# Human Evolution: Where to Now?



## The Procrastinator (Apr 1, 2008)

I wasn't sure where to post this, as there doesn't seem to be a philosophy topic (if there is, please move it accordingly, hardworking mods); so I am posting it here as I suppose it falls under the general purview of Nature, if not Science.

It struck me today, in my musings, that if the basic driver of evolution is "survival of the fittest" (in simple terms - I like simple terms), then what path is the human species taking? Certainly these days its not only the fittest who survive, and breed like rabbits. Is this good for our genetic diversity? Are we going to breed ourselves into extinction by allowing the weak to survive and thrive? Have we made things too easy for ourselves? Are we more shortsighted and in need of instant gratification these days (which reminds me, I'm hungry), or were we always like this? Are we heading for a giant Darwin Award?

All thoughts concerning this, or vaguely inspired by this, welcome.


----------



## Quokka (Apr 1, 2008)

There's been a lot of discussions about whether humans are even continuing to evolve now that we change the environment so much, I'm sure there's some technical term for the theroy but I don't know it off hand. Personally I can't see how we can not be evolving, as we change the environment so it changes us. For every disease/ threat we've eliminated or minimised there seems to be at least one to replace it and there's plenty of signs that the environment is continuing to have a major effect upon us ie concerns about dropping sperm counts etc and giving everything a good coating of concrete and locking ourselves inside just means it's a different environment that's affecting us. maybe we don't need to be checking ourselves for USB ports just yet but you get what I mean hopefully. So the rules may have changed but the games certainly still on.

I think part of the problem when discussing human evolution is we want answers now, which isn't always helpful. If our world and culture continue to develop somewhat along the lines of what is currently happening you'd think we'd develop better and better abilities to multi-task and deal with ongoing stress considering the changes that have been occuring (almost exponentially) in the last few hundred years but give it 100,000 years and maybe we'll be able to see an incling of that? 

As far as the fittest breeding, isnt that still happening (in trends - not absolutes) the difference is that the criteria is much more cultural/social now then physical, not that physical isn't a factor but in any case is the ability to thrive socially and culturally as important or even more important now then physical fitness? Will it become even more important in the future with advances in technology and medicine? 

You'd have to think that the one thing that is good for us genetically is the ever increasing mixing of people from different areas and backgrounds and the breaking down of any isolation between individual gene pools. 

"or were we always like this?" To an extent we were (imo) history and science can't help but simplify things to some extent, I mean it's hard to make any real sense about who we are as a race today if we only discuss it in terms of 6 billion individuals. The majority of us may act like a herd of cows but as long as someone is out there inventing the light globe and measuring the circumference of the Earth using two sticks and some shadows we seem to be extremely hard to slow down. 

Well you did say vague.... the rambling was my idea.


----------



## dekket (Apr 1, 2008)

Originally posted by the *Procrastinator*


> Certainly these days its not only the fittest who survive, and breed like rabbits.


 
Survival and breeding like rabbits aren't always, or indeed generally, compatible.
Most thriving specials inhabit a niche in their environment, and evolution helps these species to survive any changes in that environment.  
Most species that over breed end up devouring all the available resources, destroying their niche, and resulting in their own extinction.
Humans have been lucky so far in that untill recently there has always been untouched lands just over the horizon, full of resources.  This is obviously no longer the case.  And it will be interesting to see if (and not to mentional vital) we as a species can change enough to survive in the world.


----------



## Hilarious Joke (Apr 1, 2008)

Well there's plenty of food to go around, but of course, it doesn't go around. 

I remember studying in geography some population model which showed that as a country develops its population, which is in a developing country is increasing very quickly, slows down and even starts to decrease, which is happening in some eastern European countries. Anyway, I'm not sure if that's relevant or interesting or even true, but I thought I'd toss my proverbial two cents into the salad bowl - and yes that is a mixed metaphor. Why? Because I can.


----------



## Nik (Apr 1, 2008)

Sadly, terribly, horribly, a lot of the issues you mentioned are succumbing to AIDS.

Another swathe will perish when the next Flu pandemic comes through...

And there's always a chance of something new coming 'Out of Africa'...


