Main | Site library | Forum | Guestbook |
The most ubiquitous mammalian resource of the future: the human body.
138
Some of our principal concerns about our bodies may
be quite remote from, even at odds with, inherited human tactics for
increasing our reproductive success or our chance of survival. |
What about the future evolution of our species? How will the future world
and its new environments affect our own evolutionary outcome or will we
be affected at all? Will we become larger or smaller, or gain or lose intelligence,
be it intellectual or emotional? Might we become more, or less, tolerant
of oncoming environmental problems, such as a dearth of fresh water, an abundance
of ultraviolet radiation, and a rise in global temperature? Will we produce
a new species, or are we now evolutionary sterile? Might the future evolution
of humanity lie not within our genes, but in the augmentation of our brains
through neural connections with inorganic machines? Are we but the builders
of the next dominant intelligence on Earth the machines?
Fossils tell us that evolutionary change is not a continuous thing; rather,
it occurs in fits and starts, and it is certainly not progressive or directional.
Organisms get smaller as well as larger, simpler as well as more complex.
And while most
139
lineages evolve through time in some manner, the most dramatic evolutionary
changes often take place when a new species first appears. If this is the
case, then future morphological evolution in Homo sapiens may be minimal.
On the other hand, we may show radical change in our behavior and perhaps
our physiology. Perhaps and this is the biggest perhaps a new species
of human will evolve in the not so distant (or distant) future. But such
an evolutionary change would almost surely require some sort of geographic
isolation of a population of humans, and as long as humans are restricted
to the surface of the Earth, such an event seems unlikely.
Since the time of Darwin, it has been accepted that the forces that produce
new species are usually brought to bear when small populations of an already
existing species get separated from the larger population and can no longer
interbreed with it. Gene flow, the interchange of genetic material that maintains
the integrity and identity of any species, thus gets cut off. Of course,
genetic isolation generally means geographic separation, which means new
environmental conditions, different from those experienced before. When you
add this into the mix, you have a recipe for making a new species given
enough time, and continued isolation.
New species have formed many times in the course of human evolution. Although
there are many gaps in the record (and disagreements among the specialists,
with much work left to do), we can sketch a rough outline of human evolution.
The human family, called the Hominidae, seems to begin about 4 million years
ago with the appearance of a small proto-human called Australopithecus afarensis.
Since then, our family has had as many as nine species, although there is
ongoing debate about this number. About 3 million years ago two new species,
A. africanus and A. aethiopithecus, appeared, while another, A.
boisei, first
appeared about 2.5 million years ago. (These three species are sometimes
identified as Paranthropus instead of Australopithecus.) But the most important
descendant of A. afarensis is the first member of our genus, Homo, a species
named Homo habilis (handy man) for its use of tools, an ability that is
about 2.5 million years old. This creature gave rise to Homo erectus about
1.5 million years ago, and H. erectus gave rise to our species, Homo
sapiens,
either directly about 200,000 to 100,000 years ago, or through an evolutionary
intermediate known as Homo heidelburgensis. Our species has been further
subdivided into a number of separate varieties, one of which is the so-called
Neanderthal. (Some researchers consider the Neanderthals to be a separate
species, Homo neanderthalis, but this is still highly disputed.)
140
Each formation of a new human species occurred when a small group of hominids
somehow became separated from a larger population for many generations. Then,
following rapid morphological transformations, Homo sapiens, once
evolved, showed little or no further evolutionary change.
Although major structural changes in H. sapiens may now be over, many smaller
evolutionary changes will undoubtedly take place. Prominent among these might
be a homogenization of the current human races. The same forces resulting
in the homogenization of the Earths biota are at work on us: our former
geographic isolation has been broached by the ease of transportation and
the dismantling of social barriers that once kept the very minor genetic
differences of the various human racial groups intact. The most obvious change
that may come about would occur in skin color. Because rapid transportation
and global communication have destroyed most barriers to human movement and
even isolationist human culture, we move about more. As we do so, we tend
to interbreed, and thus the barriers that once selected for various types
of skin pigment are no longer present. Skin pigment is one of the most heritable
of human genetic features, and it may be that humanity is heading for a universal
brown-skinned future, as the darkest of the black-skinned races get lighter
and the melanin-free skins become darker. The humanity of ten thousand years
from now might be but a single shade of color, a pleasing chocolate brown.
