On Goblin-Like Creatures

Evolutionary theorist (with a heavy emphasis on “theorist”) Oliver Curry claims that the human race will have reached its physical peak by the year 3000 and that one day we will split into two separate species, one an “attractive, intelligent ruling elite” and the “an underclass of dim-witted, ugly goblin-like creatures.”

As an amateur theorist, I have a few problems with this theory:

1. Perhaps I’m missing a key element to this, but weren’t attractive people just as likely to pick other attractive people as their mates 3,000 years ago? And as the template for what’s “attractive” changes, at least somewhat, in each era of history, making this theoretic evolutionary split unlikely. If this organic divide is to happen, why hasn’t a shift been observed in the first couple of hundred thousand years of human history?

2. Intelligence and good looks are not analogous, as anyone who’s had the privilege of watching America’s Most Smartest Model can certainly tell you. There is no proof that those two gifts have grown any closer with time.

3. We all know there are plenty of very smart people who aren’t eye-catching whatsoever. Still, they can be exceptionally successful and achievement breeds confidence — an attractive quality to many people. As a result, unsightly people can often hook up with a highly attractive members of the opposite sex. (Take for instance the former couple: author Salman Rushdie and author/actress/(terrible) chef/TV hostess Padma Lakshmi.) This means, one suspects, that the children of these couples will either be moderately intelligent and only so-so looking or take one trait or the other and dilute beauty and intelligence.

4. Not all “attractive and intelligent” people desire to be part of a ”ruling elite.”

5. There are humans who show tremendous aptitude for certain skills and none for any others. Ruling-class micromangers, for instance, might have impressive IQs and offer little else. Then again that could be a turn on. There are plenty of other factors that can turn on the opposite sex besides intelligence, beauty or lots of money: Charisma. Humor. Some weird skill. An attitude. A body type. And so on.

6. A further point about subjectivity. Certainly, there are universally attractive people — Padma Lakshmi, comes to mind — but there is plenty of wiggle room in this regard. We all find different types attractive.  (A co-worker once told me he had seen Rhea Perlman at a Lakers game and that she was “stunning.” Now, some people may agree. Others, however, may disagree fervently with this appraisal.)

7. How does plastic surgery play into this dynamic of the future split? As people are more apt to make themselves attractive to others — and the methods and results of plastic surgery will only improve as we move forward — how will we know who is naturally ugly? This will certainly muddy up this speculative genetic split, I imagine.

8. Because of the market system in America, the one that is now growing in India and China, a permanent “ruling” class is less likely, not more likely. Fortunes are won and lost all the time. New technologies bring new faces. And sometimes those faces are nothing to write home about.