SCIENCE9 - The Future of Human Evolution

This is Part 2 of my article on Human Evolution.  Part 1, in my previous blog, covered the history of human evolution from the early primates, through the evolution of human species, to modern humans.  This blog will discuss the potential future of human evolution.

 

My primary source and inspiration for this blog was the book, Sapiens - A Brief History of Humankind, by Yuval Noah Harari, particularly Chapter 20: “The End of Homo Sapiens.”  Other sources included “What will we look like in the future?”, austrailian.museum; “What May Become of Homo Sapiens,” scientificamerican.com; “What will humans look like in a million years?”, bbcearth.com; “Human Evolution in the Future,” leosystem.news/history; “Human germline engineering,” “Cyborg,” Wikipedia; “Are Cyborgs Humanity’s Next Evolutionary Phase?”, interestingengineering.com; and numerous other online sources.

Introduction

Humans are the most successful species on Earth, thanks to multiple key traits that have been gained through evolution by natural selection - developed over millions of years.  See Part 1 of this article in my previous blog.

As I discussed in Part 1, modern humans are still undergoing natural selection for a few traits.  Some of these are due to specific environmental pressures, while others are related to lifestyle changes since the development of agriculture (10,000 years ago), urbanization (5,000 years ago), and industrialization (250 years ago).  Examples include resistance to infectious diseases, ability to live at high altitudes, relief of intolerance to milk, reduced blood pressure and cholesterol, and reduced size/weight of our bones.

Another characteristic of ongoing human evolution is that the geographical isolation of different groups of people has been broached by the ease of transportation and the dismantling of social barriers that once kept racial groups apart.  Never before has the human gene pool had such widespread mixing of what were heretofore entirely separated local populations of our species.  In fact, the mobility of humanity is bringing about the homogenization of our species - basically, we are becoming more alike.

Over the past few centuries, our species' circumstances have changed.  Today, the availability of better healthcare, food, heating, and hygiene, have reduced the number of “hazards” we experience in our lives.  There has thus been a corresponding reduction in natural selection activity (survival of the fittest).

Technology is putting an end to the brutal logic of natural selection, and evolution is now mostly cultural.  Many think that the future of human evolution is not really a biological issue anymore, it’s technological.

Note:  If humans ever permanently colonized other planets, natural selection might be reinvigorated.  Environmental differences, such as gravity, atmosphere, and temperature - over thousands of years - could cause human evolutionary changes, perhaps result a new species.

In this blog, I’ll talk about the transition from natural evolution to technological evolution of humans on Earth.

The discussion will include how we might direct our own evolution.  We have directed the evolution of so many animal and plant species.  We could direct our own evolution, in ways beneficial to humans - by intelligent design.  This approach would of course bring along with it a host of ethical, religious, political, and ideological issues.

Our objectives might include eliminating disease and physical defects; improving human capabilities, such as physical appearance, prowess, or intelligence; improving our quality of life; or increasing how long we live - even immortality.

The replacement of natural selection by intelligent design could happen in any of three ways:  through biological engineering (changing the human gene), cyborg engineering (combining organic and non-organic human parts), or the engineering of inorganic (non-living) life.

Biological Engineering

Genes are the basic physical unit of human inheritance.  They are passed from parents to offspring and contain the information needed to specify physical and mental characteristics.

Altering genes is one of the ways that intelligent design could drive human evolution in the future.

Changing people's genes to affect human evolution could be accomplished by a process called germline engineering that would alter germ cells (reproductive cells) such as the human egg and sperm.  These gene changes would then be inheritable by future generations.

Currently, for safety, ethical, and social reasons, there is broad agreement among the scientific community and the public that germline editing is a red line that should not be crossed.  In fact, using germline editing for reproduction is prohibited by law in more than 40 countries and by a binding international treaty of the Council of Europe.

However, from 2015-2017, three groups Chinese scientists employed gene editing in non-viable embryos to explore the effectiveness of the technique.  Results were largely unsuccessful.

But, in November 2018, Chinese researcher He Jiankui claimed that he had created the first human genetically edited babies.  In May 2019, lawyers in China reported, in light of the purported creation by He Jiankui of the first gene-edited humans, the drafting of regulations that anyone manipulating the human genome would be held responsible for any related adverse consequences.  He Jiankui was found guilty in December 2019 of “illegal medical practices” and sentenced to three years in prison.

Note:  Gene replacement and altering genes in non-reproductive cells has been going on successfully since the 1980s, mostly for treatment of disease, or repairing or reconstructing defective genetic material.  This kind of non-inheritable gene therapy is largely uncontroversial, and is considered merely another drug delivery system.

The major scientific obstacle to genetic engineering in humans will be the sheer complexity of the process.  Genes usually perform more than one function; conversely, functions are usually enabled by more than one gene. Because of this property, known as pleiotropy, tinkering with one gene can have unintended consequences.

Altering of reproductive genes could change the course of human evolution.

 

Besides enormous interest in improving health and eliminating disease, the pressure to change genes will probably come from parents wanting to guarantee their child is a boy or a girl; to endow their children with beauty, intelligence, musical talent, or a sweet nature; or to try to ensure that they are not helplessly disposed to become mean-spirited, depressed, hyperactive or even criminal. 

Just as the push by parents to genetically enhance their children could be socially irresistible, so, too, would be an assault on human aging.  Many recent studies suggest that aging is not so much a simple wearing down of body parts as it is a programmed decay, much of it genetically controlled.  If so, the next century of genetic research could unlock numerous genes controlling many aspects of aging.

