Is Evolution Coming to an End?

Steven Jay Gould, in his speech at the opening ceremonies of the Hayden Planetarium, highlighted a distinction between different uses of the word 'evolution.' In its vernacular sense, the word implies "an unfolding in time of a predictable or prepackaged sequence in an inherently progressive, or at least directional, manner." (Gould, 198) Two schools of thought exist within evolutionary theory: transformational evolution stays true to the vernacular usage of the word, and suggests that evolution is a predictable phenomenon where species are transformed or transmutated, while variational evolution, the kind catapulted to fame by Charles Darwin's Galapagos Island adventures and subsequent texts, paints a picture of a natural process that is purely chaotic, probabilistic, and statistical, a process which has clear rules yet follows no set path.

Variational evolution has been nearly universally accepted by scientists as the type of evolution we see in nature, while transformational evolution is known to be an archaic and obsolete approach. Everything we see in ourselves and in the natural world around us is a product of variational evolution. Random mutations occur in nature and the process of natural selection selectively retains traits that are helpful for the survival of the species in question, Variational evolution is a machine, and it has but one job: to yield "increasing adaptation to changing local environments, not predictable progress in the usual sense of cosmic or general betterment expressed as growing complexity, augmented mentality, or whatever." (Gould, 199) Creatures adapt to their environment through variational evolution; there is no eventual end to the process, no climax of advancement, no "perfect" creature. In the past decade or so, however, humans have made significant advances in germinal choice technologies, which allow parents to influence the genetic constitutions of their children:
In-depth genetic testing, sophisticated preimplantation diagnosis, egg banking, improved in vitro fertilization, and cloning are poised to transform our reproductive choices, while progress in genomics and with highly targeted pharmaceuticals will work in parallel by altering our perceptions of our genetic potentials, vulnerabilities, and handicaps. (Stock, 554)

These advancements make it possible for humans to control their genetic diversity, and indeed the future of their evolution, in a very real way. With these advancements, however, comes an abundance of moral, ethical, and social concerns. With the proliferation of germinal choice technologies will come a hiccup in the process of variational, Darwinian evolution, as humans embrace their ability to create their own path of transformational evolution, and this will lead to social and physical devastations within the human race as humans misuse these technologies.

In his essay "The Enhanced and the Unenhanced," Gregory Stock, a vocal spokesman for germinal choice technology, states that "we have seen too much progress in the intervening decades to be so sure that genetic engineering cannot create superior humans, but we are far from that goal. If the task were so easy, natural evolution would have done it already." (Stock, 558) This statement arises as Stock attempts to defend germinal choice technology by pointing out that superhumans qualities would not be so easy to create in humans using the technologies, but improving average or below average performance would be significantly easier and is indeed the main goal. The second half of the statement, however, has much greater implications. Stock seems to renounce the idea of variational evolution, as he claims that nature would have already created superhumans if it could. Stock is severely mistaken, however. It is fact that whatever evolution is occurring, and has occurred, on this planet is variational, a product of chance. Humans would only ever have superhuman qualities if the environment specifically demanded these qualities. This argument was vaulted a great deal further with the results of a 1999 study regarding a group of microscopic parasites, the Dicyemida, which exist anatomically as amongst the more simplistic mesozoans. For this reason, their anatomic simplicity, the Dicyemida have always been thought of as primitive or intermediate organisms on the evolutionary tree. This was, of course, until the aforementioned study uncovered a Hox gene within the Dicyemida, a gene only occurring in upper-level mesozoans. "Thus, the dicyemids are descended from "higher," triploblastic animals and have become maximally simplified in anatomy by adaptation to their parasitic lifestyle." (Gould, 208) The dicyemids evolved into more simplistic creatures as a result of their lifestyle, as parasites in the renal organs of squid and octopuses. The dicyemids provide a perfect example of the difference between variational evolution and the sham of a biological process which Stock attempts to imply in his essay. Variational evolution does not imply betterment, or advancement, or even complexity.

This has interesting implications for the future of germinal choice technologies. Stock argues that germinal "enhancements" to the human race are acceptable, as "people want to be healthier, smarter, stronger, faster, more attractive. Enhancements are those modifications that people view as largely beneficial and that serve their goals. Virtually by definition, people seek such modifications." (Stock, 556) Enhancements, however, can be dangerous to the fate of humankind. The future environment is unpredictable and unpremeditated, and so by definition, the qualities that will assist human survival in the future are unpredictable as well, as these qualities are dependent on the environment. This means that it is certainly possible for the environment to necessitate that humans be less complex, or even dumber, weaker, slower, or uglier. It is difficult to imagine a human race capable of realizing that these traits could be necessary for survival, and more so a human race capable of actually genetically engineering babies that are dumb, weak, slow, or ugly once germinal choice technology becomes pedestrian. This could be devastating for human existence, as we would have effectively stopped the process of natural selection. For the first time in the history of the world a species would be willingly propagating traits that are less than optimal, and that is a trophy that we do not want in our cabinet of human achievements.

Stock suggests that if some countries do not embrace germinal choice technologies as they grow more potent, other countries will, and the countries that decided to forgo studying and researching these technologies will be left behind. He claims that "future generations will not want to remain 'natural' if that means living at the whim of advanced creatures to whom they would be little more than intriguing relics from an abandoned human past." (Stock, 571) Stock may be seriously underestimating cultural and religious influences within humans. It is not improbably that there would be many staunch opponents of enhancement technologies, from conservative cultures to religions everywhere, and although we do live in a homogenized society where cultural nuances and religious passion are slowly dying, they have some power yet. Most humans more easily adopt views their religious leaders offer than the views of a certain disingenuous, socially-stunted UCLA scientist, or indeed those of scientists everywhere. Stock is severely underestimating the resistance to change he will find at the level of the citizens, much less at the level of the government who have to deal not only with the views of the citizens, but with politicking and bureaucracies.

Furthermore, Stock completely ignores worldwide destitution. In America today, there is still immense poverty, and the war against poverty is a slow and quiet one. Many, many families within the United States of America would not be able to afford germinal choice technologies regardless of how much they are subsidized by the government. They have enough trouble putting food on the dinner table. And this is only America. Other advanced countries have the same problems as the United States of America, and third-world countries are a lost cause entirely. Stock's blindness towards these obvious problems is rather eye-opening. It seems that if we embraced Stock's views and sprinted towards the advancement of germinal choice technologies, the world would be turned upside down with ethical and perhaps physical battles within and between countries.

Germinal choice technologies pose a significant and dangerous threat to our society and our existence as a people. By seeking to advance and better ourselves and our civilizations, we enter dangerous territory. If we do not kill ourselves in the short term through civil and world wars resulting from this controversial and tremendous issue, we will certainly kill ourselves in the long term as we eliminate the process of natural selection, our last safeguard as a people against the consequences of our own intelligence. Perhaps germinal choice technology should be advanced and used once, on one generation, to create children that do not wish to modify their species stupidly and blindly, and who are content with being simply average, and who do not wish to toy with the delicate and intricate natural processes that have served humans so well thusfar.

Works Cited

"What does the dreaded 'E' word mean anyway? A Reverie for the Opening of the New Hayden Planetarium." Natural History, 1999.

Stock, Gregory. "The Enhanced and the Unenhanced." Redesigning Humans: Our Inevitable Genetic Future. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2002.