Do you think human beings will be much smaller in the remote future?

[regenerationnee]

As we see, weapons' might is becoming incredibly great, no matter how strong you are, you are nothing compared to the weapons and you can't drive them only by your strength. So being big just means you're nothing but a huge target. As for the resources and rooms( of vehicles or habitations) are all limited, being small means frugal and indirectly means being richer. Moreover i've heard that the more cells one has the more complicated his body system gets to be, thus the more unpredictable illness will happen easily. Afterall I think it's better to be smaller for us human beings. The only question is how small we are going to be is the best? As small as an ant?

[iNow]

That depends almost entirely on the choice of the female. Right now, they tend to select for larger men, not smaller ones.

[Mokele]

Weapons don't factor in to the lives of most humans. Mate choice, however, figures into almost everyone's.

[regenerationnee]

Could you tell me why are the females doing such a silly thing if they know the larger ones are not the best for adaptation to the environment? Do they do it only for their uncontrollable strong visual sexual desire of favoring the bigger body parts?

[iNow]

Could you tell me why are the females doing such a silly thing if they know the larger ones are not the best for adaptation to the environment?

 

Sure. It's because the females are, in fact, selecting for the more dominant body type. In our society, the larger male is more prepared to acquire resources and protect kin. The benefit of this FAR outweighs the cost of being a slightly bigger target if ever shot at with a bullet.

 

 

Do they do it only for their uncontrollable strong visual sexual desire of favoring the bigger body parts?

No.

[regenerationnee]

But what causes larger bodies to be more dominant body type if they are not preponderant in a duel?

[Sisyphus]

Most of us now live our lives a way in which large physical size doesn't really help us, but we're hardly far removed it. A big strong guy is more effective not just at fighting (pre-guns), but at physical labor. That would explain a sexual selection for larger than average men, and sexual selection can be self-reinforcing even once the original cause becomes irrelevant. In order for the factors you mention to have an effect, people would have to be shot at all the time (and be saved by not being too big a target!), or be so near starvation that how big a body you have to feed is the difference between life or death for you or your children.

[calbiterol]

Plus, sure seems to me like one of the biggest reasons we keep getting taller (ever so slowly) is that our nutrition has improved.

 

At any rate, from an evolutionary standpoint, I don't see any reason why it would be advantageous to be smaller or bigger in today's society.

[Pericles]

There is no immediate need for humans to become taller or shorter in the remote future. If mass famine around the world were to happen next year, which would result in poorer nutrition, then you would probably begin to see a drop in regards to human height. Mass famine is unlikely though with the only threat coming from wheat leaf rust which spreads like wild fire and has the potential to deplete the worlds wheat sources.

 

Fire arms play absolutely no part in human evolution and as for being as small as ants... that's just ridiculous.

[regenerationnee]

I still think the smaller individuals save resources relatively on earth. And the resources are precious and tight day by day.

[Mokele]

What's good in the future and for the whole isn't what drives evolution - evolution is driven by what's beneficial to the individual here and now.

[iNow]

There is no immediate need for humans to become taller or shorter in the remote future. If mass famine around the world were to happen next year, which would result in poorer nutrition, then you would probably begin to see a drop in regards to human height. Mass famine is unlikely though with the only threat coming from wheat leaf rust which spreads like wild fire and has the potential to deplete the worlds wheat sources.

 

A threat to crop yields could be argued on the basis of climate change, and in fact, already has.

 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/agriculture.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_agriculture

 

 

From IPCC 2007:

Recent studies indicate that increased frequency of heat stress, droughts and floods negatively affect crop yields and livestock beyond the impacts of mean climate change, creating the possibility for surprises, with impacts that are larger, and occurring earlier, than predicted using changes in mean variables alone. This is especially the case for subsistence sectors at low latitudes. Climate variability and change also modify the risks of fires, pest and pathogen outbreak, negatively affecting food, fiber and forestry.

