Evolution: Having Some Fun With It

Ok, you caught me! This post wasn't originally one of my Evolution series. It was written long before, and published in The Open Laboratory 2008. But it IS a post about evolution, and this week is all about evolution on Observations of a Nerd, so I say it counts!

It seems that you can't have a conversation about evolution that doesn't end with everyone involved feeling frustrated. You can't even mention the word 'evolution' without bringing up a political philippic, religious rant or scientific squabble. Unfortunately, this keeps everyone from the conversations that really matter - of course, I'm talking about the fun ones.

No, I don't mean the ones that are fun to paleontologists looking for the origins of limbs or biologists searching for the mechanics of fat accumulation. I mean the ones that are really fun, to just about everyone, save, perhaps, a die-hard creationist who is simply offended.

I say the past is soooo last-era. Let's think about the future! Too often we look forward with a glass-half-empty, doom and gloom attitude. So what if we're in the sixth mass-extinction event, and perhaps the largest, in history? If the past has taught us anything, it's that extinction is the norm, not the exception. After all, 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are currently extinct. And if those species hadn't gone extinct, we wouldn't have the species we cling to so strongly today.

The fun of evolution isn't in looking back - it's in looking forward. So let's take just one moment to release a barrel of monkeys into evolution and the future we're so upset about. Instead of the glass being half-empty, it's merely awaiting the next set of species to fill it. And what will those be? Ah, see! That's the fun part!

Who doesn't enjoy a lovely little flight of fancy every once in a while? Close your eyes and imagine the Earth in a few million years...

Peter Ward, a professor at the University of Washington, envisioned what might be in store for our planet in his book "Future Evolution." In his future, human activities have shaped biological diversity. Because large animals require space, they don't survive the ever-expanding human population. "It is visible in the rear-view mirror, a roadkill already turned into geologic litter -- bones not yet even petrified -- the end of the Age of Megamammals," he writes. Instead, super-survivors like rodents, weeds, crows and cockroaches diversify rapidly to fill in the remaining habitats - cities and cropland. All other animals will be directly human-created, including bioengineered food species (maybe like purple tomatoes?) and others kept alive or brought back from extinction to feature as exotic pets or theme park attractions.

However, I find it is a bit arrogant to think that in millions of years our species, out of all the species on the planet, will survive, let alone champion. With the possibilites of nuclear holocaust or any other number of ways we might kill ourselves off (let alone be out-competed), whose to say we're the ultimate survivors? After all, we've been around for what - 200,000 years? - nothing, compared to other species, and we're pretty fragile as far as organisms go, too. Douglas Dixon takes the opposite approach as Peter Ward in his books - envisioning a world after the extinction of man. In "The Future is Wild," a companion to a seven-part Animal Planet series, Dixon envisions the world over the next 200 million years unfolding in stages. 5 million years into the future is the next Ice Age (similar to his book "After Man"), full of larger than life rodents (are we seeing a trend?) and super-sized primate-eating birds. 100 million years from now, the Ice Age ends, a great sea covers much of the earth, and the temperature skyrockets. Antarctica is a tropical forest, where colorful birds and monsterous insects roam freely. Finally, 200 million years in the future a mass extinction eliminates most of the life on earth and the continents have collided, forming Pangea II. A colossal inland desert occupies much of Pangea II while the oceans are dominated by the ultimate predators, sharks, who prey upon colossal squid and flying fish that have adapted to fill in the niche of the extinct birds. Of course, in the forests that do exist live the terrestrial squid, who might evolve into 'intelligent' life.