----------



## Mad Tam McC (Apr 1, 2008)

There was a satirical film out recently (can't remember what it was called) in which someone woke up from suspended animation or something and found he was the cleverest person on the planet. The theory being that stupid people had bred more.


----------



## Urien (Apr 1, 2008)

We'll have giant heads and spider limbs and live inside computer cores.

Yep sure to be.

More seriously human evolution is now in our own hands. Two trends are obvious, the first is gene manipulation and the second is human-machine interface. Iain Banks, Neal Asher, Peter Hamilton probably say it all in what they envisage humans will and can become.


----------



## The Procrastinator (Apr 2, 2008)

I'd like to think human evolution is in our hands - though to be honest those hands drop the ball more often than not.  But I don't know. It seems a bit delusional - are we really ready? Firstly, OK, we are selecting for different traits now - cultural/social rather than physical. True, a successful human being in the modern, urban world does not need to be able to hunt down dinner or scrounge up berries and seeds, or fight off the neighbouring spearwielders or ravening lions. Things have changed. *But* things have only changed within the little shell of civilisation we have made for ourselves. What if the seas really are going to rise, and king tides and destructive storms are going to be more prevalent? What percentage of our social, cultural and economic lifeblood is concentrated on coastal areas? Are we really at the point where we can factor "mother nature" out of the equation? I think we're in for some tough times ahead and I am unconvinced that our civilisation will deal with it.

Having said that I believe humanity will go on, unless we really do succeed in making the place uninhabitable for mammals over a particular size. And who knows, maybe that's the case. 

I'm wondering if we've damaged our chances by being so urban-centric. Do you all think we really have changed as a species? Are we any smarter? (Not us in these forums, obviously, we get smarter every day . )


----------



## Hilarious Joke (Apr 2, 2008)

Lighten up dude, at least we have internets!


----------



## The Procrastinator (Apr 2, 2008)

And....Tim Tams.


----------



## Hilarious Joke (Apr 2, 2008)

You have Tim Tams?!


----------



## Happy Joe (Apr 2, 2008)

Personally, I figure that the coming dark ages will deplete the world population to the point where human evolution may resume. Both, evolution and a potential dark age, look to be dependent on the future viability of continuously advancing, wisely applied technology.

Devolution is always an option.

Enjoy!


----------



## The Procrastinator (Apr 3, 2008)

Yes HJ I have Tim Tams...but not for long. 

I will devour them as we devour life and life devours us - inevitably.

Think of those Tim Tams as we look bravely into the future we have made and are making for ourselves. Tim Tams may be the pinnacle of our civilisation, and what a pinnacle says I.

I have hope for us as a species not only because of Tim Tams. It may seem as though we are lacking in a fundamental ability to live in harmony with our environment, which doesn't augur well for our chances of survival, but I don't think that's necessarily the case. Human societies can live in harmony with their environment, even when it is harsh and difficult. Look at the 60 000 or so years of continuity of the Aboriginal peoples. They altered their environment but learned to do it in such a way that not only they benefited.

The trick will be, can we find a way to have harmony and technology? If we do go through a catastrophic depopulation, as Happy Joe threw into the ring, I wonder if we'll go through the same mistakes again or if we'll be able to do some clever rebuilding. 

I'd love us to be able to reach the levels that Banks, Hamilton etc have imagined. When you look at the big picture, though, I wonder where the natural path of our evolution is 
taking us. We are still awfully primitive really, despite our gadgets. I wonder about the drive behind life and diversification. Did mother nature give up on the dinosaurs, wipe them out and start again with mammals? Anyone in here with a hotline to the mother?


----------



## P. R. D. (Apr 3, 2008)

The global problems are way too much than the humanity can handle. We're about to enter the darkest period of all time! Yet, there's nothing we can do about it, so sit back, relax and enjoy .

About the evolution: we're cursed to stand in one road. Two steps forward and we die, so we do everything to step in the opposite direction. We're getting stupider and completely useless. However, somehow we find our way to destroy ourselves without any serious progress. Well, we're seriously ******.


----------



## The Procrastinator (Apr 4, 2008)

I don't know if we're getting stupider, although I suspect I might be some mornings. As Quokka pointed out above, as long as there's a few cleversticks around to leaven the mix and light the lights, the overall stupidity quotient of the human race doesn't signify too much.

