The Future of Human Evolution
Einstein
evolution??"
(http://groups.google.com/group/sci.bio.evolution/browse_thread/thread/3ef51a819546c68a),
let us discuss about the future of human evolution.
According to this
article(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7103668/print/1/displaymode/1098/),
There are few likely scenarios:
1. Humans divide into two different species
2. Humans get replaced by Artificial Intelligence through natural
selection
3. Humans merge with machines to give rise to cyborgs
4. Humans spread to different planets and stars
5. Humans modify themselves genetically and give rise to super-humans
What according to you is the most likely? IMO, humans will advance the
biological engineering to such extent that they will soon be much more
intelligent, powerful and skilled than normal humans. And then to
prevent death, they will soon use the computer technology to encode
themselves into bits-n-bytes. Thus, the property of life and death
which arises due to physical existance of an organism will soon become
an extinct property since organism can then exist as information only.
But, then, I guess natural selection will operate on parameters other
than just survival. Or will evolution one day won't matter at all
because humans (or whatever name which they are called by in future)
would have taken control of evolution? I guess if humans go on killing
evolution, a day will come when this will affect themselves in
unimaginable ways.
Paras Chopra
------------
www.paraschopra.com
JoeSP
"Einstein" <para...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dpvbq5$1ckj$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
> In continuation to the thread "What is the effect of intelligence on
> evolution??"
> (http://groups.google.com/group/sci.bio.evolution/browse_thread/thread/3ef51a819546c68a),
> let us discuss about the future of human evolution.
You have eyes the blind watchmaker lacks?
>
> According to this
> article(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7103668/print/1/displaymode/1098/),
> There are few likely scenarios:
> 1. Humans divide into two different species
Problem with that. Geography is the main cause for species differentiation.
In time, the two species may occupy the same region again, but they will
generally occupy different niches. Humans have never been separated for long
enough by geography to develop divergent species.
> 2. Humans get replaced by Artificial Intelligence through natural
> selection
Which natural selection? Are you talking about the popular science fiction
scenario where machines suddenly become sentient and take over the world?
That scenario lacks the rationale for why the machines would possess the
aggressive human emotions required for such a motivation.
> 3. Humans merge with machines to give rise to cyborgs
> 4. Humans spread to different planets and stars
> 5. Humans modify themselves genetically and give rise to super-humans
>
> What according to you is the most likely?
The last one, followed by second-last, if manage to avoid extinction.
Douglas Clark
about how evolution had been very busy on humans for the past 50,000 years
and obviously this is an ongoing process. Epigenetics is also relevant. I
would guess that things have speeded up in the last 10,000 years with the
invention of agriculture and now the Industrial Revolution. It would be a
pity if global warming put an end to it all, although it is unlikely we will
become extinct.
--
Douglas Clark, Bath, Somerset, England ....
http://www.dgdclynx.plus.com
"Einstein" <para...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dpvbq5$1ckj$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
Einstein
Yes, certainly, I have. Do you doubt that? The reason we call evolution
blind is because it is blind! But, we do have the thinking power to
guess the outcomes..
g
> evolution??"
> (http://groups.google.com/group/sci.bio.evolution/browse_thread/thread/3ef51a819546c68a),
> let us discuss about the future of human evolution.
>
> According to this
> article(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7103668/print/1/displaymode/1098/),
> There are few likely scenarios:
> 1. Humans divide into two different species
> 2. Humans get replaced by Artificial Intelligence through natural
> selection
> 3. Humans merge with machines to give rise to cyborgs
> 4. Humans spread to different planets and stars
> 5. Humans modify themselves genetically and give rise to super-humans
Probably you did not read, or do not recall, my thoughts on the subject of
predictions of the future course of human genecology and history; so let me
hit a few highlights:
A. With a few very rare exceptions, predictions of future human history --
even by the most brilliant and perceptive of prognosticators, who were
capable of considering even the most state of the art information on hand
during their time -- have, for the very most part, missed the mark.
