UN-Natural Selection
May 8th, 2007
Here’s a thought-provoking question for ya: Has human evolution stalled or, perhaps, even ended altogether? Or was Devo right–have we begun to de-evolve?!
According to an op-ed piece recently featured on Kuro5hin.org entitled, quite simply, “Human evolution has stalled“, author “gndn” has commented that “Human evolution has stalled because we have developed the means to sustain lives that would otherwise be lost, thereby granting reproductive abilities to those who arguably should not have them.” You’re damn right we have, gndn! I myself am a perfect example of that principle. I am a genetic disaster area: I have more heritable defects (with everything from major connective-tissue problems to minor cognitive impairments) that most people have relatives. Medical science has kept me…well, kinda/sorta healthy–healthy enough to reproduce, at any rate, which is something I absolutely refuse to do. I’m not about to curse some innocent human being with my faulty, painwracked, and damnear useless biological heritage.
On the plains of the Serengeti, a hundred years ago, or a thousand, or a hundred thousand…I would’ve been lion-food before I turned six. Hell, were I born Homo erectus, my mother probably would’ve just left me by a creek for something else to eat–and I wouldn’t blame her one bit. Natural selection equals survival of the fittest…and I’m not fit for anything but my current rarified, technologically-assisted environment.
gndn argues that due to contemporary humanity’s propensity for caring for any and all, regardless of their mental or physical condition, we have ceased to evolve. As he/she/it puts it:
I submit that the process of natural selection as outlined by Darwin should be respected, if for no other reason than that our knowledge of it is still in a very primitive stage. The ancient Spartans were on to something - life should be considered a privilege, one which must be earned. Anyone who argues that this is unfair or unnatural should be forced to watch animals eat each other on the nature channel for a few hours.
Hmmm. Interesting. I don’t think many people would particularly disagree with that statement. There’s not much sense in caring for and enabling those members of the family/group/tribe/society who are clearly disabled to the point that their existence proves to be a verifiable drag and potential danger to the others. But our author seems to forget something very, very obvious:
Humans are no longer animals. We no longer live upon the plains of Old Afrique or the sabretooth-haunted steppes of Ice Age Europe and America. In fact, though today there are still plenty of humans living in conditions not too different from those of our prehistory, people at the forefront of contemporary human development (that is, citizens of First World countries such as the United States, the European Union, and Japan), live so removed from nature–and the impact of natural selection–that it’s patently ridiculous to even consider natural selection as an influence on their existence.
gndn makes a very valid point that the human species as a whole should be more concerned with its long-term viability, in order to preserve our species in the face of changing conditions. But what he/she/it does not take into account is that we are doing just that.
We now have the capacity and means to control our own evolution. We no longer require natural selection to gradually, painfully force us to adapt to changing conditions: we can now forecast those changes and take the necessary technological steps to adapt ourselves. At present (2007 C.E.), we are just beginning to tap into the vast power of genetic engineering and human/machine interfacing–at least in certain regions of the planet. One can never think of the “Human Species” as one gigantic, self-referential, and self-guided body; evolution abhors monocultures, after all. Even now we’re beginning to see the first signs of speciation beginning to create new branches on the Homo family tree–according to our wishes, finally, instead of those of mere survival in hostile environments. The First World is developing greater and greater technologies every year to amplify human abilities and extend our control over our own environments.
The human species (soon, the human species, plural) has outgrown natural selection. Calling for a return to the “good ol’ days” of natural selection is idiotic, and actually shows a great contempt for evolution. We have given to ourselves the gift of understanding and control over our own destinies, our own evolution. To throw that power aside in favor of some ridiculous return to nature is not only silly, but is, in effect, a much more heinous crime against the human species’ long-term viability than keeping a handful of “unfit” creatures such as myself around in the near-term.
–> Current Listening To: Ultravox, “Dancing With Tears In My Eyes”.
Add New Comment
Viewing 3 Comments
Thanks. Your comment is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Now unfortunately we're not breeding out the bad mutations (like peanut allergies, or asthma) but there were always medical problems that came too late in life, after the breeding cycle, to get weeded out (cancer, weak heart). But we should ostensibly be getting taller, and stronger, and better-looking.
But a true evolution-- a drastic mutation-- you expect that to only appear every few thousand years anyway.
Add New Comment