The developed countries have mostly developed an environment where evolution is no longer happening for human beings – we all get a shot at survival and reproduction. And that’s a good thing: natural (or unnatural) selection is at the opposite end of the moral spectrum from human rights. We’re protecting our weak.
So this means that if this situation lasts (it’s rather an exception in the course of history), we’re not going to evolve one bit, and we might even nurture our minor defects. If we’re going to change at all, it’s going to be by artificial means: either by genetic manipulation, or by digital augmentation, or something we haven’t thought of yet.
The ironic thing is that we’re actually making an extremely harsh environment for all other species. Through changes in temperature, chemicals, disturbances in food chains, random genetic manipulation, we’re manufacturing an environment where only the most adaptable species can survive.
In fact the one thing that doesn’t move, and is plentiful in this environment, is our ever-expanding group. We’re becoming part of the environment. Consequently, we can expect the fastest adapters to adapt to us, in either symbiotic or parasitic relationships. Interesting thought.
Parasites already live in most of the creatures on this planet, including humans. In spite of the mix chemicals in our bloodstreams, various parasitic species manage to dwell within our bodies.
But yes, you raise an interesting point. I’ve thought about this myself in the past, specifically in relation to HIV/AIDS. There are various places in the world where HIV is wide spread. In the “civilised” world, the infected generally stop reproducing. In the rest of the world this is much less the case and whereas we will drug the infected, I think it’s safe to say that we can expect immunity to arise in other places.
It’s a silly example of a disease that can be avoided with relative ease, but the biggest benefit of biological differentiation is disease-resistance. We’re already overly hygienic, with people using anti-bacterial soap all day long and immaculate houses and whatnot. The combination of keeping our immune system from being stimulated and keeping the weak alive long enough to reproduce might just result in worthless immune systems in the future. The future doesn’t look bright to me. And I think that if the human race wants to have any chance of long-term survival, genetic engineering will have to become the norm…
Don’t jump to conclusions here. Although we only exist for a mere 200.000 years on this earth, we are talking about a trend found only in human civilisation for less than 2000 years. Genetic engineering would only be the only way forward, if we were all genetically identical (more or less), which is definitely not the case. Just look at skin colour for example, what a wide range we still have today among humans!
Think about this: glasses are a modern way of overcoming a natural defect. If glasses were never invented, would “the average human” today have better eye-sight?
I don’t think so at all. It will take until the year 5000 or so, to see any evolutionary result of something like glasses.
Evolution is imho a purely biological -nearly physical- process: natural selection and genetic drift are at work whether you like it or not. You describe the fact that the human society and, more broadly, any social interactions between animals may interfere with the natural selection process. And scientist are also slowly mingling with genetic (non)drift: we are not far from the big fantasy of being able to choose our child’s eye colour. So we see that the “human nature” doesn’t want any changes by protecting the weak and trying to control its genetic background.
But, as you wrote, the irony is that we are making important changes to other species and to our environment, and not really to our advantage. These changes may, one day, kill us rather than support our stagnation.
And there are still potential meteorites in the sky to come and extinguish our species, like they did for dinosaurs
@bram i think we’re not far enough in our knowledge yet to beat viruses …
@bart i agree that this state has been not lasted enough to introduce any change ! that’s why i say ‘if it lasts’. I agree that it might never happen.
@Jean-Etienne i like your cheerfulness
We are far enough in our knowledge to beat some viruses. Vaccines can be developed, and it is sometimes just a matter of time and money. Of course, creating a vaccine for a virus that will spread, kill a handful and then die off is not very useful if you can’t do it fast enough.
Glasses don’t strike me as a terribly good example, although I do get your point. Not sure whether I agree with it, but as you say, we’ll have to wait and see. Now, the reason why I don’t think glasses are a good example, is because being shortsighted does not kill you and does not prevent you from reproducing. Having a small brain, like our ancestors, that got us killed lots and lots of times – and our brains got bigger.
That being said, we have been relying on “technology” for survival for a very long time now, and we still seem to be around.