The ethical arguments against human germline engineering are significant.  A most compelling one is that medical research should always seek to balance benefits and risks, with individuals who are participating in research giving fully informed consent.  But the individuals whose lives are potentially affected by germline manipulation could extend many generations into the future.  They can’t give consent to having their genes altered from what nature would have made possible.  There’s also a concern about human hubris.  Who gets to decide what’s an improvement in the gene?

There are also issues of equity and justice.  Who would have access to this kind of human germline engineering?  Do we want to accept the scenario that only those with financial resources get to “improve” the traits of their children?  A more subtle but significant concern is whether the application of germline manipulation would change our view of the value of human life.  If genes are being altered to suit parents’ preferences, do children become more like commodities than precious gifts?

Cyborg Engineering

As Yuval Noah Harari reveals in his mind-blowing 2014 book, Sapiens - A Brief History of Mankind: “There is another new technology which could change the laws of life:  cyborg engineering.  Cyborgs are beings which combine organic and inorganic parts, such as a human with bionic hands.  In a sense, nearly all of us are bionic these days, since our natural senses and functions are supplemented by devices such as eyeglasses, pacemakers, orthotics, and even computers and mobile phones (which relieve our brain of some of their data storage and processing burdens).  We stand poised on the brink of becoming true cyborgs, of having inorganic features that are inseparable from our bodies, features that modify our abilities, desires, personalities, and identities.”

Note:  In 1960, the term "cyborg" was coined by Manfred E. Clynes and Nathan S. Kline to refer to their conception of an enhanced human being who could survive in extraterrestrial environments.

Cyborg engineering started with devices to improve our eyesight and hearing, locomotion aids, health-monitoring devices, and artificial prostheses or limbs to replace those missing at birth or lost in accidents. 

It is very likely that in the future, we healthy humans will use mechanical implants to extend our abilities beyond normal human limitations.  Imagine more efficient organs; bones, joints, skin, sensory devices to improve seeing, hearing, tasting, etc.; even mechanical hearts.

Note:  Human-like robots, another possible future development, would contain no organic life.

Cyborg engineering could produce advanced humans.

 

The capability to create sophisticated cyborgs is close at hand.  The growth of artificial intelligence (AI), to help manage bodily activity in “smart” ways, will be an enabling part of creating sophisticated cyborg technology.

Harari talks about revolutionary development of a two-way brain-computer interface that will allow computers to read the electrical signals of a human brain, simultaneously transmitting signals that the brain can read in turn.  Such a connection could directly link human brains to the internet, and directly link several brains to each other, leading to collective minds.

As Harari puts it: “Such a cyborg would no longer be human or even organic.  It would be something completely different.  It would be so fundamentally another kind of being that we cannot even grasp the philosophical, psychological or political implications.”

A world of cyborgs presents a number of potential negatives.  It could take away what it means to be human.  Much of what we regard as quintessentially human could be weeded out of our lineage.  The extravagancies and fun that arguably give human life much of its meaning - humor, love, game-playing, art, sex, dancing, social conversation, philosophy, literature, scientific discovery, food and drink, friendship, parenting, and sport - are at risk.  AI-driven cyborg technology could remove human empathy and reduce morality to a series algorithms based on logic and statistics.

Another threat of a human-cyborg future is privacy and security.  While many of us may be okay with companies seeing our browser history, most of us would probably be more than a little concerned with the ability for others to know our thoughts or control our physical movements.

The problem will be to ensure that it is us, and not the technology, that controls the pace and the changes.  One thing is certain, cyborg technology is likely not going away.

Engineering of Inorganic Life

According to Yuval Noah Harari, the third way to change the laws of human life is to engineer completely inorganic beings.  Prime examples he provides are computer programs that can undergo independent evolution.

In his book, Sapiens, Harari says: “The field of genetic programming is today one of the most interesting spots in the computer science world.  It tries to emulate the methods of genetic evolution.  Many programmers dream of creating a program that could learn and evolve completely independently of it its creator.  In this case, the programmer would be a ‘first mover,’ but his creation would be free to evolve in directions neither its maker nor any other human could ever have envisioned.”

Harari asks: “What if computer programmers could create an entirely new, but digital mind, composed of computer code, complete with a sense of self consciousness and memory?” 

Harari wonders, “Are these computer creations living creatures?  It depends on what you mean by ‘living creatures.’  They have certainly been produced by a new evolutionary process, completely independent of the laws and limitations or organic evolution.”

The Human Brain Project, ongoing since 2005 by a European research group, hopes to recreate a complete human brain inside a computer, with electronic circuits in the computer emulating neural networks in the brain.  Within a few decades, we could have an artificial human brain inside a computer that could talk and behave very much as a human does.

 

Digital human concept.

The Ultimate Question

So, to sum up:  humanity's evolutionary future could take one of several routes:

Natural selection.  Stay as we are now, with minor tweaks, mainly as races merge.

Genetic manipulation.  The risky road to becoming designer humans.

Symbiosis with machines.  Integration of machines and human brains towards a collective intelligence.

Digital beings.  Become one with computers and software.

Harari cautions us: “What we should take seriously is the idea that the next stage of history will include not only technological and organizational transformations, but also fundamental transformations in human consciousness and identity.  And these could be transformations so fundamental that they will call the very term ‘human’ into question.”

Harari suggests that we should devote some time to answering the question: ‘What do want to become?’  He concludes his book by saying: “The only thing we can try to do is to influence the direction scientists are taking.  But since we might soon be able to engineer our desires too, the real question facing us is not ‘What do we want to become?’, but ‘What do we want to want?’  Those who are not spooked by this question probably haven’t given it enough thought.”

 

The ultimate question.