What humans will look like in 50 million years from now well kinda of scary looking

[nec209]

What humans will look like in the future? Very scary?

Why are they not spending millions of dollars every day to try to stop this? This just terrible how humans will look like in 50 million years from now.

Why are the scientist not trying to come up with new technology to counter this?

https://geekologie.com/2012/02/fugly-what-humans-will-look-like-in-50-m.php

Just ugly looking what humans will look like in 50 million years from now.

http://www.geekologie.com/2012/02/01/future-humans-2.jpg

There also this one other website saying what humans may look like in the future. Very ugly looking .

Very ugly looking. 

Is This What Humans Will Look Like In Millions Of Years From

https://www.messagetoeagle.com/humans-will-look-like-millions-years-now/

[CharonY]

There is no way to predict how humans will look like or whether we will still exist in 50 million years. Being ugly is likely the least of our worries.

[iNow]

59 million years ago, “humans” looked like a shrew. 

[Peterkin]

6 hours ago, nec209 said:

Why are the scientist not trying to come up with new technology to counter this?

They don't need to. None of those projected models could possibly become real. Look at them! Can you imagine their habitat and mundane activities? They're simply not functional. Nature kills off the non-functional. How any species evolves depends on where and how it lives. Whether the human race survives that long, whether it mutates, how it evolves, all depend on what happens to the land it inhabits. 

 

6 hours ago, nec209 said:

Very ugly looking

How do you know? Beauty, after all, is in the eye of the beholder. Another one of them could find that giant prehensile anus irresistible.

Edited February 26, 2022 by Peterkin

[Phi for All]

6 hours ago, nec209 said:

What humans will look like in the future? Very scary?

Why are they not spending millions of dollars every day to try to stop this? This just terrible how humans will look like in 50 million years from now.

Why are the scientist not trying to come up with new technology to counter this?

As a guess, I'd say it's because the scientists are smart. Evolution's changes are in large part responses to changing environments. They probably figure that how we look isn't as important as how well-equipped we are to handle the world around us. Besides, if we evolve features that would look hideous to us now, I can guarantee that by then they'll be considered gorgeous, with just as much certainty as the artists in your links.

[Sensei]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

59 million years ago, “humans” looked like a shrew. 

..and they were a lot more cute and nice to each other...

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

There is no way to predict how humans will look like or whether we will still exist in 50 million years. Being ugly is likely the least of our worries.

True.  Given possible ecological stresses limiting food supply, I think insular dwarfism could become a planet-wide thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_dwarfism

IOW, insular dwarfism could manifest on a planetary scale where we have a planet that is functionally an island with limited nutrition and space for members of a species.  Smaller persons in each generation, needing less food to survive and attain fertility, will be selected for.  Future humans could look like Kristin Chenoweth, and be quite cute.  Or Peter Dinklage, and be handsome and funny.

 

 

2 hours ago, iNow said:

59 million years ago, “humans” looked like a shrew. 

So the story of human evolution could be called The _______ of the ____!

 

 

[iNow]

Planet of the Apes?

War of the Worlds?

Man of the Hour?

 

I’ll stop, but will not be tamed.   

[J.C.MacSwell]

We are spending millions a day to try to stop this. Actually from looking like anything at all. Just not intentionally.

[nec209]

17 hours ago, Peterkin said:

They don't need to. None of those projected models could possibly become real. Look at them! Can you imagine their habitat and mundane activities? They're simply not functional. Nature kills off the non-functional. How any species evolves depends on where and how it lives. Whether the human race survives that long, whether it mutates, how it evolves, all depend on what happens to the land it inhabits. 

 

How do you know? Beauty, after all, is in the eye of the beholder. Another one of them could find that giant prehensile anus irresistible.

I don’t have problem on some other planet life forms looking like that.

I just find it strange scientist will sit back and allow humans to look different than what they look like today. 

16 hours ago, TheVat said:

True.  Given possible ecological stresses limiting food supply, I think insular dwarfism could become a planet-wide thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_dwarfism

IOW, insular dwarfism could manifest on a planetary scale where we have a planet that is functionally an island with limited nutrition and space for members of a species.  Smaller persons in each generation, needing less food to survive and attain fertility, will be selected for.  Future humans could look like Kristin Chenoweth, and be quite cute.  Or Peter Dinklage, and be handsome and funny.

 

 

So the story of human evolution could be called The _______ of the ____!

 

 

Not sure what you mean by insular dwarfism? Are you saying in the future people may only be 3 foot tall at the most?

 

 

[Genady]

2 hours ago, nec209 said:

Are you saying in the future people may only be 3 foot tall at the most?

Except the Dutch:

Quote

Today, the Dutch are on average the tallest people on the planet. Just 150 years ago, they were relatively short. In 1860, the average Dutch soldier in the Netherlands was just 5 feet 5 inches. American men were 2.7 inches taller.