In stature, each race of our species seems to be getting larger, yet this
is surely not a genetic feature: with improved nutrition we are simply maximizing
the height potentials carried by our genes.
But in many ways, natural selection as we know it may not operate on our
species at all. It is being thwarted on many fronts by our technology, our
medicines, and our rapidly changing behavior and moral values. Babies no
longer die in large numbers in most parts of the globe, and babies with the
gravest types of genetic damage, which were once certainly fatal in pre-reproductive
stages, are now kept alive. Predators, too, no longer affect the rules of
survival. Tools, clothes, technology, medicine: all have increased our fitness
for survival, but at the same time have thwarted the very mechanisms that
brought about our creation through natural selection.
As an example of new human speciation, lets look for a moment at what it
would take to create a new species with a much larger brain say, a brain
size of about 2,000 cubic centimeters, compared with the average value of
about 1,100 to
141
1,500 cubic centimeters in Homo sapiens. What conditions of natural selection on Earth today would engender such a change, and would such a new creature even belong to our species?
If Homo sapiens sapiens (the modern form of our species) were grouped together
with an australopithecine, a Homo habilis, a Homo erectus, and an archaic
Homo sapiens, what would the significant intellectual differences be? Would
the other species use language, sing songs and create music, dream of flying,
or even draw pictures? Before tackling these questions, we must first ask
ourselves, what is intelligence?
There are several definitions of intelligence: what you use when you dont
know what to do; guessing well about what fits together; finding an appropriate
level of organization; finding an appropriate pattern from the available
information. Although these statements certainly typify aspects of brain
function that we recognize as intelligence, such definitions remain highly
unsatisfactory. It is clear that intelligence is composed of an enormous
array of components. Some of us have great math skills; most do not. Franklin
D. Roosevelt, the longest-serving American president and certainly one of
our best leaders, was an indifferent student. (Oliver Wendell Holmes once
remarked of him, A second-class intellect, but a first-class temperament!)
His English contemporary and Second World War stablemate, Winston Churchill,
was so indifferent a student that he never completed college and was packed
off to the military by his despairing parents. Yet both rose to lead great
countries in crisis through their political skills clearly reflecting keen
intelligence. Surely an ability to master politics is as much a type of intelligence
as the ability to solve partial differential equations but it is just as
surely a very different type of intelligence. As any practitioner of intelligence
testing can readily assert, the commonly used tests, such as the long-reigning
IQ tests, measure some small portion of a great system of brain organization
and function loosely termed intelligence.
In the end, the definition of intelligence is probably irrelevant. For in
spite of periodic hand-wringing by those who argue that our species is doomed
to an ever-decreasing average intelligence because less intelligent people
are having more children, there is very little chance of IQ (or any other
measure of average intelligence)
142
changing any time soon. The reason for this is that intelligence, by almost
any definition, is produced by hundreds or even thousands of individual genes,
and is thus very difficult to change. It is estimated that the correlation
between an individual parents intelligence and that of his or her child
is 0.2%. Since both parents contribute, this effect is multiplied: thus the
correlation between the parents intelligence and that of their offspring
is 0.04%. What this means is that two parents with IQs of 140 will probably
conceive a child with an IQ of 100 as will two parents with IQs of 80.
Nevertheless, we remain fascinated by the concept of quantified intelligence,
its history in our species, and the possibility of its long-term heritability.
