Meet Mindy. A hunched back, claw-handed, and second eyelid dawning model that paints the ways the human body could change due to the effects of modern technology. (Credit: TollFreeForwarding.com)
Claw-like hands, smaller brains, and 90-degree elbows? It sounds as ridiculous as it looks, but these researchers suggest it’s possible
CERRITOS, Calif. — Hunched back, clawed-hands, and second eyelids could be common features of human anatomy in the future, a recent computer model reveals. The shocking, hopefully tongue-in-cheek report warns that overusing technology could somehow steer human evolution in a direction that leaves people looking deformed compared to what we consider normal today.
There’s no question technology now plays a constant role in the lives of many people, but what is all that screen time really doing to the human body? Researchers worked with a 3D designer to create images of a “future human” that accounts for all of the problems long-term tech use may cause. Though StudyFinds takes a neutral stand on the content we post and leaves it to our readers to debate or debunk, we certainly can’t help but raise an eyelid…or two…on these images. After all, how could this creature be the result of natural selection?
Specifically, they were inspired by a poll that found the typical American uses the Internet for seven hours a day. With that in mind, the team factored in a wide range of scientific studies and expert opinions examining the physical and mental changes that come from consistent exposure to smartphones, laptops, and television. The results were shocking.
Hunched-back humans
The research project, commissioned by TollFreeForwarding.com (yes, really), led to the development of the 3D model, named “Mindy.” Researchers predict that office work and craning the neck to look at smartphones will lead to humans having a hunched back in the future. Currently, many people consistently adjust their position to look down at their phones, or to look up at their office screens. Studies show that this strains parts of the body that affect posture.
READ: Best Smart TVs for 2023: Top 4 Televisions Recommended By Expert Websites
“Spending hours looking down at your phone strains your neck and throws your spine off balance. Consequently, the muscles in your neck have to expend extra effort to support your head. Sitting in front of the computer at the office for hours on end also means that your torso is pulled out in front of your hips rather than being stacked straight and aligned,” says Caleb Backe, a health and wellness expert at Maple Holistics, in a statement from TollFreeForwarding.
Text claw and elbow problems
One of the most noticeable changes is the development of “text claw,” a new term that describes how the hand starts to permanently take the shape of a claw due to constantly holding a smartphone. Future humans may also evolve to have a 90-degree elbow thanks to the excessive use of cell phones to make calls. This condition would leave the elbow permanently bent at a 90-degree angle.
“The way we hold our phones can cause strain in certain points of contact – causing ‘text claw’ and ’90-degree elbow’ also known as the cubital tunnel syndrome,” says Dr. Nikola Djordjevic from Med Alert Help. “This syndrome is caused by pressure or the stretching of the ulnar nerve which runs in a groove on the inner side of the elbow. This causes numbness or a tingling sensation in the ring and little fingers, forearm pain, and weakness in the hands – keeping the elbow bent for a long time.”
Will humans grow a second eyelid?
Interestingly, the model of Mindy predicts that humans may end up developing a unique defense against too much blue light from digital devices — a second eyelid.
Previous studies have found that blue light exposure can disrupt sleep patterns, leading to insomnia and other health problems. Excessive screen time can also lead to headaches, eye strains, and even poorer vision — especially among children.
READ: Best Photo Editing Apps, According To The Experts
“Humans may develop a larger inner eyelid to prevent exposure to excessive light, or the lens of the eye may be evolutionary developed such that it blocks incoming blue light but not other high wavelength lights like green, yellow or red,” says Kasun Ratnayake from the University of Toledo.
Tech neck and smaller brains
Finally, “Mindy” reveals that future humans will likely suffer from a serious case of “tech neck,” where the muscles grow to limit the damage due to poor posture. Moreover, Mindy’s skull is thicker to help protect the human body from damaging radiofrequency waves allegedly coming from smartphones.
Studies show that a sedentary lifestyle can reduce human brain capacity. With that in mind, Mindy also has a smaller brain than present-day humans. Additionally, all of these can lead to future humans being more vulnerable to mental health conditions like anxiety and depression, according to the researchers.