 

 

I now return you to the thread topic about why we're not smaller as a result of being shot at.

[Pericles]

Originally Posted by Pericles

There is no immediate need for humans to become taller or shorter in the remote future. If mass famine around the world were to happen next year, which would result in poorer nutrition, then you would probably begin to see a drop in regards to human height. Mass famine is unlikely though with the only threat coming from wheat leaf rust which spreads like wild fire and has the potential to deplete the worlds wheat sources.

A threat to crop yields could be argued on the basis of climate change, and in fact, already has.

 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/eff...riculture.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate...nd_agriculture

I shouldn't have said only threat.

 

From IPCC 2007:Recent studies indicate that increased frequency of heat stress, droughts and floods negatively affect crop yields and livestock beyond the impacts of mean climate change, creating the possibility for surprises, with impacts that are larger, and occurring earlier, than predicted using changes in mean variables alone. This is especially the case for subsistence sectors at low latitudes. Climate variability and change also modify the risks of fires, pest and pathogen outbreak, negatively affecting food, fiber and forestry.

Climate change and the wheat rust pathogen go hand in hand it seems.

[Mokele]

What if, however, we do grant the supposition that firearms are a strong selective influence? Would small size still be better? Sure, it reduces your chance of being shot, but wouldn't large size mean better resistance to damage?

[regenerationnee]

How do you expect anyone with his flesh-and-blood body can resist firearms attacking ? I think for those super mighty mechines, every human however large or small before it would be one shot, ten die. So the less-possible-to-be-shot ones would survive at the end.

[Mokele]

Life is not a videogame - people don't just die instantly no matter where they're hit. The human body is amazingly resilient, especially if medical treatment is available.

[Pericles]

What if, however, we do grant the supposition that firearms are a strong selective influence? Would small size still be better? Sure, it reduces your chance of being shot, but wouldn't large size mean better resistance to damage?

Supposing that firearms do play a part in shaping humans biologically I would think that height would be the least important factor here. Don't you think that humans would eventually develop tougher skin or be able to heal their wounds faster?

[Phi for All]

A bigger human has a better chance of growing a muscular prehensile tail to fire more guns. The man who can uncover his ass to cover his ass would be more successful.

[AzurePhoenix]

Don't you think that humans would eventually develop tougher skin or be able to heal their wounds faster?

yeah, cuz it's worked so well for deer and squirrels

[Pericles]

yeah, cuz it's worked so well for deer and squirrels

Haha true that.

 

I guess body armour is the better option.

[regenerationnee]

What are you talking about by deers and squirrels?

[AzurePhoenix]

What are you talking about by deers and squirrels?

It's... I... you know, I think I'll refrain from answering. I donwanna get suspended for abuse my first day back.

[Sisyphus]

What are you talking about by deers and squirrels?

 

Animals that often get shot, I assume.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Haha true that.

 

I guess body armour is the better option.

 

Dunno about that. Armor would have been far more useful earlier, when we were jabbing each other with sharp sticks. Yet sharp sticks still work. And steel manmade armor, presumably harder than anything biological, was very cumbersome and ineffective against even the crudest firearms.

[Pericles]

Animals that often get shot, I assume.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

Dunno about that. Armor would have been far more useful earlier, when we were jabbing each other with sharp sticks. Yet sharp sticks still work. And steel manmade armor, presumably harder than anything biological, was very cumbersome and ineffective against even the crudest firearms.

I meant better option to tougher skin.

[Deko]

This is a rather silly thread. Have you just finished watching Terminator Salvation? Could humans start to become smaller? sure it is possible but it would definitely not be due to weapons. There is evidence that animals evolve shells, poison, speed to name a few in order to survive....over millions of years, but humans dont exactly come into day to day combat with bullets and bombs. Therefore the humans who are less equipped physically don't get weeded out. Until a time comes where humanity is struggling (I'm not....I'm drinking a cup of tea watching the UK open) no evolving will happen.