This is in response to a new-deleted piece of juvenalia.
Hm, first there is the rather odd suggestion that Homo Sapiens Technologicus's natural prey is Homo Sapiens at night. Natural market for the goods sold via our Web sites more like it.

Then there is the issue that our technologies have been the principal agent of our evolution for at least the last million years. Proof of that is that much of our bodies, for instance hands, brains and vocal organs, have evolved extensively to facilitate the use of technology. Terrence Deacon explains this well in The symbolic Species, but he calls it Homo symbolicus.

Funnytoes, on the interbreeding isssue, we must also ask the reverse question: will Homo Sapiens voluntarily mate with Homo Sapiens Technologicus, AKA the lesser spotted geek?

Whilst Funnytoes is entirely right the geek will take what they can get, the reverse is rare, as a healthy homo sap. will avoid geeks. Thus speciation may occur soon.

One of the definitions of a species is only breeding with other members of the same species. Thus, a question:

Does Homo Sapiens Technologicus interbreed with Homo Sapiens?

One could posit that any successful breeding with Homo Sapiens is proof that that creature is not Homo Sapiens Technologicus. However, this tight definition of speciation has been challenged and much woolier definitions are often accepted.

So, one can ask:

Given a choice, does Homo Sapiens Technologicus interbreed with Homo Sapiens?

Here, too, we find difficulty. Homo Sapiens Technologicus appears eager to satisfy reproductive desire as much as Homo Sapiens and doesn't appear to be choosy. This is fairly conclusive evidence that Homo Sapiens Technologicus is merely a sub-species.

Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.