PDA

View Full Version : Study: Blondes Are an Endangered Species


vniow
Sep 30, 2002, 12:53 PM
NEW YORK Blondes may have more fun, but they're not going to have it for too much longer.

A new study by German researchers claims that people with blonde hair comprise an endangered species that will become extinct by 2202.


Enjoy.:D

click (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,64440,00.html)

blackpeter
Sep 30, 2002, 01:04 PM
Interesting...

Mr. Anderson
Sep 30, 2002, 01:11 PM
I'm impressed they've managed to narrow the date down to a specific year.....

My guess is that by 2200 you'll pretty much be able to choose the hair color of your kid, so blondes will be around for much longer and we don't have to put them on the endangered species list.... :rolleyes:

D

Gelfin
Sep 30, 2002, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by dukestreet
I'm impressed they've managed to narrow the date down to a specific year.....


Well, I'm sure the conclusion is that it will take 200 years. Nice round number. Adding 200 to the current year to arrive at a specific year is something a mainstream writer does because the specificity sounds more interesting.

barkmonster
Sep 30, 2002, 02:19 PM
A new study by German researchers claims that people with blonde hair comprise an endangered species that will become extinct by 2202.

2 simple question

Jessica Alba or Alicia Silverstone ?

Salma Hayek or Melissa Joan Hart ?

I think brunettes are usually far more attractive than blondes, at least most girls I've known are. It's even more apparent in film and TV.

In my opinion anyway (sorry if this seems sexist).

GetSome681
Sep 30, 2002, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by barkmonster


2 simple question

Jessica Alba or Alicia Silverstone ?

Salma Hayek or Melissa Joan Hart ?

I think brunettes are usually far more attractive than blondes, at least most girls I've known are. It's even more apparent in film and TV.

In my opinion anyway (sorry if this seems sexist).

So you pick two brunettes that are far more attractive than the two blondes that you pick. How about Anna Kournikova? Natasha Henstridge? Reese? Man I really could go on forever. If you're going to compare one of the best brunettes (salma kayek) to someone...let's not do it to a teenage witch (even though she is cute). Come on now!! :D

Mr. Anderson
Sep 30, 2002, 02:44 PM
You really can't pick any one blond or brunette to uphold the beauty issue here (and what about redheads?)

And its all personal preference - personally I like that there is more than just one natural hair color. I wouldn't want it all to blur and mix so that we end up with just a single choice....but I'm married, so I really shouldn't get too involved here ;)

D

pimentoLoaf
Sep 30, 2002, 03:10 PM
Can we creatively degenerate this thread with blonde jokes?

Q: Why did the blonde climb the chainlink fence?

A: To see what was on the other side.

Hemingray
Sep 30, 2002, 03:16 PM
Ahh, if only Hitler had the Germans perform this study 70 years ago... :rolleyes:

Stike
Sep 30, 2002, 03:55 PM
Hey, thank God Im not blonde, so this means that I will be around even after 2202 :D

At least then I could reach the 10,000 posts mark.:rolleyes:

Sun Baked
Sep 30, 2002, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by pimentoLoaf
Can we creatively degenerate this thread with blonde jokes?

Q: Why do men like blonde jokes?

A: Because they can't understand anything more complex.

cr2sh
Sep 30, 2002, 04:36 PM
by 2200 everything is going to be extinct... everyone say "thank you fossil fuels." :(

Hemingray
Sep 30, 2002, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by cr2sh
by 2200 everything is going to be extinct... everyone say "thank you fossil fuels." :(

The quicker we develop and adopt other forms of energy, the safer that situation will be. I'm going to remain a bit more hopeful than that...

cr2sh
Sep 30, 2002, 04:53 PM
we have othe forms of energy production, but the archaic fossil fuels remain #1... why? fusion/fision has been a better solution for a long time, and solar power yet an even better solution.. but still, we love the petro...
in 50 years when we tell our grandkids stories about what it was like when we were young, and there was this thing called "snow" we'll feel like total asses... i agree with you, we have to be optimistic that itll get better, but we've f*cked this planet up enough, can we try something else now, please?

also, blondes are hotter than brunettes...

Ibjr
Sep 30, 2002, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by Sun Baked


Q: Why do men like blonde jokes?

A: Because they can't understand anything more complex.

that was great!