Those interested in the evolution of our species have probed the minutest
anatomical differences among our various fossil predecessors in an effort
to determine how and when our lineage began to get smart. Yet this information
is maddening in its incompleteness, and applying a present-day understanding
of learning to the study of early humans is impossible. It has long been
clear, for example, that the brain of a newborn human and the same brain
only two to three short years later are vastly different, and the by-products
of those differences are the marvelous characters of humanity. The toddler
can speak in sentences, reason, remember, and move about independently; the
infant can do none of these things. During the developmental period, and
for years afterward, neurons are connecting and changing their morphology
in ways still largely unknown to science. And no information about such changes
is available to the paleoanthropologist when it comes to early humans. The
most we can know of the brain of Homo erectus is its size and a bit about
its shape, gleaned from the interiors of fossilized skulls. The real bits
of information behind intelligence the morphology of human brain cells
and the pattern of their connections is the area where the great secrets
lie.
Two persons who have met with some success in this area are Terry Deacon
of Boston University and William Calvin at the University of Washington.
Deacon is a neuroanatomist who has studied the various attributes making
up human intelligence. He has concluded that the emergence of human intelligence
came about not through some mysterious new neurological or morphological
invention within the brains of the earliest modern human species, but through
the development of already-present circuits and cells. In other words, our
species used off-the-shelf equipment that was then wired in novel ways
through the processes of evolution.
143
Calvin, a neurobiologist, has put forward similar arguments about how intelligence came about through evolution. Calvin sees intelligence as the evolution of structural thought processes, such as syntax, the nested embedding of ideas; agendas, the ability to make novel plans for the future; logical chains of argument; and the ability to play games with arbitrary rules. And, last of all, Calvin sees a beautiful leap in the evolution of human intelligence: at some point, humans, alone among the animal world, began to perform and eventually write music. Calvin has presented a most interesting hypothesis about how all of this came about: he thinks that intelligence may be a by-product of a brain that evolved to throw better. So many new connections and novel pathways were necessary to create the neuroanatomy required for throwing weapons at prey that unforeseen consequences resulted from this newly evolved brain. In particular, it became intelligent.
In his book Children of the Ice Age, paleontologist Steven Stanley has made
the observation that the advent of medicine has disrupted natural selection
as it acts on humans. Humans, according to Stanley, have created unnatural
selection, for our species now routinely heals or saves many individuals
who would never survive in the wild. Furthermore, not only do we save individuals
with physical or mental defects, we also allow them to breed. Now, with the
increasing power of genetic engineering, we are poised to take unnatural
selection to new levels, not only for a host of nonhuman species, but for
ourselves as well.
One of the most provocative assertions about how our species is evolving
at the present time comes from Dr. David Comings, a physician and geneticist
specializing in human genetic disorders. In 1996 Comings published The
Gene Bomb, a book as controversial (if far more overlooked) as The
Bell Curve.
Comings spent two decades studying Tourettes syndrome and attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) among children, and came to the startling conclusion
that the incidence of such genetically inherited disorders is increasing
in the human population faster than population growth alone should dictate.
His conclusion is that our species is evolving ever greater numbers of behavioral
disorders.
Comings first came to this realization when treating his patients diagnosed
with Tourettes syndrome and ADHD: he noticed that the frequencies of these
disorders were high in the children of his patients. Instead of these behaviors
being the
144
result of an increasingly complex society, he surmised that society was
selecting for the genes that caused these behaviors a case of unnatural
selection.
Further work now suggests than many of humanitys so-called behavioral disorders
such as ADHD, depression, addiction, and impulsive, compulsive, oppositional,
and cognitive disorders have a significant genetic component, and unlike
intelligence, may be coded on only a few genes. If this hypothesis is correct
(and no authoritative study has yet been able to falsify it), it means that
the heritability (the rate at which such a trait is passed on to the next
generation) of such disorders is very high. If selection acts to favor the
transmittal of highly heritable traits, they very quickly increase in the
overall gene pool of a species. Comings has summarized this stark view as
follows:
Many different studies have documented an increase in the frequency and a decrease in the age of onset of a wide range of behavioral disorders, including depression, suicide, alcohol and drug abuse, anxiety, ADHD, conduct disorder, autism, and learning disorders in the second half of the twentieth century. All of these disorders have a genetic component. The usual explanation of these trends has been that they are the result of an increasingly fast-paced and technologically complex society. I have suggested that the converse is true that the increasingly complex society is selecting for the genes causing these behaviors.