B. There is a false perception by some that a few individuals did a
magnificent job of it (Nostradamos, Sir Francis Bacon, et al). This is
primarily a result of there being much ado about the hits, as offset by, and
exceeded by, a preponderance of misses;
C. Attempts to predict the future are NOT a waste of time, UNLESS we get
the notion that we, of today, are somehow more in a position to know the
future than were prognosticators of the past. If we look at some facts,
however, they may suggest not only that we, too, will miss the mark but,
also, that we will miss it even more flagrantly than did our forebears;
D. Attempts at predicting future trends ALWAYS rely upon current trends.
And there are factors in place today which put us at an even greater
disadvantage than past predictors. The rate of change from millennium to
millennium and from century to century has been, by comparison to now, so
slow that the span of a single lifetime would hardly have allowed an
individual to see it. Oh, there were wars and revolutions and such... and,
as a result, some cultures imposed themselves upon (and to a greater or
lesser extent were assimilated by) other. National borders changed alright,
but warfare basically didn't, and political structures (while varying a
little bit from place to place) did not go through any quick or drastic
variations. Also, while quick and drastic changes did occur, after which
something in history did something analogous to what some people like to
call 'punctuated equilibrium,' these often resulted from pressures that had
been building long before such an event. Today, on the other hand, it not
only is true that "The Times are a Changing," but (shudder) the very rate of
that change is itself accelerating; and, as of that were not distracting
enough, the very directions of change are growing more various in their
nature and more frequent in whip lashing our best laid plans and
preparations;
E. But is there anything wrong with TRYING to predict? Probably not... so
long as we keep in mind that we are not psychic, that our batting average is
not going to be much less pathetic than for past generations of humans, and
that the game itself is going to change in ways that will not rest only upon
today's trends;
F. Just as with predicting the weather, we find that we can most certainly
predict some things in some ways, but not other things in any ways. We can
predict that there will be some rain in some parts of the globe, but we can
only say within very crude limits how much, or on what days... and, as a
result, we cannot predict whether farmers in any given area will have a good
year or not. We can predict that there will be new scientific discoveries,
but we cannot predict what they will be. We can even predict that entire
directions of searching will undergo drastic re-illuminations that take mass
thinking in new directions. There will be findings of science that will
take time to be accepted... and there will be some killings of the
messengers who bring to light things cultures are unready to believe... if
our past history of that phenomenon is a reliable guide;
G. My father's grandfather was sure that the damnyankees could not hit the
side of a barn and would be outshot a hundred to one by the rebel squirrel
hunters. My father's father was convinced, for a portion of his life, at
least, that if that if God had wanted man to fly he would have equipped him
with feathered wings. And I distinctly recall my father's insistence that
man would NEVER walk on the moon. And then, when the first man did, his
insistence changed to the stance that it was a useless waste. Maybe, if I
take those predictions into account I might be able to avoid making similar
predictions of what will NOT
happen. Oh, change will come all right. That seems pretty predictable.
But what changes, and when, and in what directions? Those kinds of
predictions have never proved very reliable;
H. But JUST SUPPOSING current trends will continue to play out in
historical straight lines (that in itself would be a helluva change,
actually). Where, in all of those lines do we find any currently
recognizable trend toward division into two species? We might divide into
two species, and we might not. We might populate other star systems, and we
might get invaded and wiped out by citizens who already have populated those
other star systems and to whom we look and smell so bad that they cannot
bear to let us stink up the Earth they might exercise THEIR concept of
"imminent domain" upon; and, on and on it goes...
I. Maybe this... maybe that. But my guess is that the primary thing that
is going to change the very very most, is going to be (so far as humans are
concerned) change itself.
g
JoeSP
We know that a large percentage of the non-science oriented population
mistakenly believes that evolution is some sort of predetermined track, if
they believe in the process at all. I am confident that it was not your
intent to imply such a thing here. I suppose if we knew the selective
pressures being applied, we might guess what type of genetic solution might
eventually appear, but I doubt we could have a clue for the biological
mechanism by which it might be accomplished.
We know that animals become larger where food is plentiful and predatory
pressures exist. We also know that they become smaller on islands with
limited food supplies and few predators. We know that prey animals develop
speed, camouflage and/or defenses, but we have no idea
which direction lies in their respective futures.
To assume that we could project the direction of human evolution, please
tell us what are the selection pressures if any? Which forces would cause
removal of unfit individuals from the population? Which genetic traits
would contribute to reproductive success?
My point here is not to belittle the question, but I really have a problem
getting a handle on any sort of basis for prediction of human evolution,
assuming that the process is going on at all. My answer to your question is
that I don't think there can be one.
Einstein
I think the selection pressure in future will not be same as itt was
in the past. See, we are now living in the age of information
technology. Let us take a hypothetical scenario. Let us imagine a
deadly virus attacks the human species in one part of the world. If
intelligence were not there, our population might have been wiped out,
but since it has attacked humans, they can devise a counter-attack and
get rid of virus.
So, see intelligence has given a whole new dimension to the natural
selection. Now, the natural selection is not natural anymore. This is
because, if it were, the virus would have been favored by it.
