Should we take over where the Blind Watchmaker leaves off?

As a psychologist and a collaborator in medical genetics research for over twenty years, I see both the scientific potential humankind now possesses and I am all too aware of how we allow some of the worst reasons and pressure to direct our choices in the application of technology.

We need to employ our highest potential for ethical behaviour with our best science if we hope to make wise and worthy progress. The peer review process and human ethics review process make this possible but they do no prevent catastrophic choices driven by greed, profit motives or hatred born of ignorance.

This question presupposes that answers only come from those who agree with Dawkins assessment. Therefor I cannot participate in any meaningful manner, for I believe the initial premise is flawed.

But I do suppose you knew that already… ;)

@Dr_Lawrence Thanks for a great answer. I am delighted to have someone in the field participating in the discussion.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I asked this in the Social section because I intended to leave the door open to challenges of The Blind Watchmaker as well as to discussion of the consequences surrounding human natural selection should he prove right. So even though it’s been cussed and discussed, feel free to go there again if you are up for another fight. :-)

There are at least a couple of issues here. On the one hand, there is the assumption on the part of humans, that after studying genetics for a hundred years or so, they might somehow be better at it than nature, nature having been at it for hundreds of millions of years. On the other hand, humans have evolved the capacity, and have had the capacity for quite some time, it’s kind of a feedback loop, to intervene in their own evolution because of their cognitive capacities and their ability to use tools. Who know when the first broken bone was set? There’s some intervention there. The weakest member of the herd, given a second chance that an elk wouldn’t have gotten and evolution is not really about the “survival of the fittest.”

@lillycoyote The second part of your answer explains exactly why “On the one hand, there is the assumption on the part of humans, that after studying genetics for a hundred years or so, they might somehow be better at it than nature, nature having been at it for hundreds of millions of years.” is not implicit in the question. It is not that we might already be better at evolution, it is that our ability to intervene and countermand the survival of the fittest has largely ended evolution of humans. Survival of the fittest is no longer the certainty it once was.

@ETpro I think we are saying some of the same things, but human evolution, has always included social and cultural adaptations in addition to merely biological ones. And I think it is a bit of human hubris to think that our interventions are sophisticated enough to have stopped our evolution in its tracks. And survival of the “fittest” has never been what it “certainly once was.”

It might not be so bad if it were just a matter of helping those with handicaps of one sort or another. What are we to make of the possibilities of genetic engineering or the implantation of electronic devices to enhance our abilities? What happens when we bridge the gap between machine and human intelligence and we have a continuum of everything in between? What then will it even mean to be human? Michael Sandel’s case against perfection

I’ll play. Regardless if Dawkins assessment is correct or not, the point of mankind interfering with evolution can be addressed.

I would propose that either humans are evolving beyond the necessity for Natural Selection, OR, Natural Selection may not have played as big a role in evolution as was initially thought.

Whatever it is, I’m all for genetic manipulation. What intrigues me the most is the newest science that compares transcription with tape recording. Someone will find a way to run it backwards. I’m sure of it.

When that takes place, physical evolution will become extinct. We’ll take over our own programming. The only thing left to evolve will be the mind space.

@lillycoyote Good point. I didn’‘t mean to suggest that natural selection has no role in further human development. Social interactions have a huge role in who does and doesn’t reproduce. One might think that would favor or select for brainy sorts who end up being millionaires, but other factors enter in like their decisions to have children seldom or late versus much higher birth rates in those who are less well to do. What I was getting at is that the element of evolution that dealt with breeding an ever more resilient stock has been to a large degree defeated by human interventin is disease. birth defects and such.

@LostInParadise My question certainly begs that one. WHat are your answers to that? My own thoughts are, that genie is out of the bottle, and is better kept in competent, mostly egalitarian hands than left to be commanded by those who are certain Hitler was right but was just unfortunately prevented from creating a master race.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I would propose that either humans are evolving beyond the necessity for Natural Selection, OR, Natural Selection may not have played as big a role in evolution as was initially thought. Why would you see those as the only alternatives?

Regarding the thought of taking over our own programming, I agree. We are witnessing the dawn of the possibility of doing that, we will do it, and if men of good will leave it undone it will be men of evil intention who do it instead.

@ETpro It’s not just that social interactions have a role in who does and doesn’t reproduce, human society and culture are themselves evolutionary adaptations. How can and why do people sing? Not for the same reasons that birds do. How and why did the human voice evolve in to a musical instrument? A musical instrument capable of singing harmonies? It’s complicated.

@ETpro , The genie certainly is out of the bottle. There may be something gained in being able to reconstruct ourselves, but there is something lost as well. I feel very strongly the need for a new spirituality, one grounded in acceptance of others for who they are and an eagerness to help those who are disadvantaged. It is not going to happen. It is a brave new world we are entering and it makes me fearful.

“Why would you see those as the only alternatives?”

Certainly I’m not limiting those as the only alternatives. But I must admit to starting to become questioning of the principles of natural selection. Another thread for another day…

You’ve invited me to play in your thought garden. These are the first things that come to mind whilst squishing the fertile soil betweenst my toes.

The nature of a successful organism is to fight natural tendencies to decay and death. Humans are successful species because we are defiant in the face of natural forces, and through our strength and our will even the weakest humans can survive. This makes natural selection largely irrelevant in the human world, because a disadvantage must be catastrophic to result in death, compared to the other animals for whom death is a day to day risk.

“But our very sentience, the current pinnacle of evolutionary achievement, alters the game. We no longer let the weaker humans just die.”
Part of our strength comes from our unwillingness to let weaker humans die. The pack mentality has proven a vital tool for wolves, lions, weaver birds and hyenas. Watching out for your own is a basic evolutionary principle. Our ethics are a direct result of evolution, and are part of our strength as a species.

As for genetic engineering, I believe it will happen slowly but surely. First, we will cure genetic disorders through genetically engineering viruses to reprogram our bodies. Once existing genetic conditions are able to be cured, more trivial genetic issues may be modified, such as height and muscle development. I don’t see a problem with this in itself, but with increased power comes increased responsibility, and there would be increased scope for dubious genetic experiments.

@lillycoyote Very good points, and straight to the heart of this question. Thanks.

@LostInParadise I share your feelings on this almost to a tee. I would guess out only difference is I am a bit more sanguine than you about the resilience of humanity. There are looming dangers, indeed. We are the first species to evolve the intelligence to wipe our entire species and most others out in a single day. Pray we have also evolved the wisdom to avoid exercising that new power. But look at us compared to our relatively intelligent cousin, the chimpanzee. They still live much the same as they did a million years ago and are now a threatened species constrained to a few small patches of unspoiled jungle. In contrast, humans have now inhabited every environment on earth, modified some to better suit our needs and walked on the surface of the moon. We are unlocking the mysteries of the formation of the Universe itself and the keys to longevity.

While we retain many of our violent traits gained in the struggle up the evolutionary chain, we have, over the millennia from early man through the ancient world, medieval times, the dark ages, the enlightenment and the age of reason; marched steadily toward a more enlightened, egalitarian species. I see no certainty is suggesting that advancing technology will reverse that course.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Thanks for the clarification. Since it is your doubt that would generate the question regarding the role of natural selection versus other factors guiding evolution, I leave it to you to pose the question. It’s certainly one I would rate as a Great Question.

@FireMadeFlesh Excellent points, all. Thanks.

Great discussion…have enjoyed it immensely…albeit five days late!

@MissA It surely wouldn’t take much to rekindle the fire. :-)