The Future of Humanity

[Ginkgo]

By Alan Boyle (not me)

Scientists are fond of running the evolutionary clock backward, using DNA analysis and the fossil record to figure out when our ancestors stood erect and split off from the rest of the primate evolutionary tree.

But the clock is running forward as well. So where are humans headed?

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins says it's the question he's most often asked, and "a question that any prudent evolutionist will evade." But the question is being raised even more frequently as researchers study our past and contemplate our future.

Paleontologists say that anatomically modern humans may have at one time shared the Earth with as many as three other closely related types — Neanderthals, Homo erectus and the dwarf hominids whose remains were discovered last year in Indonesia.

Does evolutionary theory allow for circumstances in which "spin-off" human species could develop again?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some think the rapid rise of genetic modification could be just such a circumstance. Others believe we could blend ourselves with machines in unprecedented ways — turning natural-born humans into an endangered species.

Present-day fact, not science fiction
Such ideas may sound like little more than science-fiction plot lines. But trend-watchers point out that we're already wrestling with real-world aspects of future human development, ranging from stem-cell research to the implantation of biocompatible computer chips. The debates are likely to become increasingly divisive once all the scientific implications sink in.

"These issues touch upon religion, upon politics, upon values," said Gregory Stock, director of the Program on Medicine, Technology and Society at the University of California at Los Angeles. "This is about our vision of the future, essentially, and we'll never completely agree about those things."

The problem is, scientists can't predict with precision how our species will adapt to changes over the next millennium, let alone the next million years. That's why Dawkins believes it's imprudent to make a prediction in the first place.

Others see it differently: In the book "Future Evolution," University of Washington paleontologist Peter Ward argues that we are making ourselves virtually extinction-proof by bending Earth's flora and fauna to our will. And assuming that the human species will be hanging around for at least another 500 million years, Ward and others believe there are a few most likely scenarios for the future, based on a reading of past evolutionary episodes and current trends.

Where are humans headed? Here's an imprudent assessment of five possible paths, ranging from homogenized humans to alien-looking hybrids bred for interstellar travel.

Taken from here.

This topic has plagued my mind for quite some time. I have read from various sources that the human race is bound to evolve larger brain cases; thus developing a wider female pelvis in order to give birth. To cope with these changes, it will become quadrupedal.

Other sources indicate that it is possible for us to enhance our bionic technologies, thereby enabling us to become immortalized by machinery. However, this is dangerous because it will introduce more complexity to our intricate physiological systems; destabilizing and complicating our inner workings. After all, our bodies are conglomerates of prior biological systems building upon each other as a result of evolutionary processes. To introduce a mechanized element would change the dynamics of these systems in an entropic manner.

The safest and most productive scenario for the human race would be to provide itself with an intellectually stimulating environment in order to enrich its cognitive learning capacity.

 

[Quinlan]

"Extinction-proof"

Lol the arrogance.

I think biological evolution (without genetic engineering) has ground to a halt for us, or perhaps even gone backwards, so it's got to be technological evolution.

 

[Ginkgo]

"Extinction-proof"

Lol the arrogance.

I think biological evolution (without genetic engineering) has ground to a halt for us, or perhaps even gone backwards, so it's got to be technological evolution.

Yes, the phrase "extinction-proof" doesn't make any sense because we will inevitably either evolve into another species or die out. Either way, our current species will become extinct.

However, evolution does not "go backwards". It only goes forwards. I think what you mean to say is that we are at the pinnacle of our intellectual abilities; therefore we will evolve into lesser intelligent species. Am I correct?

 

[Blank]

...Wouldn't it make more sense to become rounder?

So isn't the fattening of the Western world making evolutionary sense...barring the mental retardation and laziness that comes with it?

 

[Quinlan]

However, evolution does not "go backwards". It only goes forwards. I think what you mean to say is that we are at the pinnacle of our intellectual abilities; therefore we will evolve into lesser intelligent species. Am I correct?