Thanks

Chisholm
Sep 30, 2002, 05:16 PM
IMHO there are far too few natural red heads. Let the Germans work on THAT problem for a while!:p

Vector
Sep 30, 2002, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by cr2sh
we have othe forms of energy production, but the archaic fossil fuels remain #1... why? fusion/fision has been a better solution for a long time, and solar power yet an even better solution.. but still, we love the petro...
in 50 years when we tell our grandkids stories about what it was like when we were young, and there was this thing called "snow" we'll feel like total asses... i agree with you, we have to be optimistic that itll get better, but we've f*cked this planet up enough, can we try something else now, please?

also, blondes are hotter than brunettes...

I agree on the issue but at this point it is not ecomical to use solar power. I like wind power and solar power but both cost more to start up than fossil fuel powered plants. Solar panels are far to expensive right now, and it takes too many too create enery on a large scale so as to supply energy for cities. Wind power is becoming a feasible but the startup costs in buying hundreds of large windmills is still too much. Nuclear power (fission) is the best feasible source we are currently using; however, the problem of disposal of reacted material and the apprehension of people have limited its use. You mentioned fusion, but scientists have not yet beenable to achieve fusion (at least not on a large scale or consistently). Fusion is far cleaner because it does not require radioactive isotopes like the uranium in fission. Fusion also yields far more energy.

However I have to disagree with you and say that brunettes are hotter than blondes (except for a few blondes).

cr2sh
Sep 30, 2002, 06:43 PM
well then, it that case... cheers to really hot blondes and nuclear fusion!

madamimadam
Oct 1, 2002, 12:30 AM
All I have to say is that who ever wrote that article had NO idea what they were on about.

Since when is it the genes held by grandparents that makes a difference to children? All 4 grandparents could hold 1 blond recessive gene but not pass it on. What matters is whether both parents hold the blond gene. Even if both parents were not blond, as long as they hold the gene then the child can be blond.

Also, how the hell could the blonde population be declining because men are more attracted to bottle blondes???? It is not like the parents of a child decide when the child is developing in the womb that their child will have brown hair so that they make a better bottle blonde.
:rolleyes:

As for red heads, I could not agree more... I LOVE red heads but the unfortunate fact that they are also made from a recessive gene and seem to be on the decline..... probably because men prefer bottle brunettes to red heads
;) ;) ;)

BongHits
Oct 1, 2002, 02:28 AM
Originally posted by GetSome681


So you pick two brunettes that are far more attractive than the two blondes that you pick. How about Anna Kournikova? Natasha Henstridge? Reese? Man I really could go on forever. If you're going to compare one of the best brunettes (salma kayek) to someone...let's not do it to a teenage witch (even though she is cute). Come on now!! :D

britney spears and christina aguilera?? and they're whooas too :D

teabgs
Oct 1, 2002, 07:07 AM
you guys are debating something that is futile.

Blonds cannot and will not ever be an endangered species, because....well, they ARE NOT A SPECIES.

They are the same exact species as everyone else, but with blond hair.

There is no seperate "blond species"...so it doesnt matter, and the writer is an idiot and doesnt know what hes talking about.

Anyway, none of us will be alive then....

Mr. Anderson
Oct 1, 2002, 08:11 AM
and we're all forgetting the most important part - blondes usually come from a bottle anyway, so they might not be 'natural' but who cares......

D

ktlx
Oct 1, 2002, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by Vector

You mentioned fusion, but scientists have not yet beenable to achieve fusion (at least not on a large scale or consistently). Fusion is far cleaner because it does not require radioactive isotopes like the uranium in fission. Fusion also yields far more energy.

Scientists have been able to achieve fusion for quite some time. They just cannot figure out how to control it to make anything other than a bomb. :D

The earlier claims of cold fusion are suspect. Some skeptical scientists have claimed that the tiny amount of energy generated could have come from larger chemical reactions.

In my opinion, fossil fuels will be extinct before we can gather energy from any fusion reaction besides our sun. The only evidence we have for sustained fusion reactions require masses and pressures on a scale that are unthinkable for a earth-bound environment.:(

Backtothemac
Oct 1, 2002, 08:58 AM
Brunettes! Salma vs. any blonde. Especially the plastic little Anna. Why is everyone crazy about her. She isn't all that.

Brunettes are much more sexy. Salma, Sandra Bullock, Catherine Zeta Jones. Catherine Bell, Carmen Electra, Josie Maran. Think about it. How may truely hot and sexy, and beautiful blondes are there in hollywood?

Not slutty looking trash like Pam Anderson.


Oh, and 6 foot redheads too right Duke ;)

sjeantet
Oct 1, 2002, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by dukestreet
and we're all forgetting the most important part - blondes usually come from a bottle anyway, so they might not be 'natural' but who cares......