So, I guess, in future, the only selection pressure will be *better
intelligence*. The entities with better intelligence may compete for
limited resources with normal humans, since *better intelligence* will
be favored hence it will become a selection pressure.
In this regard, I think we can predict the possible outcomes of the
human evolution. And in case of any environmental catastrophe, we can
expect super-intelligence to be evolved.
JoeSP
> tell us what are the selection pressures if any?
>
> I think the selection pressure in future will not be same as itt was
> in the past. See, we are now living in the age of information
> technology. Let us take a hypothetical scenario. Let us imagine a
> deadly virus attacks the human species in one part of the world. If
> intelligence were not there, our population might have been wiped out,
> but since it has attacked humans, they can devise a counter-attack and
> get rid of virus.
I don't think viruses are often responsible for extinction events. Besides
that, viral resistence is more an immune response than a genetic adaptation.
> In this regard, I think we can predict the possible outcomes of the
> human evolution. And in case of any environmental catastrophe, we can
> expect super-intelligence to be evolved.
I think catastrophes have shaped human evolution in the past, and there's no
reason to doubt that future catastrophes will continue to do so in the same
way. I do agree that our greatest tool for surviving such catastrophes is
usually our intelligence, therefore it's safe to assume that our future
evolution will largely involve an increase in intelligence, but only during
times of prolonged strife and very difficult conditions for survival. In
our current state, someone who lacks the ability to master the skills of the
information age can still survive and raise a large family without high
intelligence. I see no signs of human evolution, currently at all.
Einstein
Take a look at this
news-story(http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8483). It shows
that human genes have been evolving since past 50,000 years.
And I have just given a case of viral infection. There can be may other
factors which may cause human extinction. Let us take a case of an
asteriod crashing on earth. Now, at our current level of technology, we
might or might not be able to deflect the path of it. But, any
super-intelligent being would certainly be able to deflect the path of
asteriod thus save itself and the whole earth from a collision.
So, it clearly demostrates that better intelligene can greatly aid in
survival of a species. So, this way we can expect the
super-intelligence to get evolved. And that is the future of human
species.
I would like to add one thing. It might be possible that human species
tries to delibrately prevent super-intelligence from evolving by
eliminating all entities which show greater intelligence than them. But
I guess, the evolution of higher intelligence will be gradual and thus
difficult to spot.
Anthony Cerrato
Since super-intelligent advances will be, at least in part,
(widely disseminated) technological ones rather than
gen-engineered, and as you say, likely to be gradual,
attempts to thwart them will be fairly difficult. The
simplest examples of such advances in the near future will
probably be super-advanced computers and human brain
mediators/linkages I would guess. BTW, I find it interesting
that one could describe the nature of these types of
evolution to be classed as a hybrid of
sociobiological/techno-political, and actually,
(neo-)_Lamarckian_ theories as opposed to purely genetic and
memetic. The process really should be given a completely new
name, no? (e.g., Intelligent Engineering?)
...tonyC
James Michael Howard
At one point, as testosterone increased, the brain enlarged along with
intelligence. However, as testosterone increases to excess, the brain
matures too rapidly reducing the final part of brain development, thus,
reducing brain size and intelligence. Also, excess testosterone increases
disease. So, periodically testosterone increases and decreases along with
consequences. I suggest we are now in a period of increasing testosterone.
Human intelligence is declining at the same time that we are seeing
"epidemics" in obesity, diabetes, infections. etc.
(Androgens in Human Evolution, Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum 2001;
94: 345-362)
Anthony Cerrato
"James Michael Howard" <jmho...@anthropogeny.com> wrote in
message news:dqf8ro$1uvi$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
Interesting--and it may well be true. I'd guess it's always
difficult to judge things such as this either because there
may be multiple (perhaps unknown) factors involved and
because direct cause and effect may be mistaken for
occurrences of cause and effect that are actually both
consequences of joint cause and effects.
Also, of course, brain size alone is not the only critical
factor in intelligence AIUI--the nature and extent of brain
complexity (organization) is critical (e.g., plasticity.) I
learned from the CBS Sunday Morning show yesterday that Dr.
Edward Taub, a
behavioral neuroscientist who developed a new family of
techniques, termed Constraint-Induced Movement therapy or CI
therapy, which has been shown to be effective in improving
the rehabilitation of movement after stroke and other
neurological injuries is trying to apply such techniques to
improving Alzheimer patients memory and help with other
physical and mental problems--he has invented computer
programs to this purpose, similar to his first one (called
BrainGym) and is gaining some success with them. Presumably,
so far, it appears humans can "learn" to increase their
brain plasticity to help heal themselves to some extent.
...tonyC