Yes of course you're right, poor choice of words there. I don't know if we will become less intelligent as a species, I think our technological power is growing at a far greater rate our ability to wield it responsibly is.

I kind of agree with Dawkins so much could change, even a short time in the future it's a waste of time trying to predict it.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I don't think evolution really matters for humanity at this point. Cultural and technological changes have a far greater impact on our lives than genetic changes do.

 

[Hexis]

Mmmm the smell of playing god in the morning.

I don't think evolution really matters for humanity at this point. Cultural and technological changes have a far greater impact on our lives than genetic changes do.

And come on, what wouldnt you give for venom?!

 

[Biaxident]

*sniff*

I thought someone brought a skunk into the building...

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Mmmm the smell of playing god in the morning.



And come on, what wouldnt you give for venom?!

I have been told that while a normal human has 23 pairs of chromosomes, Chuck Norris has 72 pairs of chromosomes, and they are poisonous.

 

[Ginkgo]

I don't think evolution really matters for humanity at this point. Cultural and technological changes have a far greater impact on our lives than genetic changes do.

Why? Cultural and technological changes are intertwined with our environment. Thus, they effect our evolutionary patterns.

For instance, our rapid increase in medical technologies provide a way for "inferior" genes to survive when they normally wouldn't. Furthermore, our transportation systems allow humans from different gene pools to interbreed transcontinentally.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Why? Cultural and technological changes are intertwined with our environment. Thus, they effect our evolutionary patterns.

For instance, our rapid increase in medical technologies provide a way for "inferior" genes to survive when they normally wouldn't. Furthermore, our transportation systems allow humans from different gene pools to interbreed transcontinentally.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "evolution". Most species gradually alter their biological traits in order to adapt to a new environment. Human beings do not do that anymore. Humans adapt through technology and not through biology.

Not only do we use technology to adapt to our environment, but we use technology to adapt the environment to us. One species adapts to a forest environment, while another adapts to a plains enviornment. However humans can turn a forest into a plain, or a plain into a forest. The physical environment no longer affects our DNA. Traits are not passed on based survival of the fittest. Traits are passed on based on who makes the largest donation to the sperm bank, or who can't figure out how to use birth control.

In short most organisms are limited to a variety of parameters that determine how they evolve. Humans can control all of these parameters.

Now you may be thinking that the relevant "environment" of modern humans is not ecological one as much as a cultural one. You may be correct, but this means that it still has nothing to do with biology. Biologists study ecosystems, while anthropologists study culture. If you want to know the future of humanity then you'll get a lot further studying anthropology than you will biology. Our species-wide biology just doesn't matter anymore when it comes to the future of humanity.

 

[Son of the Damned]

In terms of actual genetic evolution, we simply are not operating on the proper timeframe for full understanding. Unless genetic manipulation, alteration, and engineering become widespeard then I don't think we'll will see any "change". However, demographics can inform us of emerging trends. Namely, who is breeding the most these days? that question can tell us alot, since increasing the number of decendants usually helps the chances for your particular genetic line to survive.

If we want to look to a more immediate timeline, culture informs us of changes that are more rapidly appoarching, simply because culture changes its self faster than a genome does.

 

[Feops]

I think you'll see genetics lose a great deal of diversity over the next several centuries as isolation erodes and more cultures intermingle.

But I think in terms of overall genetic drift, you'll see genetic manipulation mature far before humans are substantially changed. At first this will be used to treat genetic conditions, but it's pretty inevitable that it will carry on from there to improve general health, and then the ability to tailor your child as you like. I think this would be a very interesting ethical debate - is it wrong to decide what your children will look like or be predisposed to excelling at? Is the genetic roll of the dice somehow better?

And at that point it won't really matter. It barely matters now, at least not in terms of reacting to one's environment.

In the meantime I think there's some merit in considering that genetics may backslide a little. Modern medicine intercepts a lot of deaths that should happen, which in turn pose a risk of producing increasingly weaker offspring.