The next stage of human evolution

I am proposing a discussion of the the future direction of human evolution, including the merit of the ideas explained below.(NOTE: The term "evolution" used below is not according to the usage in the modern science of biology regarding genetic change alone, but as the entire process by which life developed upon this planet including genetic change. I consider this relatively recent restriction of the term in the science of biology to be far too restrictive in a general philosophical discussion.)Everyone has seen new X-men movies about the "next stage of human evolution." One of the funny things about evolution and history is that these are things that happen in everyday life, only the participants are often unaware of what is happening all around them. I believe that we are in the next stage of evolution already and that the signs of it are all around us.Only it not Darwin's theory because he had no "next stage" in his theory. But there are stages. If we look far enough back into the past, there was a time that there were only single celled organisms. And if we look carefully at our cells we see evidence that these too were once composed of smaller more primitive independent units (similar to bacterial and algae and called prokaryotic cells). Darwin's original theory does not address these gaps. According to his theory the individual cells should continue struggling against each other for survival, so that only the fittest survive.But this is not what happened. If we look at our bodies we will find that most of our cells no longer have the ability to survive on their own. By working together and sheilding each other, protecting weaker members they have changed all the rules of evolution. For them it is no longer survival of the fittest, it is survival of the community.The driving force of evolution is always variation. Leaps of evolution occur when something happens that make a whole new range of variation possible. The beginning of sexual reproduction was one of those leaps. But think now about the inherent limitation that Darwin's evolution imposes upon variation. When it is all about individual survival, then there is not much room for variation is there? We should all be farmers or hunters in that case, don't
you think.Natural selection provides a directive factor, which also provides a means for evolutionary change. But this is a very negative force for change, for it bring the swiftest changes by massive deaths and extinction. There is no doubting its role in evolution but it is not one that the human race would want to endure in its future without strenuous opposition. If we understand that human evolution is in another stage where natural selection is not the most important factor, then it is cooperation with and protection of our fellow man rather than competition and the death of our fellow man that represents the forward direction in the evolution of man.Isn't it clear that human beings have taken this step into the next stage of evolution. Don't we now protect the weaker members of the community? Look at what liberation it has brought us. Look at the variety of man. Have we not changed the rules of evolution ourselves? The use of glasses is a perfect example of how we are in the next stage of evolution. Just as individual cells have overcome their limitations with the technology of its community (think of the human eye), we have overcome the limitations of our biology and individual evolution with the technology of the community of man. And just like the cells in our body, the community has become our greatest concern and our encompassing environment.When you look at the human body where are the X-men? By forming a community of cells, we have allowed some cells to evolve fantastic specialized abilities that could not exist if they had to survive on their own. The neuron is a great example. I believe that the liberation from the need to satisfy the requirements for individual survival is a key stimulus for the next stage of evolution. In this case, where are the true X-men in today's humanity? Are they not those we call handicapped? Do not those who are blind develop their senses and abilities in ways that other people do not. I saw this special on TV earlier this year about people with Williams syndrome, and in addition to physical difficulties they also had above average abilities in other areas like sociability, hearing and music.As our society learns to accomodate and provide active social roles for the handicapped are we not changing the rules of evolution. Could we be creating the conditions for the next stage of human evolution where we will see the real X-men of our future.Edited by mitchellmckain, : justification

---

See my relativistic physics of space flight simimulator at Astahost.com

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I think it a bit of a stretch to impute that view to Darwin. I'm inclined to disagree with this. Homo sapiens evolved as a social species, so cooperation with others in the group was always part of what constitutes human behavior. What we have really done, is change the cooperative group from a smallish tribe to all of humanity. As you yourself say, "the driving force of evolution is always variation." What you describe amounts only to increasing the amount of variation that the gene pool can sustain. I tend to think of this as setting the stage for future evolution, but not as entering the "next stage."