If we do survive the test of time, will we not evolve ourselves? Imagine looking at a modern human from Lucy's perspective, and wonder what she would think of what her lineage became. She would be baffled by the complexity of our communications, amazed at how quick our minds are. And, OMG, look at our tools! How will our descendants amaze us? Or do you buy that they will they be the same as we are now, that humans aren't evolving? Biologists like Stuart Pimm and Ken Miller predict a homogenized human species, a UniHuman, with low genetic variability. Of course, if this occured, we'd be far more susceptible to a single catastrophic event drastically cutting populations or even splitting us into different species, like in Stephen Baxter's novel "Evolution," where an environmental-military meltdown causes humans to evolve into separate species of eyeless mole-men, neo-apes and elephant-people herded by their super-rodent masters (boy, everyone's high on the rodents). Personally, I think people value being 'different' and 'unique' too much to lose individuality and meld into a single, blurred race. If people gain the technology to choose their child's attributes, I picture people trying to make their kids 'special' - like punk rock pink hair or purple eyes. I think fashion might be less of what you wear but how you look - literally, from birth. Green skin or asian eyes will be fashionable at some point in the future like snakeskin miniskirts were in the 80's.

Of course, pharmacological and genetic improvements are becoming more and more feasible. Joel Garreau argues that these kinds of changes represent a new form of evolution. This kind of evolution moves much more quickly than biological evolution, which can take millions of years. In his book "Radical Evolution," Garreau describes drugs and high-tech enhancements that could occur within the near future. He describes three different kinds of humans: the enhanced, the naturals and the rest - the enhanced are those who have the money and enthusiasm to do as they wish, the naturals will be those who 'stay true' for moral reasons (like today's Vegans), and then there's the rest, who don't get enhanced only because they can't. The possibility is real - just ask Ramez Naam. His book, "More Than Human," explores what we already can do today, and what other options are not far off. Our future could be one full of 'PostHumans,' a species whose basic capacities so radically exceed those of present humans as to be no longer unambiguously human by our current standards.

Of course, technology could lead us down a different path, where the line between man and machine blurs out of existence. Who doesn't like a good cyborg? After all, we already have mechanical hearts and limbs. Is it really so far to stretch to think we might be able to install a computer in our brains to do math problems? Or like the image on the right, avoid the pain of pregnancy with our own internal incubators? We may end up creating entirely mechanic species- one that is capable of the core tenants of life: growth, reproduction and adaptation. Maybe political leaders will be debating whether robots should have rights, like in Bicentennial Man starring Robin Williams. We may even become the 'aliens' we fear may already be visiting us, once we have the technology to survive a lot longer and travel a lot faster than we can now, so we could make it somewhere else.

Of course, super-bacteria, resistant to every possible antibiotic, could take over and wipe everything out - making the world start at step one and evolve multicellular organisms from scratch. Hey, it's possible!

*sigh* I guess we can't spend all day in dreamland.

I don't know about you, but I find the future to be exciting, not depressing. I wish I could be the fly on the wall in the next few million years! Albeit we don't know if flies will survive... Well, you get what I mean. The next time you hear how such and such is dying out and on the brink of extinction, remember this: evolution is not dead.

That doesn't mean don't do what we can to conserve today. While we may sound noble when we talk about how terrible ecosystem shifts will be on other species, the truth is, we don't know if we can survive drastic global climate change. In human history, rapid climate changes like the Ice Age and warming around 11,000 years ago (Younger Dryas) likely decimated our European populations (for some review, see this essay). We might as well try and keep the status quo on Earth - it suits us well, which is how we've become so dominant. We may be the ultimate survivors, but, of course, I'm sure that's what the dinosaurs would have said at their height, too. The best motivation for us to cut carbon emissions or protect species may be entirely selfish.

In the end, if species do die as the environment changes, other species will be born from their ashes like glorious, unpredictable phoenixes. Who knows what the future holds? While it may not be the world we have now, there will always be a world - at least until we get knocked off our orbit or the sun explodes. With any luck, our species will be around to see what becomes of this mess we call Earth - but even if we don't, as they say, 'the show will go on,' and the world will evolve.

