of articles stating that, over time, variations in human appearance will fade away as genetically dominant traits overwhelm recessive traits.

So, in the future will all nipples be brown or pink?


One of each. They will function like the soft serve machines at McDonald's. If there is a third, it will be "swirl."
 
2012-10-06 02:23:47 PM
Came for the Bat Boy comparison.

/Left disappointed.
 
2012-10-06 02:24:03 PM

jfarkinB: Oh, yeah, and the last sentence is a nice touch:

And there will be darker skin as people move around the planet and races mix.

...as opposed to the light skin all people enjoy today, right, Sun?


My brain nearly melted from the stupid before this.
 
2012-10-06 02:24:58 PM
I sent the duplicate post from 1000 years in the future. It was just a test.
 
2012-10-06 02:30:16 PM
Jesus, reading that article caused a flashback to being a young teenager and killing time at my Grandmother's house reading the supermarket tabloid rags she had laying around
 
2012-10-06 02:37:51 PM
"...climate is having less influence on broad or narrow hooters..."

Way to bury the lede, Sun.
 
2012-10-06 02:39:39 PM

maxx2112: [i3.kym-cdn.com image 500x282]


Whoa...

I had this article open in another tab (also from Fark) - scrolled to the bottom, finished reading it, and clicked close. And this image disappeared to reveal yours almost directly underneath it.

*spooky coincidence music*
 
2012-10-06 02:46:59 PM

dwade: Pud: In just 1,000 years? No, it'll probably be more like ....

[t3.gstatic.com image 356x297]

Looks like i have a new fetish.


Which one? Or both?... together?

NTTAWWT
 
2012-10-06 02:48:41 PM

CreamFilling: hitlersbrain: You have to be 'selected' for the traits. That means 'looks' are really all that matters. The reason we're getting taller is not from nutrition bu because women prefer tall men. None of the things mentioned would be attractive (except getting freakishly tall) so it's unlikely this will happen,

In any case, biological evolution is a dead issue for humans. It no longer has any meaningful effect. Biological evolution means an animal is shaped by it's environment. We shape our environment to suit us.

The next step, despite what the losers ruining sci-fi with soap operas might portray, is to become machines. Immortal, tough enough to travel space. To live on harsh moons and planets. Easy to maintain, easy to power, easy to upgrade. I still hope I live long enough to see it.

Not only that, but as a society we've eliminated the need to be able to provide for yourself and your offspring or else your genes didn't get passed on. 4000 years ago you had to be able to provide food, protection, and shelter. 2000 years ago you had to provide those things or have a skill you could trade for them. Now you have to provide those things, have a skill you can trade for them, or tell the government you need them. Basically the only thing you need to pass your genes on now is someone with complementary sexual organs.


Which is why you will soon need permission from the government to breed.
 
2012-10-06 03:24:13 PM

Trance750: 'Smaller brains, more wrinkles, fewer teeth'

So they'll all be Republicans?


THIS!!!
 
2012-10-06 03:32:45 PM
CORRECTION TO PREVIOUS POST:

I should have said TROFIM Lysenko, I had him confused with Konstantin Lomonosov.

... ... ... ... ...even Jove nods.
 
2012-10-06 03:54:12 PM

randomjsa: I particularly like the bit about how we're going to somehow have smaller brains because of computers.

Computers have been responsible for the EXPANSION of knowledge more so than perhaps any other tool in history.


The human brain has shrunk.
interesting article
 
2012-10-06 04:15:14 PM
I was confused for a second, because I didn't understand why they would be showing me a member of the Democratic party.
 
2012-10-06 04:36:07 PM

Obama4Life: Habitual Cynic: The males will wear pointy shoes.

You mean like elves?


Nah... More like an efficient way to stomp the giant cucaraches in the corners.
 
2012-10-06 04:37:06 PM
That looks like the previous editor of The Sun, R. Brooks.
 
2012-10-06 04:40:15 PM

emersonbiggins: My prediction of what all women will look like in the year 3000:

[images.askmen.com image 376x490]

/male fertility rate continues to spiral downward because of teh crazy


From your keyboard to God's eyes.
 