It might matter about being stuck on one road, though. We need some cleversticks who can come up with another road altogether I guess.

More ramblings:
Evolution has shaped us for survival in the natural world. We all have traits very deeply ingrained that don't seem to have changed, probably because there hasn't been enough time yet for civilisation to have had an impact, such as:
Tribal - we identify with a group and are suspicious of the "other"
Social - we survive best when we work together. Love strengthens our group/family bonds, hate/anger helps us defend them.
Domino effect/follow the leader - the more of us who do something or say something, the more of us will agree with it and jump on the bandwagon.

I'm sure there are many others, that's just off the top of my head. I wonder, though, about traditional hand skills - many of those are dying out and some have been on the decline for many generations. Like carpentry, for instance - I would classify it as on the decline because even though many people still work in the industry, most of them would be lost without power tools - there's a lot of basic knowledge and discipline thats not needed in today's industry so doesn't get emphasised (time is money after all). I know the nature of the job market has shifted so that there is less work for those who are good with their hands - I wonder if the population has shifted too?


----------



## Hilarious Joke (Apr 5, 2008)

Moderator, can you ban this thread for been too depressing?

No offence, Procrastinator.


----------



## Pyan (Apr 5, 2008)

Sorry, HJ, the threads wander their way wearily across the Chronscape in their own directions: and "too depressing" is an insufficient reason to erect dams,raise levees or dig ditches in their path......


----------



## chrispenycate (Apr 5, 2008)

Actually, no.

Are marching morons if they come into being will not be due to genetic evolution - the time scales we are talking about are nowhere near enough to absorb the genetic diversity of the species - they'll be from social devolution.

To get fast evolution, you need to kill of at least 90% of each generation for a couple of dozen generations; if the negative factor is something that can be selected against, (like an antibiotic) you'll get your resistant strains or whatever.
On the other hand a pressure to play video games rather than read can be selected for socially in a fraction of a generation, with no appreciable change in the gene pool. It is much easier to select for ignorance than breed for stupidity.

The other way to obtain stupidity without waiting for evolution to weed out unwanted gene patterns is infant malnutrition.

On the other hand, we are approaching the point where genetic manipulation may make it possible to direct evolution toward certain specific goals, and away from others. If this becomes possible, moral or not, people are going to use the potential - and since it's those who have the money who'll be deciding, you can imagine for what characteristics they'll be breeding. Not me for a start.

Is directed change still "evolution"? Is the random factor not an essential if we want to maintain that "fittest" label?


----------



## the smiling weirwood (Apr 5, 2008)

When an organism has the power to direct its own genetic change does it really need to be "fit"? We currently have the power to wipe out all life on the planet, thus making us far more powerful than any other organism that has ever existed, and therefore, at least nominally the most successful.

If we were to direct our own genetic changes I have no doubt of certain eventualities. Of course some or most governments would try various cliched super-soldiers/agents or cow-like obedient populace thing. I can imagine Hollywood or high fashion or whatever tailor-making models and such. Its easy to see all sorts of abuses of such power, but there is always the potential for the negative uses of any new technology. 

There is also the possibility that we could improve on nature. There is the possibility that no future generations ever have to suffer through cystic fibrosis, or diabetes, or parkinson's or any of the scores of other genetic diseases with which we are currently afflicted.

There is something to be said for survival of the fittest as a way to guarantee the competitiveness of a species, but as it stands humans would never allow themselves to be selected like that again. Society would simply not allow us to dispose of the congenitally defected or genetically "flawed" individuals as nature would on its own. If we don't want to become weakened by, and I don't mean this insensitively but rather in purely biological terms, polluting our gene pool, we need to work on it ourselves.


----------



## Hilarious Joke (Apr 5, 2008)

I think if we can use genetic engineering to cure genetic diseases that will be a great step forwards for mankind. 

Damn I wish there was a genetic engineer on the Chron who could tell me the latest news and more about how it works...*waits hopefully*


----------



## The Procrastinator (Apr 5, 2008)

Poor HJ, this thread is like a train wreck for you isnt' it - you can't look away! 