Categories

More like this

I have to agree with you. Itâs always fun to debate about evolution, granted you find the rare person who willingly will discuss it. It seems that today, as you pointed out, the future has such a negative connotation (due in full that we will eventually die a horrific death), which may have something to do with the fact that no one wants to talk about whatâs to come (and what brought us here).
While we as a species have come so far from Lucy -and even further back- I almost have to agree with the biologists like Stuart Pimm and Ken Miller, weâve almost reached the point where we donât have to change, the world has to change to us. Itâs depressing really, but I guess at times you just have to take the ball and run with it (because at this point thereâs no way we can just turn our habits around). Also, as youâve mentioned, thereâs been an increase in genetically and physically modified humans, but one has to wonder: our sciences have evolved, but have our consciences evolved with them? In the future, will we be able to fully modify our babies? our homes? ourselves? And thats just considering that those ethics are accepted; will we as a species be who we want to be? Or will we just be a warped version of what once was? Itâs questions like those that really make evolution -and the future-, fun again, at least to me. In the long run Iâd like to believe that we can retain some part of natural humanity, but we wonât know within our life time, until then all we can do is dream.
And, just quickly, I noticed how you referenced the cycles of death and birth of different ages (of species) and the constant prediction among theorists that rodents will out-live us, and if one were to look back at the dinosaurs, that exact scenario occurred: the small mammals lived through the mass extinction of the dinosaurs, maybe theyâll live past us, rats certainly have the ability to.

As time progresses, wouldnt we expect to have more genetic diversity? Selection is not gone, but relaxed which allows for survival of individuals who would typically not survive without modern day medicine.

I think Andrew is on to something there. There are certain conditions prevalent in the population that would never have existed without humans being subjected more to the selection pressures of the civilized world than those in the natural world. For example, would a latex allergy even exist without humans making latex in the first place?

I never thought about evolution the way you have just portrayed it. Like most people, when I think of evolution I generally think about the past and what has led up to present day man, but I never thought about continuing the process into the future. I think itâs really interesting to wonder what humans will be like in 1000 years, with their new technology and ways of life. Like you said, all species eventually will become extinct, and I myself wonder how our extinction will play out. Maybe global warming or other environmental changes will cause it, and if this is the case, perhaps we could have a role in trying to delay this from happening to our species. I donât think this extinction will occur anytime soon, but maybe thereâs a way to delay the extinction of humans in the next 100 or 1000 years. Overall, this was a very interesting article that really makes you think about what the future will be like.

Gets me thinking ... are we more like cockroaches & rats or dinosaurs? (Not only with respect to evolution) ... just thinking...

Every species eventually goes extinct - but not every species does so without leaving descendants. Hopefully by the time that there are no more Homo Sapiens Sapiens we have as many descendants as there are visible stars in the sky. (descendants of our bodies, and also of our minds/culture - not everyone has to be 'human' to be part of the family.)

By Prof.Pedant (not verified) on 27 Oct 2010 #permalink

Hello there, just making a drive-by posting as the wife is patiently waiting for me to get back to making dinner. I intend to come back and have more fun with y'all.

Yes, I'm in the extinction is for us camp, but I'm not sad about it. There would have to be a lot of ducks just jumping into place for it not to happen, and that's just looking at the non-catastrophic events. It will, of course, suck to be one of the individuals actually experiencing it.

I suppose one could compare the relationship between the size of dinosaurs which made them dependent on a narrow and stable ecosystem, to the ever growing size of our own technology and our dependance on an even more fragile ecosystem.

What's fun is considering when we as uber-predators are gone what sort of fauna (or flora, I suppose) starts dominating. Us being us we've shut down all competitors since we're quite handy at exterminating anything, including ourselves. It'll be interesting to consider what happens when the predatory playing field is more level again.

I love cockroaches as much as the next person, but until the oxygen level rises dramatically they'll still be underfoot, Kafka or not. Rodents might make a break for it, but I wonder if they can overcome the inertia in some of the other primates, since some have had a head start. I guess an extinction event that takes us out will likely take them out too. Rodents, cats, some dogs, sea animals, insects... can't think of any more off the top, should be small enough to survive.

Aye, this is fun!

Regarding "whose to say we're the ultimate survivors?", "whose" is possessive. Surely you meant "who's", for who is.

Admire your blog.

By Ross Summers (not verified) on 27 Nov 2010 #permalink