READ: Best Fitness Trackers: Top 5 Wearable Technology Devices Recommended By Experts
“Technology gives us so much. Convenience, connectivity, entertainment, and so much more – but there is a trade-off. Overexposure to technology can sometimes come to the detriment of our health, and Mindy is our visual representation of a growing body of scientific research,” says Jason O’Brien, COO of TollFreeForwarding.com. “While the benefits of technology to individuals and businesses are too great to ignore, it’s worth evaluating your usage to ensure your health isn’t being damaged in the long-term.”
Editor’s Note: Based on many comments, it seems that there are plenty of readers who have no idea that StudyFinds does not take a position on any body of research it publishes, as unbelievable as some of the reports may seem to the average reader. The report above, very clearly, comes away with an extreme prediction. Though our writers individually may heavily disagree with or may heavily agree with a story, they must still present the findings to the reader as presented by the researchers. Our content is intended to stir debate and conversation, and we always encourage our readers to discuss why or why not they agree with the findings. We do not receive any compensation from the researchers, marketing firms, or anyone else behind the research for the content we post. We share who commissioned research (who paid for the study not to StudyFinds, but to the people who completed the research) to give additional transparency to the reader so that they can weigh that in their conclusions about the report. If you heavily disagree with a report — please debunk to your delight in the comments below.
Gary is correct. Lamarckism went out with Crainiology. Once stabilized within a population a trait will only become dominant by granting the possessing organism some advantage over the rest of the population. i.e offering resistance to a disease, or making the individual more attractive to it’s potential mates. The “traits” described here are modeled as responses to environmental stress. What advantages are offered by a smaller brain? On the other hand it wasn’t funded with taxpayer money and the 3D human images are hilarious.
Evolve to have a second eyelid? If anything, the second eyelid we had eons past would simply come back. This article is rubbish.
I already have two eye lids.
I’m still wondering why I haven’t grown another arm by now. It would have been extremely helpful to mankind. I imagine thousands of years of our existence would have done that. A working one that is. Oh well, it just sucks I was born during this phase of evolution. Only have two hands. More power to those who come thousands of years after. Why you ask? Mankind in it’s evolutionary process will eventually become godlike. Or Who knows, with two eyelids.
Lol who will be using computers and cell phones millions of year later
This isn’t how evolution works. We wouldn’t sexually select for these traits, and they don’t help someone to “survive” to be the dominant genetic contributor.
So freaking dumb. That’s like saying people would be hunched over with shovel hand because all of our ancestors farmed. Gtfo
Weissermann cut the tails off 5 generations of mice in the 19th century and you know what happened, nothing. The 6th generation had perfectly normal tails.
Stupid, misinformed claptrap.
This is absolutely moronic science
Assumes we literally don’t evolve our tech over thousands of years
We will not be using devices the same way by that point scientists, you utter imbeciles
Since when has biological evolution outpaced technical evolution
Nothing for Nothing … Stories like this you would find in the Supermarket Isle 25 years in the Enquire Magazine … its purely entertainment news . Drudge what HAPPENED !!
this is nonsense because for natural selection to work in this regard would require that those who do not look like this would die before they can breed.
Can you imagine if this article were written in 1958 about the time spent on the telephone by teenage American girls? HA! What would the “text claw” of that era look like? Too funny….
I believe Lamarckian evolution was debunked long ago.
So what they’re saying is that humans will de-evolve into mindless, Neanderthal-like morons.
aka: Millennials.
Mindy looks hot.
This article did not show that these forces would be translated into actual genetic differences. The whole presentation is Lamarckian, like “giraffes acquired longer necks by stretching a lot.” Is there some reason to believe that mutations that led to claw hands, would lead to those individuals having more surviving offspring than people who don’t develop such mutations? Is there some reason to think that mutations that block off blue light would lead to individuals who have more surviving offspring – especially when people could seek technological solutions to this problem, as they have to many things? (In fact, there are already glasses that block blue light). The article is just plain sensationalist nonsense, in its present form.
Something I read put it perfectly: The proof that Lamarck was wrong can be found at every Bris.