Socially we really seem to have moved beyond "survival of the fittest", at least in the developed parts of the world. In that sense we have already started taking our destiny in our own hands - we no longer leave such decisions to fate, nature, whatever.

Looking on the optimistic side, so HJ doesn't feel the urge to jump out the nearest window (see, I do feel for your sensitive soul, matey), lets say the pressures of climate change successfully force us to develop new technologies and improve on the helpful ones that already exist - I was talking to a bloke today who works extracting gas from rubbish tips for power generation, for instance - we pull the rabbit out of our collective hat and we get through the coming crisis with a lot of suffering, but with our technological capacity strengthened by it.

We then might really be in a position to start the self-improvement project in earnest.

I find the concept of "improving on nature" to be fascinating. Nature's done a reasonably good job of making us viable and competitive. But has she given us fatal flaws? We are a very social species with a fabulous capacity for learning and teaching. But as Chris said:
_On the other hand a pressure to play video games rather than read can be selected for socially in a fraction of a generation, with no appreciable change in the gene pool. It is much easier to select for ignorance than breed for stupidity._
This kind of thing won't have much impact on us in the larger scheme of evolutionary change, but it could have tremendous consequences for our own little house of cards. Reading is like a keystone in the house of civilisation and technology. We won't get too much further if we continue to "select for ignorance". That's a consequence of our natural evolution - video games have instant gratification, movement, colour, the thrill of the chase and achievement without having to work for it or even get out of a chair - its all there at our fingertips. I wonder if we can genetically engineer ourselves to be more intellectually curious? (En masse I mean) To think more about consequences?

What kind of improvements would you all like to see?


----------



## K. Riehl (Apr 5, 2008)

I foresee a genetics arms race. If one country can develop geniuses to finally solve the fusion problem, or Cancer, or Hydrogen Power don't you think they will? Or in a more sinister bent, develop race specific plagues, or military commanders?.


----------



## Hilarious Joke (Apr 6, 2008)

Ha ha ha, thanks for your efforts Procrastinator. I give it four more posts before the thread turns apocalyptic again.


----------



## Creator (Apr 8, 2008)

Maybe some of us may develop a resistance to deadly viruses, naturally without genetic modification.


----------



## Heretic (Apr 8, 2008)

All I can say within the comments is: "Prepare to be assimilated!"


----------



## Wybren (Apr 18, 2008)

After spending the last 5 years studying this, I think that if there is evolution in our species it will be in terms of brain development, and perhaps in the far off future maybe even things like how our skin reacts to the effects of the sun. I did think that perhaps we were already seeing some kind of evolution in terms of how there are certain places where due to limited calorie intake people are shorter and smaller than those with excess calorie intake, who seem to be getting taller. But I spoke with my supervisor on this and he said no because we still experience gene flow and gene drift and if you bring a child from a place with low calorie intake and bring them to say, Australia and feed them the same as an Australian then they will grow taller than had they been left where they were.


----------



## Hilarious Joke (Apr 18, 2008)

But of course, that won't be passed on through generations.


----------



## Delvo (Apr 18, 2008)

While you're growing up, the more of your diet is protein, the faster you grow. You can switch growth speeds over and over again if your diet changes several times for whatever reason. The more of your growing years you spend in fast-growing mode instead of in slow-growing mode, the bigger size you will end up at when you're done growing.

African pygmies lack the fast-growing mode due to a genetic difference from the rest of us so they'll never grow fast enough to reach "normal" size regardless of diet, but pygmy populations elsewhere are diet-induced pygmies, and would reach a "normal" size if not protein-starved. I've read at least one claim that the slightly smaller size of eastern Asians compared to western Eurasians and Africans is just a milder version of the same thing, and that more of them are growing to the size of the other races now that more of them are shifting their diet away from the diet of their parents or grandparents.


----------



## edott (Apr 19, 2008)

Mad Tam McC said:


> There was a satirical film out recently (can't remember what it was called) in which someone woke up from suspended animation or something and found he was the cleverest person on the planet. The theory being that stupid people had bred more.


 
idiocracy, i actually just watched it. very amusing movie.

Personally i believe with genetic engennering we will take control of human evolution.


----------