Of course, these inherited behavioral traits are certainly affected by the individuals environment: many people carry the genes making them susceptible to addictive disease, but under many or even most circumstances do not succumb to alcoholism or drug addiction. Yet many others do. Comings took his findings even further, and postulates that many victims of ADHD reproduce at an earlier age than those without the syndrome, since very few of these sufferers attend college, and many women carriers become pregnant at an earlier age than women either attending college or entering skilled positions. The result is that women attending college, and then entering careers, ultimately have fewer children. These women are usually of higher intelligence than the population mean, and have lower frequencies of behavioral disorders. Women bearing children earlier and having more children as a consequence will be passing on their genes with more efficiency. While this difference will have little or no effect on intelligence, Comings believes that it may be highly significant in increasing levels of behavioral problems in the population.
145
Comingss theory is controversial for two reasons: the data and their interpretation. First, the increasing frequency of reported cases of depression, ADHD, and the like may simply be due to an increased awareness that these disorders can be treated, which encourages people to report them with greater frequency than they did in the past. Second, even if these disorders are indeed on the rise, they may have only a small genetic component, and may be due to any number of environmental causes, including increasing levels of environmental pollutants such as lead and other heavy metals, as well as organic macromolecules, in drinking water. Given these two issues, it is hard to say whether there is merit to Comingss assertions but they provide an interesting example of the potential for further evolution in our species, involving genes that we usually do not think of as being capable of evolution.
We tend to think of evolution as something involving structural modification,
yet it can and does affect things invisible to the morphologist such as
behavior. In fact, it may be that much of humanitys future evolution will
involve new sets of behaviors, allowing us to deal with the changing set
of environmental conditions facing our species: life in cities, life among
crowds, life in a world where certain behaviors affect survival.
Because we have directed the evolution of so many animal and plant species,
we might ask ourselves, why not direct our own? Why wait for natural selection
to do the job when we can do it faster and in ways beneficial to ourselves?
This is precisely the tack taken by many behavioral geneticists who are searching
for ways to manipulate human genes. Behavioral genetics is a new branch of
science that asks what in our genes makes us different from one another (vs.
what makes us different from other species or what makes us human). Scientists
working in this field are trying to track down the genetic components of
behavior not just of problems and disorders, such as those profiled in
the previous section, but of everyday behaviors that may well be heritable
traits: overall disposition, the predilection for addiction or criminality,
many aspects of sexuality, aggressiveness, and competitiveness. These are
traits that we know intuitively to be at least partially heritable.
The implications for the future of our species are incalculable. It seems
unlikely that our society will not eventually accede to the idea that DNA
samples should be given to genetic specialists. When this happens, elaborate
screenings of an indi-
146
viduals genetic makeup will become commonplace, and specific genes for
depression and other behavioral abnormalities will be detected. The second
step will be the application of behavioral drugs using newly discovered chemical
pathways. But the third step will be actual changes in peoples genes. This
can be done in two ways: somatically, by changing the genes in a relevant
organ only; or by changing the entire genome what is known as germ line
therapy. Since germ line therapy involves changes in the genetic code of
a persons eggs or sperm, it will not help the individual in question, but
it will help his or her children.
The major obstacle to the genetic engineering of humans is a property known
as pleiotropy: most genes perform more than one function, and many functions
are coded on far more than one gene. All genes involved in behavior are probably
pleiotropic. This is surely the case, for example, with the many genes involved
in human intelligence (in fact, neuroanatomists and behavioral geneticists
believe that the genes involved in IQ are probably involved in many basic
brain functions as well). Therefore, far more will have to be known about
the human genome before wholesale tinkering can begin, since very slight
changes in gene frequency could lead to drastic changes in the species-level
genome. As has often been quoted, a mere 1% difference in the genome is all
that produces the vast gulf between chimpanzees and humans.