Since 1860, average heights have increased in many parts of the world, but no people have shot up like the Dutch. The average Dutchman now stands over six feet tall. And while the growth spurt in the United States has stopped in recent years, the Dutch continue to get taller.

...

In recent years, other researchers have documented the evolution of height in a few human populations. Intriguingly, their results run contrary to the Dutch results. For example, Diddahally Govindaraju, an evolutionary geneticist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and his colleagues have found that women in Massachusetts are getting shorter, not taller.

(Natural Selection May Help Account for Dutch Height Advantage - The New York Times (nytimes.com))

[Peterkin]

5 hours ago, nec209 said:

I just find it strange scientist will sit back and allow humans to look different than what they look like today. 

Why should scientists care about the appearance of some new species that far in the future? It won't be humans, you know; it will be one or more species nobody's ever seen before. If they're viable, they will look appropriate to their surroundings and food sources. 

I notice, though, that the artists depicting these imaginary future humans were just as concerned about the "human" identity as you are: they kept the same face. It's quite improbable that the shape of the nose, the size of the mouth and the placement of the eyes would stay the same, when everything else changes. 

5 hours ago, nec209 said:

I don’t have problem on some other planet life forms looking like that.

It won't bother you on this one, either. If you're still here to see them, you will look like them and you will think it's the only possible way for your species to look, just as you were more than okay - you were very pleased - with this appearance : https://www.britannica.com/topic/Notharctus  50 millions years ago. If you're not here by then, whoever is here won't bother you. (Spacefaring cockroaches, probably.) 

Edited February 27, 2022 by Peterkin
redundancy

[nec209]

 

Here is article I found.

 

What will humans look like 100,000 years from now?

http://respiratorytherapycave.blogspot.com/2014/02/what-will-humans-look-like-100000-years.html

[Phi for All]

On 3/12/2022 at 3:38 PM, nec209 said:

Here is article I found.

Since this is just one possible outcome out of an almost infinite array of outcomes, why do you think this article's author is correct?

I'm only interested in why this is worth any amount of time thinking about, unless one is writing fiction about it, and then it's quite obviously up to the author. It seems to be a topic that probably has about 7 billion different opinions, each unique and equally meaningless.

Edit to add: Over the time periods you're asking about, I don't think the even most educated biologists could do more than guess at how evolution will affect our overall appearance. But this is just an argument from incredulity, so I'm willing to be educated.

[Ken Fabian]

These "scientists" probably had a lot of fun speculating - but it was speculation plus imagination, not a science based prediction. Even basing future changes on trends within our species looks problematic, as would proposing there is some ideal form and seeking to define it. The linked articles were not very impressive - and that goes for the source material that got quoted in them. Like -

Quote

One of the big changes will be a larger forehead, Kwan predicts - a feature that has already expanding since the 14th and 16th centuries.

Perhaps that is true based on an average across the whole population, but that can be from a: people everywhere are all getting larger foreheads or b: the proportion of people with the genes for larger foreheads has grown in proportion to people who's foreheads are smaller or c; this is a consequence of change to living conditions, not genetics.

a: (if it even could happen) would be evolution across the species but b: would be existing variation within the species. Until and unless some selection process eliminates the ones with smaller forehead our species is one that encompasses larger and smaller foreheads. The conditions that have caused the numbers of people with large foreheads to grow may be shortlived - and that period is so short in evolutionary terms and the changes of the conditions people live in so great that it needs to be established that the difference is genetic change.

Quote

Kwan says that 60,000 years from now, our ability to control the human genome will also make the effect of evolution on our facial features moot.

I expect that, so long as our advanced industrial civilisation doesn't implode, we will have that capability within the current century. If not genetic then surgical and other modification can deliver desired appearances - but without passing them on. No guarantee that everyone would take either option up. 60,000 seems like a number pulled out of the air (or perhaps some orifice). The supposed idealised beautiful human face isn't a universal thing.

Quote

Eyes will meanwhile get larger, as attempts to colonize Earth's solar system and beyond see people living in the dimmer environments of colonies further away from the Sun than Earth. Similarly, skin will become more pigmented to lesson the damage from harmful UV radiation outside of the Earth's protective ozone.

This is pure nonsense IMO. Contradictory as well - low light but high UV? IF humans colonise space they will make their own environment, including lighting. i don't expect terraforming to be able to make outdoors possible for space colonies. Light intensity may well be reduced compared to direct tropical sunlight or what is used in grow tunnels but will be close to how we do indoor lighting - because that's how we like indoor lighting. Eye size seems more likely to be changed on purpose, because people think they look better.

On 2/27/2022 at 9:05 PM, nec209 said:

I just find it strange scientist will sit back and allow humans to look different than what they look like today. 

Since no-one knows how different or can know that people of the future will be deeply unhappy about their appearance and there is nothing to do about it if we did know - there is no incentive to intervene.

Edited March 15, 2022 by Ken Fabian