Lifestyle deformities and evolution are two totally separate things. And you have to assume that technology would not change for such a significant amount of time that certain body traits would be more superior or desirable. None of this is the case. Pointless article
From one Mike to another, well said. Thanks for saving me the typing. Dumbest article ever!
That’s like saying human (males) hands will evolve into fists from excessively flogging the dog
Thank you! Was replying essentially the same thing. Evolution promotes traits that increase survival chances or increases chance of reproducing.
In fact, you could write an interesting article talking about how technology that helps us overcome deficiencies is evolving us to a weaker and more disease prone specimen. Glasses? Good vision is no longer needed to survive and reproduce. Therefore more and more humans require corrective lenses.
Invention of synthetic insulin? T1 Diabetes, which is a genetic disease that often strikes children, is now treatable. Therefore all the T1 diabetics alive today are having children that otherwise wouldn’t have been born and passing down genes prone to an autoimmune disease that requires pharmacy intervention.
I’m sure someone could think up a dozen more examples.
No. We won’t. No one will breed with that much less take it out for drinks. The claw hand might price useful, but only for a short while. The first time that 3rd lid blinks, the date is over.
If everyone looks like that then she will be a prize…evolution is what this article was about but I think you missed that.
Jim – I laughed out loud at your comment, “The first time that 3rd lid blinks, the date is over.” That is awesome! And agreed, this article is nonsense.
Is this really a story worth publishing. I say NO!
The only way for anything like this too happen would be if people already born with those features thrived more and became preferred mating partners and had more offspring who would carry those genes forth. Kind of like what happened with the Galapagos finches. The word evolution is loaded and not helpful. This would better be deemed variation within a gene pool. No new information is ever added. Only the inherent gene frequency is changed.
There also could be a random mutation, but those are typically not helpful and only lead to the downfall of a specie.
Or from experimental, DNA altering drugs passed on as “Safe & Effective”.
Agree. Not going to happen. We are relying on the great scientists at “Maple Holistics” to tell us this? What could possibly be wrong with that?
Evolution works based on survival of the fittest. What makes the people who came up with this load of garbage think that those traits would result in the future of humanity when to be fittest to survive implies one got laid and therefore procreated. No one meeting the prediction in that study would be able to procreate.
If you walk around holding a cellphone in your hand … why would your offspring develop a clawed hand? That’s not how it works. If you break your leg skiing, your next kid doesn’t have a broken leg, right? This article is nonsense.
Lol. Dumbass. Its not the next offspring. Ita thousands of years of evolution of the future. U cant be that f7cking dumb
Yes he can.
He’s correct, outside of mutations most new traits are passed on due to being more successful, creating an advantage that would allow a higher likelihood of the new gene passing on. Selective breeding in a nutshell. None of these irradiated basement dweller traits are much of an advantage over current humans.
Indeed, the traits must have an advantage in reproduction and survival until reproduction of offspring. None of these traits will benefit reproduction, unless we’d evolve to find them attractive or create eugenetic laws. None of them will improve our survival which is already near perfect until far beyond reproductive age. Evolution doesn’t care about osteoarthritis or cataract at middle to old age. All these traits except the extra eye lid may be how some of us may look like in our 70s though, since we’re the first era with this technology, that being said they probably said the same when books and hand writing emerged. For future generations, I’m sure their technology will look nothing like ours.
“Indeed, the traits must have an advantage in reproduction and survival until reproduction of offspring.” – Dieter
You are missing more than half the pie.
Variation that is not sufficiently detremental is also carried over.
Concurs, a article with such a fundamental ignorant take on what evolution is makes one wonder where the hell the funding comes from for such crap. So if i start cutting off the tails of mice would I expect to start having mice with no tails….. lmfao
Yes we already have slouched postures, clawed hands and dumber brains. Excessive internet use and gaming are ultimate brain cell destroyers. Singing off now, bye!
We’re ALREADY at HUD UI types contact lenses so I think even in 25 years innovation in tech will be mind blowing.
“He’s correct, outside of mutations most new traits are passed on due to being more successful”
Or not more un-successful.
Maybe for the next 20,000 years cretinism will be considered desirable in a mate.
It’s how MAGAt’s reproduce, isn’t it?