Why change genes at all, then? In all probability, the pressure will come
from parents wanting to improve their children: to guarantee that their
child will be a boy (or a girl), tall, beautiful, intelligent, musically
gifted, sweet-natured, or wise, or to ensure that their children wont become
addicts, thieves, mean-spirited, depressed, or hyperactive. The motives are
there, and they are very strong. The Human Genome Project, now completed,
had for much of its motivation (whatever it supporters argue) the desire
to find bad genes. Once they are found, new Herculean efforts will be required
to weed them out. Assuming that it does become practical to change the nature
of our genes, how will that affect the future evolution of humanity? Probably
a great deal, if the practice continues over millennia.
If natural selection is unlikely to produce a new human species the event
foreseen by H. G. Wells in his novel The Time Machine the same end result
could certainly be achieved by directed human effort. As easily as we breed
new varieties of domesticated animals, we have it in our power to bring a
new human race, variety, or species into this world. Whether we choose to
follow such a path is for our descendants to decide.
147
Just as the push by parents to enhance their children genetically will be
societally irresistible, the assault on human aging will be a force of unnatural
selection in the future. Much recent research shows that aging is not so
much a simple wearing down of body parts as it is a system of programmed
decay, much of it genetically controlled. It is highly probable that the
next century of genetic research will unlock numerous genes controlling many
aspects of aging, and that these genes will be manipulated. An individual
human lasting between one and two centuries is an obtainable goal. Whether
or not it should be pursued, in light of human population growth, is another
question.
Here is a scenario already posited by several scientists (and science fiction
writers) that could potentially lead to a new human species, or at least
a new variety. Some parents allow their unborn children to be genetically
altered to enhance their intelligence, looks, and longevity. Lets assume
that these children are as smart as they are long-lived they have IQs of
150, and a maximum age of 150 as well. Unlike us, these new humans can breed
for eighty years or more. Thus they have more children and because they
are both smart and live a long time, they accumulate wealth in ways different
from us. Very quickly there will be pressure on these new humans to breed
with others of their kind. Just as quickly, they will become behavioral outcasts.
With some sort of presumably self-imposed geographic or social segregation,
genetic drift might occur and, given enough time, might allow the differentiation
of these forms into a new human species.
Humans are no longer simply tool makers. Now we are machine makers as well, and not all of the machines we make can be considered tools. In ways perhaps even less predictable than our use of genetic manipulation, it may be our manipulation of machines or they of us that creates the most profound evolutionary change in our species. Not simple morphological change, or even behavioral change (although that might happen too) but a change as consequential as the first enveloping of one bacterium by another to produce the symbiotic by-product now known as the eukaryotic cell the key to animal life. Is the ultimate evolution of our species one of symbiosis with machines? Numerous writers have discussed the prospect, but in the late twentieth century, at least, perhaps none so evocatively as George Dyson, particularly in his book Darwin among the Machines: The Evolution of Global Intelligence.
148
The subtitle of Dysons book sums up a possible trend in the future of our
species. But according to Dyson, that global intelligence will not be a product
of Darwinian evolution among the fusing populations of Homo sapiens, but
will come about through an ongoing symbiosis with the machines we build:
Everything that human beings are doing to make it easier to operate computer
networks is at the same time, but for different reasons, making it easier
for computer networks to operate human beings.
In science fiction books and movies, this kind of symbiosis is portrayed
as a machine and a man linked by cables the contact of wire and neuron
as a shared pathway of electrons. Would such a linkage enhance intelligence,
if it were possible at all? Neuroanatomists claim that such linkages are
only a matter of time and money, and that the first benefit of such a linkage
will be enhanced memory the ability for an individual to immediately access
the knowledge of the collective. But is memory and data intelligence?
Dyson points out that H. G. Wells pondered this subject in his lifetime,
concluding that some sort of global intelligence was the only hope of improving
the affairs of humanity. Wells prophesied that the whole human memory would
soon be accessible to every individual. In Dysons view, Wells acknowledged
memory not as an accessory to intelligence, but as the substance from which
intelligence is formed.
All of us who routinely use computers have suffered from some lack of memory
in our systems, be it RAM or space on a hard disk drive, and such nuisances
invariably detract from some other task, break our concentration, require
an unanticipated change in activity. It is easy to see how extra memory space
or extra memories would change the world and the way we perceive it.
