Are humans "Evolving" in the right direction?

How does it seem to you that "less intelligent/productive people are reproducing more than the more intelligent/productive people are"? Any findings in your research to suggest this is actually true? Because sometimes things aren't the way they seem - I've had plenty of experience with this. But in part I do agree with you Mike.

I feel as though Darwin's evolution might be dying with the so-called rise of the machines. It's hard to say, however, because Darwin's evolution is not something one can observe in a life-time. My view is more of a conjecture than anything, but our currently polluted gene pool is evidence of this. With advances in medicine over the years (and technology, of course), we've insisted on the survival of the weak - effectively slowing (killing?) Darwin's evolution. But is this to say we aren't evolving? Maybe we can re-define evolution? Maybe we should? Either way it's hard to choose a side - Natural Selection vs. 'Our' Selection? Both could equate to evolution.

There are articles I've read about Eugenics programs being exercised in certain regions of the world (many years ago). One of which was in the U.S. where they sterilised many people with genetic defects or diseases (Assisted Natural Selection?). I have to be careful here because I don't want to say I support this kind of operation but, morals and religion aside, isn't this in the best interest of our species? Why do we so relentlessly insist on the survival of the weak? The way I think that question can be answered, is to say that Darwin wasn't looking at the survival of the fittest 'individual' but rather survival of the fittest 'species'. This is what gives us hierarchy on Earth. Between us and within the Animal Kingdom. Is survival of the fittest 'individual' important? Perhaps. It is conceivable that if what you say is true about who reproduces more, we may devolve in the long-run. But will this change the hierarchy between species? It's unlikely. Do we even need to evolve? I don't think we need to change at all to keep our dominion over the planet. The only external stimulus that might trigger our continued Darwinian evolution would be the rapidly changing global climate. Hopefully it's not more rapid than our 'natural' ability to adapt. Maybe technology will be the solution, se we can't rule that out as the correct direction of our evolution. It's late. I'm out.

Hi Mike,

It's an interesting question but one that's got some implied assumptions that need to be addressed.

First off, the question "are humans evolving in the right direction" implies a standard of rightness. That right there can be such a politically charged notion and I won't really touch it except to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean, "towards a more productive/peaceful/humane/intelligent society" or something like that. But many would have problems even with that.

Second, the idea that evolution proceeds in a particular direction at all is implied by your question. One of the biggest misconceptions about evolution, in my opinion, is that evolution is guided in some way. It's the science version of God, or God's will, when folks say that we're evolving towards something. I think as humans we're biased to see "will" in lots of natural and basically random processes, such as weather. It's how we make sense of the world.

The only thing I think we can say about "the direction" of evolution on Earth is that it tends to produce increasingly complex systems. But even that can be argued, since there is evidence in the historical record of massive extinction episodes, and those represent massive reductions in the complexity of the biosphere (some of which might be caused by something external like an asteroid, but which could easily be caused by the emergence of some totally disruptive species or virus).

So to actually answer your question, even if there were a way we could define "rightness" in way that would make everyone happy, evolution doesn't work that way. However, you can be sure that evolution is taking place. The requirements for evolution are met: humans are dying and reproducing. It may not be obvious how evolutionary pressures are shaping the modern human (i.e., what does "evolutionary fitness" mean in modern society), but they are there.

Terren

Let's not forget that it is within our intellectual and technological capacity to control our future genomes and thus the future of our own human evolution, as well as the evolution of other species of plants and animals. We can, in effect, decide which evolutionary direction will be the most benneficial to our species. Furthermore, aside from genetic engineering, we as a species will also be merging our biology with computers, robotics, and nanotechnology. Our future and the futures of other animal/plant species is, in a collective sense, up to us how we will co-evolve. Hopefully we will be making better decisions, therefore, in the future than we have been making in the past, and I think that technology/worldwide databases will enable us to do so.

But the human track record of attempting to control large, complex systems (such as, say, the economy) is not exactly awe-inspiring. Unintended consequences, and all that. Where humans have had success is in creating systems that organize themselves (such as the economy or the internet). It is when we try to control them that we get into trouble.

Of course, we will continue to try. The transhuman potential is vast, as you say, but fraught with all kinds of unimaginable (from our current perspective) difficulties.

People are going to merge their biology with genetic engineering, nanotechnology, robotics, and computers. There will be much competition between interested parties and there will most likely be feedback from the masses for each innovation along the way. I guess, so long as there are no beaurocratic monopolies along the way, so long as government doesn't try to run things with expensive propositions and pointless goals, then this can be considered good engineering.

On the other hand, if this is all run by politicians promising everybody free electronic horse penis transplants and genetically modified ED pills (lol) just to get elected and to "raise moral", complete animal farm scenario there, and then serious socialized tax dollars along with authoritarian laws force everybody to comply, then that can be considered bad engineering.

I guess the main difference is in consumer and producer choice vs mandatory government enforcement regardless of the cost and outcome. Any time freedom of choice is stifled, there you have bad planning that will inevitably overlook crucial details and thereby leading to failure in some way.