Aaaaaaaaaaaand there we are, folks: the first example of Trump Derangement Syndrome to be thrown into the comment section because Vendicar has no life.
I’m surprised Hitler wasn’t mentioned instead, to be perfectly honest.
(I’m sure it’s just a matter of time, though.)
In addition to being invonsustent with the mechanism of evolution and passing down genes… technology also changes quickly…who know if we will be using smart phones in the future. Complete nonsense.
Yeah dogs are so varied because of human selection. We chose which traits to pass down. Now, let me ask you, would you drop a load into Mindy by choice?
I didn’t think so….
You’re the dumbass if you imagine we will be using cellphones instead of AR glasses in even a decade.
No, they’re right. This article has absolutely no basis on how evolution actually works.
It’s based on Lamarckian evolution, an idea that’s been disproved for centuries, and which is summed up by the above commenters example.
This article is ridiculous.
Lemarckian evolution has been proven right. Epigenetics shows that the environment can have direct and lasting changes to genes, and be passed on from one generation to another.
https://evolutionnews.org/2015/02/lamarck_rescued/
Only a few things are passed on through epigenetics. It does not add any validity to the article.
Nope not as a whole it wasn’t.
With epigenetics you would not carry on these features. The idea of epigenetics is that it does not alter your DNA just changes how your genes react.
“Epigenetics is the study of how your behaviors and environment can cause changes that affect the way your genes work. Unlike genetic changes, epigenetic changes are reversible and do not change your DNA sequence, but they can change how your body reads a DNA sequence”
\
Totally agree. The author (s) don’t take into account how natural selection affects evolution, and the fact that we humans have in some regards set aside natural selection – we don’t use our mates for survivability. We choose them for a variety of other reasons that may have nothing to do with the factors cited in this article
That is still not how selection works. Go back to 7th grade science class.
He is exactly correct. The article is describing La Marckianism. Long discredited.
It is you who are the ignorant one here as you have no idea how evolution works.
The most reproductively successful traits are passed on. Not conditions acquired while living.
Yes and are you that dumb to believe that for tens of thousands of years, we will have no change in technology? We went from agriculture civilization to current modern technology in that amount of time, and you see no progress henceforth. This is why this article is completely off the rails.
The original poster is correct. It’s “evolution by natural selection.” The idea is that some survival advantage allows certain parents a better chance to pass on their genes to offspring. Nothing about sitting and staring at a phone increases one’s odds of reproducing. On the contrary, it may decrease one’s odds.
I don’t know…an awful lot of computer dating, then hook ups in the real world? You know, flick to the left or right, or so I’m told.
I’m married etc, so just guessing. Maybe a few of the lonely geeks out there can fill me in about this weird world? I was a bit of an old fashioned man i.e., meet a girl in real time and space, etc etc.
Let us know when you figure out what the selection pressure would be “dumbass” since you clearly have zero substantive understanding of how genetics works on a population level.
Lol, dumbass, evolution doesn’t work this way, even over “thousands” of years. It actually takes longer, and the attributes that aid survival become common. Gripping a cell phone , or having bad posture don’t help you to survive to mate, AOR make you more attractive to a mate. Go learn something idiot.
Evolution can happen surprising fast.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm
Yes, evolution can happen much faster depending on the amount of survival pressure. And the iterations of generations. A bacteria that reproduces every 5 seconds can evolve a completely different species in a week or a month. The article you cited are lizards that were moved to a completely different island and 35 years later their heads and digestive tracts changed. This isn’t that hard to believe because if there was a completely different food source available only lizards that could eat that food source would survive. And that could cause changes very fast.Humans do not have this kind of evolutionary pressure however.
Evolution might happen faster for species that reproduce much faster and are adapting to a change in habitat. On the contrary, tech is designed by humans as tools for humans. It’s also constantly changing. We’ll most likely update our tech before it starts having even the slightest influence negative or positive (I wouldn’t mind an extra eye lid for swimming underwater or a thicker skull) But these new traits would start out as random mutations and would take way longer than 36years to spread genetically. Dogs are so varied because Of selective breeding by humans. It’s way more likely humans go extinct before anyone of us evolves!! lol God! Why so much hate?! People on this thread can’t seem to have an intelligent discussion without calling each other dumbass or something. Let’s try to educate each other instead of tear one another down.