Altruism

Hi there,interesting topic I think.Let me add some thoughts to this; it's not even clear to me whether they mainly go with our against your op. But they may be somewhat relevant ideas1) humans are certainly not the first species to go beyond just caring for the individual; bees, ants and termites are excellent (and much much older) examples of lifeforms that have built up societies where individuals show the willingness to give preference to the survival of others. So from that point of view there's not really a new "phase" in evolution going on, I would say. Where humans might be unique, is that they might assign less strict importance to the level of genetic relatedness. When animals give precedence to survival of their colony instead of their individual well-being, this seems to be limited to creatures that are either genetically identical, or at least very close? So this fits strictly into the idea that the genes are having things under control. It is a behaviour that quite clearly emerges from natural selection, while in our case the link is less obvious. So yeah, in that respect it might be a novelty of the last couple of thousands of years.2) the concept of "overcoming" or "defeating", or "changing the rules" of natural selection , leads me to the question what exactly "natural selection" is? I mean, it is clear what exactly is being referred to, but is it something that can be "overcome" or "defeated"? Natural selection is not a law like the law of gravity, or some inevitable chemistry rule or whatever. It is not an actually existing force or an agent with an intention. To me, it is just the label that we stick onto a very recognisable and universal pattern that we discern over and over again. A pattern that is the result of a number of more fundamental interacting mechanisms. There's just statistics and randomness down there. If you get the idea what I mean.What was I trying to say again? lol

I believe that much of what you describe is little different than what we see in animal husbandry, where often traits that might actually be a disadvantage are accepted as the critter is directed towards some desired goal.We have though toyed with the idea of controling the filter, Natural Selection. We have had some small success dealing with little pieces of NS but the biggies still sit out there beyond our capability to control, predict or affect. When a major filter comes along, and one will, we have little way of predicting which evolutionary path will turn out to be the more successful.In the area of some Next Stage for mankind, I think the areas where we will see the biggest changes over the short haul (say the next 100 years) will be:

• in the definition of community.
• in the societal understanding of the need for cooperation on midrange NS.
• on devolving the concept of Nation-State (related to first item).
• on the recognition of the value of, and encouragement of teaching, the techniques of discrimination and critical thinking.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

General comment: I am reading everyones comments and I am pleased with the intellegent discussion. Forgive me if I do not respond to everyone, but I do not want to dominate the thread. The whole point of the next stage of evolution is that differentiation goes beyond genetic differntiation. Even among the ants we see differentiation between the worker females and the queen which is achieved by how the larvae is fed. The model to which I am comparing communities is the development of multicellular organisms, where we see incredible diffentiation between individuals which all have the same genetic code but utilize that code differntly. But the same ideas are perfectly applicable to a community of individuals which are not genetically identical.The most unique thing about the human community is that it can encompass the entire species so that there will be no competition between different communities of man. And yet we have learned to utilize the advantages of evolutionary competition in the economic methods of capitalism.I did not introduce the term "next stage of evolution" but I think that the meaning I have given to it is more useful. Besides the point of a next stage of evolution is not that this process cannot be found elsewhere in nature, quite the opposite, I am saying that is an inevitable part of the process of the development of life on this planet. Anyway, it does change the rules that most people attribute to evolution and more importantly it combats the misuse of the ideas of evolution that were behind social darwinism and the eugenics program of the nazis. It introduces a philosophy that sees medical technology and the care of the handicapped as a positive forces for the evolution of man.

---

See my relativistic physics of space flight simimulator at Astahost.com

We've been talking a lot about wisdom teeth on other threads, so here's one evolutionary trend that comes to mind: in the future we will have bigger brains and smaller jaws.And not a moment too soon.The biggest change we already see happening--and this is unprecedented in earth history--is that our species is taking conscious charge of its own evolution. The possibilities are endless and the results are unforeseeable. No doubt we're headed to some fantastic places. But first we're going to make some monumental screwups.

---

Archer

When you guys talk about "protecting the weaker", what are we talking about, exactly?I mean, how many genetic disorders that kill in childhood have we actually conquered, anyway? Childhood cancers still kill. Progeria kills every time. The "weakness" we've been able to "protect" wouldn't usually have been an issue anyway until well past parenting age. We're extending adulthood life for people with "bad genes", not getting them to an adulthood they wouldn't have seen otherwise.I guess my dad is still alive despite his juvenile-onset diabetes, but that's an autoimmune disorder, not a genetic one. He didn't inherit any genes for it - there's no family history of it - and I almost certainly don't have it either (I'm now older than he was when he became diabetic.)99% of the Earth's population enjoys no such protection from most diseases. 100% of the Earth's population are still making mate choices, rather than mating at a statistical random. The reports of the death of natural selection on humanity has been greatly exaggerated.