2012-10-06 04:47:05 PM
I always thought my nephew looks a lot like Bat Boy.

upload.wikimedia.org

The Scientific American
asked a better class of scientist about future human evolution and what they came up was trolls. Big ears, big noses, receding jaws, long lives, hunched backs ... basic troll body pattern.

IN THE YEAR 2000 ... all men will be internet trolls and all women will be hot internet porno chicks (just like the "advanced" aliens in 1950s SF and Horror comics).
 
2012-10-06 04:57:39 PM
Mom?
 
2012-10-06 05:26:31 PM

NoWhiskeyWeGoNow: [www.dvdjournal.com image 350x252] 

More obscure?


sixth finger?
 
2012-10-06 05:40:59 PM
www.onlygoodmovies.com
 
2012-10-06 06:18:48 PM
It is like these experts took tens of thousands of years of evolution and threw it out the window.

Lets start from the top.
Height: Height may increase slightly, it may not, however you deal with a wide variety of other changes that go into adapting to an increased height, things such as a cardiovascular system, and a skeletal, and muscular systems, that based on people that are 7'+, those systems will not be capable of handling. To have a 6'7" average would indicate that is the norm. Those systems are not going to evolve in 30 generations (3 generations a century. Even if you go with 40 generations so 4 generations a century. Those changes simple do not happen that fast, plus the changes would never take affect in the majority of the population).

Intestines: That would assume that having longer intestines is some how negatively impacting mating in some way. Medical and technological advances say that our capabilities to mitigate negative effects of fat and sugar exist that they will not prevent these people from reproducing. And once again those changes simply do not occur over 30-40 generations. Even if they did they would be in a very small minority of the population.

Testicles: Size does not relate to fertility. Although if woman selectively decide they are no longer going to have sex with big balled men, then yeah testicle sizes could shrink, and be a trait passed on to the majority of the population in a short amount of time say 30-40 generations. So woman do you want big or small balled men?

Arms and fingers: I don't think this one even really services a reply. Maybe a warning: IPHONES WILL NOT I REPEAT WILL NOT TURN YOU INTO AN AYE AYE. Christ these people are retarded. Again time on this one, can't be passed on that quick, and even if it does minority of the population.

Brain size: Bigger is not always better, just like smaller is not always worse. Even better when the article brings in someone explaining just that, but hey lets run with a preconceived notion that small brain = stupid. That being said, yeah we likely will drop in intelligence as a result of relying on computers and not using our brains as much. Also once again same issue with the first several this is not a trait that would impact reproduction, so minority of people will have it if it does exist.

Large eyes: Again this is possible purely from a reproductive stand point, if men or women decide eye size is really important and decide that no one with small eyes is reproducing than sure this could happen. Will it? Probably not.

You know what the last four are not even worth a reply. All in all this is an excellent article that represents why science is important so you don't have retarded articles like this come out.
 
2012-10-06 06:23:25 PM
know what? in 3000 we STILL won't have those cool cars they said we'd have in the 50's and 60's. dammit.
 
2012-10-06 07:55:04 PM
Someone explain to this guy how natural selection dictates evolutionary traits, and since no one is prevented from reproducing without those traits, it'll never happen
 
2012-10-06 07:56:42 PM
The only things that are likely close to correct are less body hair, darker skin, and perhaps some kind of anti-obesity adaptation. Less body hair is happening already for whatever reason. Darker skin won't be from evolution, but rather simply population mixing. It is possible, but difficult to determine, that selective pressure from deaths due to obesity could result in some adaptation there.

One thing slowing selection against cancer and obesity is that these generally only cause death late in life, after the reproductive phase of our lifespan.

I'm more worried that civilization won't last another thousand years. At some point, we're going to run out of fossil fuels. With a good replacement looking unlikely, that would probably result in starvation of billions from the inability to use machines to run our massive farms.

I don't think humans will go extinct, though. I think even with every nuclear weapon detonated, there would still be enough people to survive as cavemen again.
 