D

Honestly, ultimately, does it matter if natural blonde hair as a recessive gene gets left at the wayside? Did any of you see the "25 Hottest Blondes" ranking on E! TV? Of the 25, maybe 5 of them were natural blondes. It doesn't matter even a little if a girl is a natural blonde or bottle blonde. No guy that I know cares! That's like asking if her chest is natural or "enhanced". Most guys just simply do not care!

sjeantet
Oct 1, 2002, 10:03 AM
How does girls dying their hair blonde, brunette, blue or green have any effect on their genes? The story seems to insuate that somehow the fact that non-natural blonds dye their hair is going to result in fewer natural blonds. How does that make any sense at all?!?

Vector
Oct 1, 2002, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by ktlx


Scientists have been able to achieve fusion for quite some time. They just cannot figure out how to control it to make anything other than a bomb. :D

The earlier claims of cold fusion are suspect. Some skeptical scientists have claimed that the tiny amount of energy generated could have come from larger chemical reactions.

In my opinion, fossil fuels will be extinct before we can gather energy from any fusion reaction besides our sun. The only evidence we have for sustained fusion reactions require masses and pressures on a scale that are unthinkable for a earth-bound environment.:(

I said they have not been able to do it on a large enough scale or consistently enough to be used as an energy source, so for that discussion it was irrelevant. The type of fusion that scientists have achieved is used in the H-bomb, but it is not quite the same as fusion which occurs in the sun. While it does combine hydrogen ions (deuterium) to create helium and give off energy, it has to use nuclear fission in order to do it and gives off great deals of radiation.

Cold fusion is highly suspect, and after scientists actually looked over the results of the first claim most of them decided the results were false. In a report by the Energy Research Advisory Board to the United States Department of Energy it was shown that the results thought to be cold fusion did not produce near enough energy to have actually been fusion.

In order to achieve fusion we would need large sources of deuterium, hig pressures, and extremely high temperatures. The surface waters of the earth contain more than 10 million million tons of deuterium, an essentially inexhaustible supply. Scientists have been able to achieve temperatures that are 20 times that required for fusion and high pressures can be produced. It making high temperatures and pressures at the same time that makes fusion harder. Department of Energy and several sponsored programs are making progress in fusion and have produced, in some cases, tens of millions of watts of energy.

madamimadam
Oct 1, 2002, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by sjeantet


Honestly, ultimately, does it matter if natural blonde hair as a recessive gene gets left at the wayside? Did any of you see the "25 Hottest Blondes" ranking on E! TV? Of the 25, maybe 5 of them were natural blondes. It doesn't matter even a little if a girl is a natural blonde or bottle blonde. No guy that I know cares! That's like asking if her chest is natural or "enhanced". Most guys just simply do not care!

WOOOOOH there tiger.... I think that last statement is a bit bold. Most people I know like their women to be natural but I would not use the people I know as a basis to say most guys care.

xyzzy
Oct 1, 2002, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by madamimadam
All I have to say is that who ever wrote that article had NO idea what they were on about.

Agreed.

There are more than four gene loci that control human hair color. It's not as simple as 'two recessive blond genes = blond appearance'.

Also, how the hell could the blonde population be declining because men are more attracted to bottle blondes????


The 'blonde' gene frequency depends on how often blondes reproduce. If men find blonde women more attractive (and/or if women find blond men more attractive), they will mate with them in preference to brunettes: blondes will have more children and the 'blonde' gene frequency will increase. If, on the other hand, genetic brunettes remove this 'sexual selection' by using hair dye that attracts those who would otherwise seek out real blondes, thus 'fooling' them into mating with a genetic brunette, real blondes will have fewer children and the frequency of the blonde gene in the general population will decrease.

Not that most of the stories get this right...

:)

topicolo
Oct 1, 2002, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by sjeantet
How does girls dying their hair blonde, brunette, blue or green have any effect on their genes? The story seems to insuate that somehow the fact that non-natural blonds dye their hair is going to result in fewer natural blonds. How does that make any sense at all?!?

In high-school biology you get taught that that the reason a recessive allele can be dispropotionately high in a population is because it is selected for in breeding (men dig blonde chicks). If everybody dyes their hair blonde, natural blonds wouldn't be especially favored because us guys can't tell the difference between a bottled blonde and a real one. Therefore the number of blondes alleles in the population will decrease. I find it hard to believe that they'll all be wiped out though. If the breeding is random (or close to it), the hardy-weinberg equilibrium will come into effect and the proportion of blonde alleles in the gene pool will stay constant at some level.
Jeez, I didn't think I even knew that much about genetics until I started typing :D

Sun Baked
Oct 1, 2002, 08:28 PM
There probably should be a blonde joke lurking in the possiblity of the blonde going the way dodo bird.