Richard, I've done a lot of reading on evolution and have tried to understand where human evolution is going but haven't found a satisfactory answer - I'd really like to hear your opinion.
Human culture and technology has removed a lot of selection pressure: our social systems support blind people who would no doubt die if they had to try and fend (hunting, protection from predators, and of course raising a child!) for themselves; our science/medicine sustains people with otherwise fatal injuries/diseases (you yourself once said that without antibiotics you wouldn't still be here today); and communities are far less isolated today than we ever have been before, we can travel to the other side of the planet in a day...
So what does this mean with respect to our own evolution? We're (almost) a single, large population, which suggests genetic drift is less likely to result in particular traits becoming fixed (or lost). Ditto for the lack of selection pressure. A greater population no doubt means more random mutations, the edges of what is defined as human are being pushed further away, but again our constant mixing and (relatively) altruistic culture means these mutations (good or bad) are less likely to become fixed or lost.
It seems to me it's less likely we'll evolve new "branches" (eg European white skin, Asian eyes) without a dramatic change which creates smaller, isolated groups (energy crisis, war, climate change). The converse suggests we'll converge on a "middle ground", but our gene pool must be growing so that middle ground (if there is such a thing) must also cover a wider spread of traits...
So my question - where are we going and how quickly are we travelling?
Slashdot Mirror
Richard, I've done a lot of reading on evolution and have tried to understand where human evolution is going but haven't found a satisfactory answer - I'd really like to hear your opinion. Human culture and technology has removed a lot of selection pressure: our social systems support blind people who would no doubt die if they had to try and fend (hunting, protection from predators, and of course raising a child!) for themselves; our science/medicine sustains people with otherwise fatal injuries/diseases (you yourself once said that without antibiotics you wouldn't still be here today); and communities are far less isolated today than we ever have been before, we can travel to the other side of the planet in a day... So what does this mean with respect to our own evolution? We're (almost) a single, large population, which suggests genetic drift is less likely to result in particular traits becoming fixed (or lost). Ditto for the lack of selection pressure. A greater population no doubt means more random mutations, the edges of what is defined as human are being pushed further away, but again our constant mixing and (relatively) altruistic culture means these mutations (good or bad) are less likely to become fixed or lost. It seems to me it's less likely we'll evolve new "branches" (eg European white skin, Asian eyes) without a dramatic change which creates smaller, isolated groups (energy crisis, war, climate change). The converse suggests we'll converge on a "middle ground", but our gene pool must be growing so that middle ground (if there is such a thing) must also cover a wider spread of traits... So my question - where are we going and how quickly are we travelling?