But would it increase intelligence? Most thinkers who ponder this subject
assure us that it would, though in ways that may not be perceptible to us,
perhaps because an enlarged, networked intelligence would operate at time
scales different from ours, and thus invisible to us. As Dyson notes, it
might also operate in a fashion unlike that of Darwinian evolution:
What leads organisms to evolve to higher types? Darwinian evolution, as Stephen J. Gould, among others, has pointed out, does not progress toward greater complexity, but Darwinian evolution, plus symbiogenesis, does. . . . Darwinian evolution, in one of those paradoxes with which life abounds, may be a victim of its own success, unable to keep up with non-Darwinian processes that it has spawned.
149
In an earlier chapter, we asked whether the rules of speciation have changed
for humans. The answer is that they have not humanity may have affected
the nature of the playing field and the players, but we cannot change the
rules. Yet in the merging of man and machine that conclusion may be overturned.
The evolution of machines and machine intelligence does have
directionality, toward ever greater complexity and intelligence. Machine
intelligence does
not go backward as much as it goes forward; there are no functional equivalents
of a blind cave fish or the whale, a mammal that returned to the sea.
In the computer world, direction is progress: better operating systems,
more
machine interconnections, more memory, easier use, more humans connected.
Dyson
further argues that information comes in two types: structure and sequence.
The first is the map of space, the second the map of time. Memory
and recall are translations between these two types of bits. Thus it
is Dysons fervent belief that the future evolution of humanity lies
in technology,
hailed as the means of bringing nature under the control of our intelligence,
thus enabling nature to exercise intelligence over us. We have mapped,
tamed, and dismembered the physical wilderness of our Earth. But, at
the same time,
we have created a digital wilderness whose evolution may embody a collective
wisdom greater than our own.
As breathtaking as Dysons vision is, I differ slightly in predicting the
type of machines we may merge with. One of the tired old saws in the science
fiction pantheon is the notion of a silicon-based life form. There is a simple
but powerful retort to that possibility. The variety of organic, or carbon-based,
compounds found in life processes can be readily seen by going to any chemical
supply store and checking out the stores catalogs. They are book-sized.
Silicon-based compounds, on the other hand, fill only a good-sized comic
book. Silicon, however useful it may be for the electronics and computer
industries, is none too suitable for life. We may soon find that it is none
too suitable for the computers of the future, either, or for the machines
we may try to merge with.
Perhaps, after all, the progression of Earths dominant animals will be Age
of Bacteria, Age of Protists, Age of Invertebrates, Age of Fishes, Age of
Amphibians, Age of Reptiles, Age of Mammals, Age of Humanity and then a
long Age of Artificial Intelligence. This certainly seems to be the view
of many of the moguls and thinkers spawned in Silicon Valley. Of these many
prophets, none seems so bullish concerning the coming replacement of humanity
by thinking machines as Ray Kurzweil. His vision is starkly writ in The
Age of Spiritual Machines. Kurzweil believes that the
150
invention and routine construction of computers that have the computing power of the human mind will occur early in the twenty-first century, and that machines that outstrip the capabilities of the human brain in some attributes of processing and logic will inexorably appear soon after. In his view, the merging of human and machine (or at least artificially constructed) brains will be inevitable. But will it ever be heritable?
Science fiction is so pervasive and voluminous in its output that there
are few ideas not already in use in some futuristic plot device. Thus, the
two ideas I throw out here are surely well known to its aficionados. However,
they seem to me to be two potentially realistic strategies that could alleviate
both our population problems and the stresses our metals-based industries
place on the rest of the world.
Many of our industrial problems and pollutants come from the processing of
metals. The industrial smelting and forging of tools and technology made
from iron, aluminum, nickel, tin, copper, and the many minor metals and their
blended components requires massive supplies of energy and water and produces
volumes of pollution. Although it would require significant genetic manipulation
to create organic structures and tools, humanity might be better off by growing
as much technology as possible. On a very small level, researchers have already
experimented with this idea: a square tomato has been developed to suit packaging
needs. More imaginatively, a living house made of growing wood and other
organic structures might be a way to realize sustainability in a technical
society.
