Evolutionary theorist agrees with HG Wells

Oliver Curry, a theorist at the renowned London School of Economics gave an interview with cable channel "Bravo" in which he predicted that in 100,000 years, mankind would have evolved into two distinct species, a tall, noble, upper class species, and a brutish, short, unintelligent lower class species. This future has more than a passing similarity to the vision of the future portrayed by HG Wells in The Time Machine. It also has overtones of Huxley's Brave New World. In fact, a cynic could claim that it is little more than an indirect expression of a narrow upper class English view of the world as it currently is.
However, since this is expressed as a scientific theory, an expression of what the human race will become, it should be addressed as such.
One of the drivers of species diversification is geographical separation. This was an insight gained by Darwin as he marvelled at the animals on Galapagos Island. Workers and aristocrats, by contrast, do not live on separate continents, but in the same society. Granted, globalisation means that entire countries can specialise in amassing armies of workers for another country's consumers. However, these arrangements are fluid and short-lived. Furthermore globalisation through international travel means that geographical distances play less of a role in separating humans than they once did.
Curry believes that the classes will breed separately, resulting in a new race of intelligent, beautiful people. However,breeding separation between the classes is not unprecedented. Through much of Europe's history this has been practiced in one form or another, the most striking product of which is inbreeding resulting in rare diseases such as haemophilia.
Curry is pessimistic about many aspects of humanities future. For example he predicts that humanity will reduce its ability to resist disease due to modern medicine. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the interaction between medicine and mankind.
Medicine is part of mankind, just as anthills are part of ants. If medicine suddenly disappeared from society, human health would deteriorate. Similarly, if you take away an anthill, you're going to mess up the ants. If you want to argue that humans are too reliant on medicine, then perhaps you should also argue that ants have become too reliant on anthills. The metaphor is sound. Both are structures created on a group level that enhance the well-being of the individuals. Ants have the benefit that ant-hill making is genetically wired in. Therefore, in contrast to anthills, it is conceivable that medicine could be lost yet the species (humans) remain. However, the circumstances under which medicine would be lost completely are highly unlikely. This would require a total, global breakdown of society.
For paying the price of dependence on something other than their own bodies, organisms get the benefits from a structure that no single member could build on its own. Medicine is an anthill.