(no subject)
Is it possible for human science to overpower the process of evolution? If so, what would be the consequences?
The first question has been a subject of debate among evolutionary biologists for decades. Many have argued that yes, we can negate evolution. Some say we already have.
The basis for this belief is pretty simple. If we think of evolution as having a goal, most would say that the goal is survival. But survival of the individual is necessarily subordinate to reproductive success. This is why so many organisms pass on fatal genetic disorders. As long as the disorder doesn't kill you before you can toss some offspring out there, it still has a chance of being propagated from one generation to the next.
Based on this understanding, it has been argued that the better we get at keeping people alive, the less we end up evolving. Evolution is the weeding out of detrimental traits, usually leading to an abundance of beneficial traits. But now that we can keep almost everybody alive until they manage to reproduce, wouldn't all the traits, detrimental or otherwise, keep turning up? Wouldn't that effectively put us at an evolutionary standstill? The answer is: nope!
A variety of long-term studies have provided evidence that we are, indeed, still evolving, and that the rate isn't unusually slow for complex organisms. You see, even if we get everybody to reproduce, there will still be differences in the amount of offspring everybody churns out. If you have a dozen kids and I only have 1, the odds are that you will have a much more significant impact on the gene pool than I will.
Of course it isn't as simple as all that. There are numerous outside factors that can contribute to our survival. Genetic drift can occur on a local level due to chance events. Societal practices can favor certain traits in certain areas. We have manipulated our environment so ferociously that that many of the old rules are changing. And of course, there is the future of genetics, with its seemingly limitless potential for advancement.
We haven't eliminated evolution yet, but what will happen if we ever do? Or more accurately, if we completely replace random natural selection with rigidly controlled artificial selection? What would be the societal affects be if we could cultivate any subjective ideal of physical perfection? Would this serve to drive people apart even more than racism, borders, religion and money already do? If this technology was made available to the lowest rungs of society, what new forms would class warfare take? Will our surroundings really mean anything to us when we can intentionally evolve to fit into any environment? What other scientific discoveries would ripple outward from intensive genetic manipulation? And if we ever figure out the telomere problem, we might be able to become effectively immortal. How would the world's religions respond to that?
A sci-fi author could build an entire career out of exploring this subject. Some researchers already have.
The first question has been a subject of debate among evolutionary biologists for decades. Many have argued that yes, we can negate evolution. Some say we already have.
The basis for this belief is pretty simple. If we think of evolution as having a goal, most would say that the goal is survival. But survival of the individual is necessarily subordinate to reproductive success. This is why so many organisms pass on fatal genetic disorders. As long as the disorder doesn't kill you before you can toss some offspring out there, it still has a chance of being propagated from one generation to the next.
Based on this understanding, it has been argued that the better we get at keeping people alive, the less we end up evolving. Evolution is the weeding out of detrimental traits, usually leading to an abundance of beneficial traits. But now that we can keep almost everybody alive until they manage to reproduce, wouldn't all the traits, detrimental or otherwise, keep turning up? Wouldn't that effectively put us at an evolutionary standstill? The answer is: nope!
A variety of long-term studies have provided evidence that we are, indeed, still evolving, and that the rate isn't unusually slow for complex organisms. You see, even if we get everybody to reproduce, there will still be differences in the amount of offspring everybody churns out. If you have a dozen kids and I only have 1, the odds are that you will have a much more significant impact on the gene pool than I will.
Of course it isn't as simple as all that. There are numerous outside factors that can contribute to our survival. Genetic drift can occur on a local level due to chance events. Societal practices can favor certain traits in certain areas. We have manipulated our environment so ferociously that that many of the old rules are changing. And of course, there is the future of genetics, with its seemingly limitless potential for advancement.
We haven't eliminated evolution yet, but what will happen if we ever do? Or more accurately, if we completely replace random natural selection with rigidly controlled artificial selection? What would be the societal affects be if we could cultivate any subjective ideal of physical perfection? Would this serve to drive people apart even more than racism, borders, religion and money already do? If this technology was made available to the lowest rungs of society, what new forms would class warfare take? Will our surroundings really mean anything to us when we can intentionally evolve to fit into any environment? What other scientific discoveries would ripple outward from intensive genetic manipulation? And if we ever figure out the telomere problem, we might be able to become effectively immortal. How would the world's religions respond to that?
A sci-fi author could build an entire career out of exploring this subject. Some researchers already have.