Actually anyone that believes this article holds any water at all isn’t thinking it through. Yes, we use these items a lot, but they aren’t tied to our survival or reproduction. What this means is that there is no evolutionary advantage to this stuff. These measures actually harm our evolutionary progress, not enhance it. Therefore, these are traits most likely to be filtered OUT of the gene line, not added to it. Not to mention we haven’t even had smartphones around for 20 years yet. It takes evolution much longer than that to do anything. Books have been around for almost 600 hundred years, and we haven’t developed any peculiarities or traits for reading them.
This is already your average democrat dumba***. It’s probably like looking in a mirror. Thats why you mad! Hahaha
Your life is just sad.
Try millions of years. This “study” is ridiculous. Human technological development is a microscopic blip in the timeframe of these dramatic evolutionary changes. This is pretty much a boomer meme.
Looks to me that everyone will only know how to call other people dumbass and insult rather than communicate.
There is absolutely no proof that any of this will be true. Especially when you consider that technology changes and a lot of people don’t spend as much time as others hunched over all day. So long before evolutionary changes take place, technology will change and in some cases vanish. We just don’t know what will happen thousands or millions of years. Besides, Homosapiens will more likely vanish JUST LIKE THE OTHERS BEFORE US.
stop being mean on this site!! this comment section is a safe place I ask that you respect that!! Now please apologize to my dear friend FishFry thank you.
It kicks against the tenets of Darwinian theory. You’re pushing Lamarkism.
I hold to neither but that’s beside the point.
That’s still not how evolution works.
It takes people breeding for that and last I checked most people on earth aren’t office workers. We have billions of people who don’t even have access to cells phones and computers.
Also humans use their bodies for more than just office work and thry forget to mention random mutations that could change this result.
Your the dumbass for having such a lack of knowledge when it comes the to he mechanisms that make evolution even function.
Oh a btw evolution doesn’t always take thousands of years, it just takes thousands of years for you to understand your full of it.
The Dunning-Kruger is strong with one.
Think the mental health problems are already showing,also inability to understand emotions caused by never looking at someone whilst communicating,which is why I think there is so much trolling and bullying nowadays, if people could actually see the problems being caused to other people I don’t think they would do it as much, the future doesn’t look so bright.
People need to get out more back to socialising and out into nature exercising and experiencing how life should be and this is before we even mention on line gaming.
Yo WTH!? This is a discussion board!! Quit acting like you know everything! You’re probably an adult so I expect you to act like one and be kind to people who might be able to help you learn something about critical thinking.
What’s nonsense is your shallow interpretation of this article it may be unrealistic but the basis of your statement it’s nonsense it’s totally unscientifically observant obviously you don’t have too much education I would imagine if you did you would not make a statement like you just did
“This article is nonsense.” – fishfry
It is science MAGAt style.
They also ignore that our lives are more and more sedentary and how over supposably millions of years we didn’t evolve anything new due to that. Like with one tribe where they can see underwater. That didn’t evolve into the rest of that tribe. All the ones with that trait were just able to survive as ones without it died out and didn’t gain the trait even reproducing before they died out. Which is strange cause that also shows that the tribe let the ones without the trait for as well…
ya def not how evolution works but then again judging by the responses to your comment maybe the small brain thing is already coming into play
Brain shrinkage has already affected this guy
It is complete Lysenko…
I was wondering the same question… Lol
Correct. One of the 1st evolution experiments was cutting off rat/mouse tails to see if it would ever effect offspring. It has no effect
For an example of a potential path for one of these traits to impact reproduction… Assuming tech continues requiring strained necks, which is already likely a big assumption, someone with the right neck support mutations could be less likely to get headaches, perhaps be less prone to depression, and be able to socialize more and thus be more likely to find a mate. Also, if it’s more comfortable to use tech longer, maybe they could access more of the benefits of using such tech that could even improve their quality of life, which could make them better child rearers, which has an impact on reproduction.
Idk I think it’s kind of fun to try to justify it and think about how these kinds of things might impact reproduction-driven evolution.