Man's Successor

What will be the name of Man's Successor?I'm trying to determine what will be the name of the animal that man will evolve to.Here's a Species List:This list is in chronological order by genus.Sahelanthropus
Sahelanthropus tchadensisOrrorin
Orrorin tugenensisArdipithecus
Ardipithecus kadabba
Ardipithecus ramidusAustralopithecus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus bahrelghazali
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhiParanthropus
Paranthropus aethiopicus
Paranthropus boisei
Paranthropus robustusKenyanthropus
Kenyanthropus platyopsHomo
Homo habilis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo ergaster
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo cepranensis
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo rhodesiensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo sapiens idaltu
Homo sapiens (Cro-magnon)
Homo sapiens sapiens
Homo floresiensisWhat's next? Does anyone know what the logical extension of Homo is?
Edited by sstaubin, : Clairification

You need to flesh this out into at least a good paragraph or two. Introduce your topic, provide some background, then outline your position.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Thanks Percy,I've edited the original post for more clarification.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I can think of three:Homo Cybernesis - for the Borg fans.
Homo Singularus - for Ray Kurzweil fans.
Homo Extinctus - for Al Gore fans.Edited by AZPaul3, : kant spel

WOMAN

In the future, we shall of course all be strict cladists.Hence, we will not rename our species until it evolves into two reproductively isolated species, at which point we shall have to give new names to both of them.Homo terra and Homo centauri?

*sigh* I have this fear that I'm going to be "volunteered" to serve on the search committee. Sorry. Academia joke.

---

...Onward to Victory is the last great illusion the Republican Party has left to sell in this country, even to its own followers. They can't sell fiscal responsibility, they can't sell "values," they can't sell competence, they can't sell small government, they can't even sell the economy. -- Matt Taibbi

Homo Perfectus
Homo LedomusEdited by Taz, : No reason given.

Homo Supremos

We are doomed... as times moves on, we develop more and more powerful weapons. It's just a matter of time till some radical lowlife group gets hold of such weapons and wipes us all out(all in the name of god or some similar horseshit). Hence, an immediate ban on religions is a must. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

I really don't think you've thought that one through.

Whether you like it or not, the tolerance experiment has failed. And so did the experiement for the integration of people of different religions into one society. Both have failed miserably in the EU and the US. If we continue to turn a blind eye to the growing islamic threat, the civilisations clash is inevitable. If we want a successor, a total ban on religions is a must before they get hold of nuclear weapons and wack us in the name of god. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Maybe we should name the new species after the first individual we positively determine to be of said species, such as:Homo bluejayiThough you'd be better off using last names than first names, like this:Homo adequatei
Homo staubiniMaybe, we'd name them after the discoverer, in the same manner. Or, we could name them after the trait that distinguishes them from us:Homo quadratocephalus
Homo horridops
Homo magnarostrus

---

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

No they haven't. Not from where I'm sitting. (Leicester, UK.) I still think that you haven't thought this through.First, the people who wish to ban religion are a minority. They are a minority even among the irreligious. How are "we" meant to ban religion? Some sort of un-Holy War? But "we" are outnumbered. And I, for one, despite my lack of belief, would fight on the other side.Secondly, any such attempt would precipitate exactly the sort of crisis you wish to avoid.Finally, your proposition is grossly immoral, for exactly the same reason that the worst excesses of religion are immoral: because you wish to introduce compulsion into matters of conscience. What, pray tell me, are "we" meant to do with the believers who do not respect "our" ban on religion? Burn them at the stake? Stone them to death? Do explain.---N.B: I notice that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of the thread.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.