I think the kinds of problems associated with engineering the genome, and other trans-human technologies, are far more insidious than the typical problems associated with bad government or consumerism (though certainly those will contribute, as always!)

Rather, the kinds of problems I mean are of the sort that we've never encountered before - for instance, questions of what it means to be a human vs. a machine. (Although hopefully readers of this website know that humans are already machines ;-] ) Transhumanism will produce ethical dilemmas that make the debate about abortion look positively easy.

These basic dilemmas about the nature of humanity will lead to some pretty extreme oppositional behavior. I don't think civil war is out of the question here, between those that embrace the technology and those that fear it. Take the controversy over genetically modified foods and multiply it by a thousand. Make it a million, sounds better.

Beyond that, we will probably have to contend with pollution and toxicity due to nanotech, pervasive and ruthless cybercrime due to better AI, wars fought increasingly by robots, and so on. It's going to be one weird fucking century... bet on that. But believe me, I'm no gloom-and-doomer. It will also be the most exciting time to ever be a human. It already is that!

T

http://radio.seti.org/episodes/Robot_Uprising

This SETI Radio episode delves into some of the potential scenarios of the singularity such as civil wars and malfunctioning or malicious bots of the future.

I don’t really have any concrete data to support this idea, it is mostly from my own observation of people. It seems like the more intelligent (usually productive) people plan having children. When I say plan I am talking about how many children and at what time in life to have them. People who are on the lower end of the intelligence scale often do not plan too much and they seem to have more "unplanned" children, which increases their population.

I am making the assumption that intelligence/productivity is the "fittest" in "survival of the fittest".

It does seem pompous to assume that we can know what is the "right direction" regarding evolution is, but I would sure like to be surrounded by more intelligent/productive people.

I guess the population increase does make the world more "complex" .

Another observation is that the majority of the population is indifferent to learning or doing more than they have to.

This leads to another hypothetical (dumb?) question…

Does intelligence or motivation spread thinner as the population increases? Are these qualities limited in humanity like matter or energy is limited?

Does humanity (if there is such a thing) itself spread thinner with population growth? Like currency inflation?

I am trying to hit a point here but I am having trouble putting it into words.

The dynamics of the future will probably make reproducing idiots a thing of the past. Perhaps a parental IQ test could be administered under Obama's socialized healthcare system whereby abortion is mandatory for a failing geometric mean of the two adult IQ's (less than, say, 113)....not that I promote (governmental) freedom of choice like they do in China, I'm actually a libertarian and think that freedom of choice belongs to the individual. I also foresee, perhaps mandatory but hopefully optional genomics allowing for more intelligent children.

Quantum, your proposal is such an obvious contradiction that I hope you are just trying to be funny. A libertarian that promotes government-based eugenics = priceless.

Mike,

I think you are confusing the term "fitness" as it relates to evolution with some glorified ethical sense about what it should mean.

Evolutionary/reproductive fitness is completely and totally related to what set of characteristics lead to successful reproduction. Nothing more and nothing less. Evolution does not have a moral compass, and in an evolutionary sense there is no roadmap or destiny for the human race. We really might just die out some day (perhaps to a species we help engineer).

Your observation regarding the (negative) correlation between intelligence and reproductive success is debatable. A correlation that I think is much more likely to be verifiable is that between wealth and reproductive success - the poor have more children on average than the rich. I wonder if you are assuming that the wealthy are more likely to be innately intelligent than the poor - which is a very controversial assertion.

Granting the correlation between wealth and reproductive success does imply that, on a global level, if there are innate traits that lead one to be wealthy, they will be attenuated in the population, but certainly not extinguished. However, the complexity of the modern world is such that the links between genetics and actual reproductive fitness (beyond physical/social attractiveness) are pretty tough to demonstrate.

With your other question, you seem to be trying to build justification for slowing the growth of the world's population. That seems to be the thrust of your first question too. If true, that's fine, you're certainly not the first to do so, but it's a hard problem to solve for lots of reasons. For one, we need workers to do the labor that supports the rest of the population.

Thank you for your insight and clarification. I figured I was a little off on my assumptions, but I wanted to share my thoughts anyway.

Actually I am not too concerned about trying to alter the population level, I think it will stable out on its own.

mike

Actually, I think the government has too much authority as it already is. I roll and smoke Topps Cigarette Tobacco (much more bang for the buck per ounce). Today I was the only individual sitting in a park on a bench smoking a cigarette and a cop was dispatched to come and search my pockets because "somebody in the neighborhood saw me riding my skateboard to the park and called the police because it looked like I was smoking a joint". I wasn't doing anything harmful or dangerous, just sitting and enjoying a smoke of rolled cigarrette tobacco in a designated smoking area. That, I believe, is just too authoritarian for my taste, borderline government harassment even. Will cops be dispatched every time I do that? Will Topps Cigarette Tobacco be banned from the stores because it resembles drug paraphenalia? I think pot should be legalized just for the sake of me not being harassed anymore for smoking (ecconomical) rolled cigarettes.