Ye shall be as gods....?Edited by Phat, : add by edit one paragraph

First, I agree that NS is no longer the 'most important factor' in human evolution if one considers NS as a function of physical factors, disease, and predation by other species, the way it applies to most other living things. But throughout history NS has been shaping our responses and our behavior - it has favored the evolution of particular *mechanisms* in human thought and behavior and these are still with us. I think we are a long way from escaping its influences.The subject of 'cooperation and protection of our fellow man' is one that must be put in a very precise context for discussion. Yes, we have a tendency to do this, but primarily when we are helping others that share our interests (read 'fitness'), i.e. they belong to the same family or social group. What must be remembered is that human cooperation likely evolved because it was advantageous in inter-group conflict. The biggest mortality factor among primitive humans was likely other bands of primitve humans, and intra-group co-operation was strongly selected because of the advantages it afforded in warfare. So I don't think it is accurate to portray human cooperation as some sort of utopian ideal that were are evolving toward out of increased humanitarian consciousness. Cooperation and warfare are intrinsically linked in human evolutionary history.

I am not convinced that medical technology does actually represent a step forward at all. It seems to me that what is really behind the desire to make gains in medical technology is the hope that WE will live longer healthier lives. Our hope is that we won't have to deal with cancer, alzheimer's, ALS etc. I don't see the desire to advance medical technology as being altruistic at all, in contrast to our desire to care for the handicapped.At the same time as we are increasing our longevity we are decreasing the number of kids we are having. I would suggest in generations past people got pleasure from contributing to the next generation by having kids and raising them. (I realize this is a very general statement.) Nowadays our focus seems to be on us. People aren't having kids because it impacts on lifestyle, even though in the western world, materially speaking, we enjoy the highest standard of living in history.I guess my point is that I am not convinced at all of your basic premise, which as I understand it, is that our sense of altruism is evolving, and that we as a society are becoming more altruistic. I tend to think that the phrase of the 70's, "looking out for number one", is very much alive and well.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

I don't see that I have any such premise. It is a fairly simple observation that human society (for whatever reasons) has been finding more productive roles for the handicapped and has been increasingly more protective of the weaker members of the human race, developing technologies to compensate for genetic/biological deficiencies. My point is simply that we do not need to think of this as a step backwards in human evolution, because this is a part of the pattern of the evolutionary development of life on this planet.

---

See my relativistic physics of space flight simimulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

OK but I'm still not completely clear. It's true with our urbanization and increased technologies I would agree that being handicapped is not as much of a handicap as it used to be.I'm wondering though, if we're evolving, what do you see us as individuals and as a society looking like 500 years from now, if by any chance civilization survives that long?Edited by GDR, : typo

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Without the force of natural selection on the human gene pool, genetic deficiencies will only increase and the handicapped will become an increasing portion of the population. However our medical technology and other technological compensations and augmentation will race forward even faster so that technological capabilities will soon become more important than the biological ones. The variety of man will keep increasing. This all assuming that no retro-conservative forces get too powerful, and that we do not make the mistake of excessive tampering with the human genome. Unregulated tampering with the genetics of next generation would be very dangerous for I think it will most likely reduce genetic variation by dangerous proportions.In much less than five hundred years from now computer enhancement to brain function will be routine and close to universal. Computer terminals and tv-sets outside these enhancements will cease to exist as obsolete. On the other hand, since these will most likely take no more room than wall posters, they may be quite common even if nobody needs them. Automotive transportation will become more scarce due to rising costs and a greatly reduced need to go anywhere to get things done, so I predict a great increase in the popularity of walking, cycling (and wheelchair transportation?). Higher education and office work will no doubt be almost entirely virtual. Beyond a great increase in the variety of human appearances, whether cosmetic or fundamental technological alteration, I cannot say what people would look like. As always has been the case in the past, the most radical changes are completely beyond our ability to imagine them. Edited by mitchellmckain, : elaboration

---

See my relativistic physics of space flight simimulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com