2012-10-06 08:28:57 PM

tota1pkg: Someone explain to this guy how natural selection dictates evolutionary traits, and since no one is prevented from reproducing without those traits, it'll never happen


Sounds like you are struggling with the definition of "natural selection" and "evolution"

Can you define natural selection to take into account the fact that many people live a bit differently now than they did for thousands of years, and understand that therefore, the evolutionary pressures have also changed?

Evolution is still occurring. The species is still changing slowly over time.
 
2012-10-06 08:35:21 PM
leading anatomical experts

... meaning the pot-head cartoonist who wrote the article.
 
2012-10-06 08:48:30 PM
Good thing I wasn't expecting science from that article.
 
2012-10-06 08:59:05 PM

Myria: I'm more worried that civilization won't last another thousand years. At some point, we're going to run out of fossil fuels. With a good replacement looking unlikely, that would probably result in starvation of billions from the inability to use machines to run our massive farms.


lol wut?
i46.tinypic.com

Even if we stopped inventing better methods of producing energy right this second, we're absolutely fine.  Solar is the simplest solution, and it's not an unreasonable investment.
 
2012-10-06 09:10:08 PM
Kill us with fire!
 
2012-10-06 10:26:01 PM
Funny logo placement. I thought that's where the sun *didn't* shine.
 
2012-10-06 10:31:50 PM

Chicken Soda: Kill us with fire!


Can't believe this didn't come up earlier. +1, I lol'd.
 
2012-10-06 10:56:02 PM

strutin: NoWhiskeyWeGoNow: [www.dvdjournal.com image 350x252] 

More obscure?

sixth finger?


David McCallum in Outer Limits 196?. One of the best episodes.
 
2012-10-06 10:57:34 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Myria: I'm more worried that civilization won't last another thousand years. At some point, we're going to run out of fossil fuels. With a good replacement looking unlikely, that would probably result in starvation of billions from the inability to use machines to run our massive farms.

lol wut?
[i46.tinypic.com image 850x600]

Even if we stopped inventing better methods of producing energy right this second, we're absolutely fine.  Solar is the simplest solution, and it's not an unreasonable investment.


simplistic picture is simplistic.

It "assumes" all transportation can be converted to electric. Without extended range and quick recharge, this will never happen. A tractor-trailer going 600 miles per day would have to haul nothing but batteries. As a commuter vehicle, sure. a 50 mile range electric eco-box works okay for a lot of people... until you have an emergency and have to travel unexpectedly after you've already burned your 50 miles.

also, take into account the mining necessary for battery production.

give me a electric car with a 350 mile range (at 75 mph) and a universal battery pack that can be swapped out at any service station in 3 minutes, and I'll consider ditching internal combustion in favor of electric.
 
2012-10-06 11:14:47 PM

The_Original_Roxtar: It "assumes" all transportation can be converted to electric.


actually, yes, that's the fourth bullet point on the bottom, it's been accounted for by the U.S. Dept of energy.

The_Original_Roxtar: also, take into account the mining necessary for battery production.


There's more than enough resources in the U.S. alone. The minerals simply weren't cost effective to mine until just recently.

The_Original_Roxtar: give me a electric car with a 350 mile range (at 75 mph) and a universal battery pack that can be swapped out at any service station in 3 minutes, and I'll consider ditching internal combustion in favor of electric.


Technologies already exist that could carry the power and be recharged in a shockingly short period of time, however our patent system is being used to suppress this technology.
 
2012-10-06 11:15:54 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Myria: I'm more worried that civilization won't last another thousand years. At some point, we're going to run out of fossil fuels. With a good replacement looking unlikely, that would probably result in starvation of billions from the inability to use machines to run our massive farms.

lol wut?
[i46.tinypic.com image 850x600]

Even if we stopped inventing better methods of producing energy right this second, we're absolutely fine.  Solar is the simplest solution, and it's not an unreasonable investment.