Mike, glad I could help.

Quantum, that hardly seems like an abuse of authority. A cop was called by someone in your neighborhood to investigate a potential crime. From the sounds of it, it was anything but abuse. Who is going to say, "now honey, don't overreact - I'm sure the skateboarder with the hand-rolled cigarette is just smoking tobacco."? I have kids and I don't want some hoodlum smoking weed in my park in broad daylight. No offense, I'm not saying you're a hoodlum, but if I saw that, I'd think you were.

btw, I happen to think marijuana should be legal too. Here's a good article from a software guy on why it will never happen: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legalized-marijuana.html (it's a long read but worth it).

Terren

Well, Terren, I'd almost agree with your assessment except for the fact that I was sitting on a smoking area bench with a garbage can. I didn't ever think that a police officer in a heavy duty pickup would pull into the parking lot, get out of the vehicle, and then walk across the field in order to pat me down or anything like that. It just seems like a lot of effort, especially when I'm the only one in the park.

Where the heck were the police when my friend's car was stolen and driven to a chop shop a couple years back? Or when my car stereo is stolen? They're obviously much too busy for all of that, they can just blow you off as too much paperwork or of small importance, and yet they have all the time in the world to go after the guy enjoying a home rolled cigarrette in the park.

With apologies to Mike for having completely hijacked his blog's comment section :-]

As you said in the story, the officer was responding to someone's complaint about you. Police serve the public, and this one was just doing his job. That you weren't committing a crime was not obvious to anyone, given that you looked like you were. There are far better examples of actual abuses of authority. Presuming you live in the states, we live in the free-est country in the world - folks in other countries where people are disappeared for questioning political authority would be justified in mocking your angst, imo.

Apparently this country isn't free enough for me to enjoy my cigarrette in the park without being harassed by the authorities though. Also with the speed cameras being put on every street corner now too. Call me paranoid here, but I think police authority is being ramped up in the USA. I'm entirely opposed to that, and it will take a grass roots libertarian movement to counteract totalitarianism. Eh, maybe I'm just paranoid here, but if that was actually weed I was smoking I would have easily gotten 5-10 years in Sheriff Arpioh's jail, and probably would have to wear pink underwear too. Laws and sentences seem completely unreasonable to me, and the petty traffic cameras everywhere and parking meter cops being ready for the moment the clock strikes zero to write a ticket....I'm not paranoid here, police authority is being ramped up, everybody utilizes the heavy handed rule of law enforcement to bring about some sort of utopia. Even worse is that they look the other way whenever it's a big crime such as a car jacking, they're only really interested in cracking down on innocent drug use and in getting high fines for the unnecessary city/state programs that the democrats just can't seem to do without. They're also raising tuition on students going to college, something that I think is a beaurocratic system that can easily be made obselete via technology. I'm especially outraged at slacking in education and entirely blaim that for the bad economy. This is not something that can be solved by throwing more money at the teachers unions, I believe it can only be resolved by making the teachers unions obselete. Religion is also to blaim here too. Religion tends to teach kids things that run completely contrary to reality, it is having a major impact on science comprehension and general critical thinking by teaching kids never to question authority.

Also, on another note, I think that kids should be taught the organic chemistry and the biology of drug use, the risks involved, actually how to assess these risks and probability in general, that's not even college material anymore, hopefully. Kids should be able to make their own mistakes and learn on their own, it's not something that can ever be solved with law enforcement or religion, only with education and allowing their curiousities to be satisfied with a strict adherence to study AND experimentation.

One possible reason is that humans do not need and will not need to be intelligent and productive in order to survive, instead they need to have other characteristics, such as very stable, routine prone, methodical. They do not need to be productive because robots will/are taking care of that, and to be intelligent cause it will/is computers task now.

If intelligence and productivity are not needed in evolution, then why do we see growth in these areas over time; from generation to generation.

Considering that evolution is the only force of change. (According to atheists)

let me know if I am misunderstanding the Atheist's point of view.

Hi Mike,
You are talking about science, not atheism here. The only connection between evolution and atheism is that evolution is not consistent with the Bible, but it is consistent with atheism.

I think it's pretty clear that intelligence is a useful characteristic for survival, so it's not surprising that natural selection will favour intelligence. The same can be said for productivity.

I think the point being made by marianasoffer is that we may outgrow the need for intelligence and productivity due to our technology. Technology alters the environment in which we evolve, and hence alters our evolution. We may evolve to become less intelligent and less productive because these traits may no longer increase our chances of producing descendants.

Regards,
Pythagoras

Thanks again Pythagoras for clearing up my misunderstanding.

BTW I took your advice and I am reading Richard Dawkins' book 'The God Delusion' and it is very good. It is clear and easy to understand.

Mike

I believe that we are simply experiencing a temporary change in the forces of natural selection amongst people. Once the population pressure reaches a certain point and resources become scarce the more basic forces of natural selection will come into effect again.
marire penis