Yet an even more dramatic breakthrough could be realized by manipulating
not only our machines and technology, but also ourselves. Humans require
massive amounts of food. We, like all animals, are heterotrophs we must
ingest other once living matter in order to live. The world could support
far more people if we could somehow radically re-engineer our food and nutrient
needs so as to become autotrophs organisms at a lower trophic level. Plants
and many types of chemoautotrophic bacteria use sunlight or chemical energy
to power their metabolism. If biotechnology could help get humanity off its
hamburger diet (or even its wheat diet) and merge with the plant world, a
great deal of stress on the planet could be alleviated. Solar-powered calculators
do remarkably well; perhaps the only hope for an Earth even remotely resembling
its past self in terms of habitats and diversity is solar-powered humans.
151
Our lineage has produced new species in the past. What about the future?
Speciation requires an isolating mechanism of some sort. The most common
is geographic isolation, whereby a small population gets cut off from the
larger gene pool, then transforms its own set of genes sufficiently that
it can no longer successfully reproduce with the parent population. Most
species have done this through geographic isolation, yet the very population
size and efficiency of transport of humanity make this possibility remote
at least on Earth. If, however, human colonies are set up on distant
worlds, and then cut off from common gene flow, new human species could
indeed arise.
Perhaps humans will lose (or voluntarily discard) the technology that allows
the global interchange of our species from continent to continent. If separation
lasts long enough, and if conditions on the separated continents are sufficiently
different, it is conceivable that a new human species could arise due to
geographic isolation.
Let us conclude with some alternative scenarios of humanity in the future. Once we leave aside our guilty assumption that our species will soon go extinct somehow, we are left with what Rod Taylor (in the film version of H. G. Wellss The Time Machine) described as all the time in the world. With hundreds of thousands to millions of years yet to play with, what might our species evolve into? Here are four scenarios:
1. Stasis: In this scenario we largely stay as we are now: isolated individuals. Minor tweaks may occur, mainly through the merging of the various races.
2. Speciation: Through some type of isolating mechanism, a new human species evolves, either on this planet or on another world following space travel and colonization.
3. Symbiosis with machines: The evolution of a collective global intelligence comes about through the integration of machines and human brains.
4. Eusociality: Our fascination with ants is that we see our cities and ourselves mirrored in them. The animal world is filled with colonial organisms. Hydrozoans and bryozoans have morphologically distinct polyps that serve for food acquisition, defense, reproduction, and colony stabilization. Each
152
polyp is connected to every other polyp. The functional equivalent of this system among insects is the behavior of species like ants, known as eusociality. Ants (and other eusocial insects) have evolved behaviors and morphology befitting a highly complex system in which the colony itself serves as the functional individual, and the various actual ants of the colony serve as the various organs of that super organism. Will the future evolution of our species be toward the ant model? In one of the most original of all science fiction novels, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelles The Mote in Gods Eye, an intelligent race genetically manipulates itself to evolve different types of workers, including morphologically discrete farmworkers, engineers, politicians, soldiers, masters, and even food.
Evolution takes time. Humanity probably has that as much as a billion years of it as I will show in the next two chapters.
153
vii | ||
Biological Futures Niles Eldredge |
ix | |
PREFACE | xiii | |
INTRODUCTION | The Chronic Argonauts | 1 |
ONE | The Deep Past: A Tale of Two Extinctions |
13 |
TWO | The Near Past: The Beginning of the End of the Age of Megamammals | 37 |
THREE | Into the Present | 47 |
FOUR | Reuniting Gondwanaland |
63 |
FIVE | The Near Future: A New World |
79 |
SIX | The First Ten Million Years: The Recovery Fauna |
103 |
SEVEN | After the Recovery: A New Age? |
119 |
EIGHT | The Future Evolution of Humans |
139 |
NINE | Scenarios of Human Extinction: Will There Be an After Man? |
155 |
TEN | Deep Time, Far Future |
169 |
BIBLIOGRAPHY |
|
177 |
INDEX | 183 |
Main | Site library | Forum | Guestbook |