Other than the technology not existing to make this happen, the politics involved with putting a solar power plan in Northern Africa that will power all of Europe is absurd, or having the majority of United States power production in single spot is equally crazy. Disasters, accidents, and terrorists happen. Trying to build a redundant grid with such centralized production would be more expensive than could be funded, and it could never be protected. A storm in middle America could blackout the entire east cost.
 
2012-10-06 11:23:30 PM

king_nacho: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Myria: I'm more worried that civilization won't last another thousand years. At some point, we're going to run out of fossil fuels. With a good replacement looking unlikely, that would probably result in starvation of billions from the inability to use machines to run our massive farms.

lol wut?
[i46.tinypic.com image 850x600]

Even if we stopped inventing better methods of producing energy right this second, we're absolutely fine.  Solar is the simplest solution, and it's not an unreasonable investment.

Other than the technology not existing to make this happen, the politics involved with putting a solar power plan in Northern Africa that will power all of Europe is absurd, or having the majority of United States power production in single spot is equally crazy. Disasters, accidents, and terrorists happen. Trying to build a redundant grid with such centralized production would be more expensive than could be funded, and it could never be protected. A storm in middle America could blackout the entire east cost.


*Sigh*, that's just a generalization. It doesn't have to be a single solar panel the size of Rhode Island in the middle of North Africa. It's just a graphic to give the general placement and land area to achieve the desired effect. It can be far more decentralized and more fault tolerant.
 
2012-10-06 11:24:17 PM

king_nacho: Other than the technology not existing to make this happen,


Oh, and that's an absolute lie...
 
2012-10-07 12:19:18 AM
Karl Pilkington wrote this article.

Link
 
2012-10-07 01:47:26 AM
why does this crap even exist -_-

it's a shame it's so taboo to dig up ruins, I'd love to see how different we looked 1000 years ago.
 
2012-10-07 03:21:05 AM

enderthexenocide: i'm actually curious about how our bodies would evolve once we leave earth and start living in space in zero gravity.


i see what you did there
 
2012-10-07 07:37:18 AM
It was nice of them to PS out the Obamaphone from it's hand.
 
2012-10-07 11:56:08 AM
www.dvdjournal.com

More obscure?


Outer Limits? No way obscure. Actor David McCallum - also played Illya Kuryakin in The Man From U.N.C.L.E.

Get off my lawn.

/no, seriously
 
2012-10-07 04:11:11 PM
idk but I have the weirdest boner right now..
 
2012-10-07 10:26:42 PM
The evolutionary "choices" made will be determined by genetic traits which are survivable until the point people have children. Modern science and medicine being what it is, just about everything is survivable until that point. Whether or not the individuals can have reproductive sex is pretty much the key question here, but also the frequency in which they reproduce and spread the particular genes they carry.

The movie 'Idiocracy" suggests that less intelligent, less successful, and/or less morally upright folks, can have an awful lot of offspring in comparison to people who realistically evaluate the financial implications of having children, and/or work to create a suitable nest egg, etc.. If this is true, just look to Walmart customers to see the direction of future human development.

Since most guys in high school will sleep with "anyone they can convince into bed" and most girls have their first encounters at a young age, coupled with what I suppose will eventually be a lack of legal abortions, I guess that the genetic traits that support being gullible, whorish, alcoholic, and easy will become the genetic traits that will see a lot of action in terms of natural selection.
 
2012-10-07 10:29:00 PM
Ducky. David McCallum is Ducky.
 
2012-10-07 11:46:17 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: The_Original_Roxtar: It "assumes" all transportation can be converted to electric.

actually, yes, that's the fourth bullet point on the bottom, it's been accounted for by the U.S. Dept of energy.


there is currently no feasible electric replacement for the jet airplane. so their "projections" and "accounting for" the difference is bullshiat.
"how much electricity does it take to get me from DC to London in 7 hours?"
the answer: infinite... because the technology does not currently exist. no matter how much solar electricity you throw at the "get TOR from DC to London in 7 hours" problem, you will fall short unless you build a lot more infrastructure. Vactrain could fit the bill (maglev trains in a vacuum tunnel), but the infrastructure isn't there, so all cost equivalences are a guess.
 
Displayed 226 of 226 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report