From: Emlyn O'regan (oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au)
Date: Thu Jul 24 2003 - 18:01:46 MDT
Interesting observations indeed, Robert...
Robert wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Robin Hanson commenting on comments
> by Emlyn and Damien (the thread of which has gotten rather
> complex) wrote:
>
> > The aberration is temporary because DNA will soon be
> replaced by other
> > faster-changing forms of genes, including those you mention.
>
> Just to offer some related observations...
>
> - People would be very lucky to have 20 kids -- most humans throughout
> evolutionary history died long before they could have raised
> that number.
But today you could. For instance, how many kids could Bill Gates have if he
decided to maximise reproduction?
> - Given the huge amount of junk DNA in mammalian genomes (and the
> success of mammals over the last 60+ million years) and the fact
> that the junk is mostly remnants of self-relocating genetic
> elements that would happen to carry other genes along with
> them (speeding up evolution) it would appear that there may be some
> selective advantage for faster evolution. We can't say for sure about
> this since we don't have the genomes of say birds, reptiles
> or amphibians
> (which have been around longer than mammals and have similar
> complexity).
>
> - *But* given the Fugu genome which is very old and relatively
> small compared with mammals (it is a vertebrate so the complexity
> should not be "too" different) it would appear evolution can
> develop a means to interfere with the elements that would
> naturally tend speed up evolution (how this is accomplished isn't
> known at this time).
Ok, natural selection in humans might be able to be sped up. But compare and
contrast memes to genes, over say the last 5000 years (7000 years??). In
terms of memes, we've gone from the first civilisations to the global system
we have today, replete with mind-boggling technologies and vastly (!)
altered lifestyles. Compare this to evolutionary changes to humans... we've
become a bit taller.
You just need to look at how incredibly strongly we have outcompeted the
rest of the mammals, to see that general intelligence has been a superbly
powerful discontinuity; culture kicks the butt of DNA...
.. in mammals and the higher lifeforms. OTOH, DNA in insects and bacteria
seems to be doing a pretty fine job of keeping up with us. Very short
generation time is necessary, though.
So for genes to compete with memes, it seems that they need to be organised
very differently from our own. Ours now is a basically static blueprint for
the hardware, at least until we get full control over it.
>
> - There has been proposed some interesting secondary effects in
> evolution involved in nurturing (or promoting the survival of)
> offspring
> [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/07/030717091254.htm].
> Similar effects may be promoting the development of "ethical
> behaviors".
I think these exist, but they now promote the welfare of the entire group -
sometimes nations, or humanity itself. eg: look at our own philosophies...
where is the benefit for our personal DNA in that? And these secondary
effects must benefit the memes far more strongly, both immediately and long
term, than genes. As far as I can see, human DNA is mostly doing a random
walk around a basically flat fitness plateau.
> - Language (memes) seems to have played a role in speeding up
> human evolution over the last 100,000+ years. But one might
> wonder whether memes and genes are not competing to see which
> can drive evolution faster without completely driving the
> carriers towards elimination.
Like a snail racing a ramship... no contest.
> - At the simple chemical level DNA is not a terribly bad information
> storage mechanism (compared with say a Drexlerian polymer tape,
> e.g. Nanosystems sec. 12.6.4). But I suspect that there may be
> some interesting limits on the equipment that allows an ever
> faster changing of genes/memes. So the process seems unlikely
> to continue indefinitely.
>
> Robert
Mostly because we'll subvert it entirely to our own ends well before it gets
to do anything else interesting.
I'm a bit surprised that you thing there is anything left in human genetic
evolution, Robert. Aren't you the same Rob Bradbury who says we shouldn't
bother colonising Mars, because we'll have dissassembled it remotely before
we can get there? Think of the timescales here. That human genes can evolve
is true, but its like saying that glass can flow at room temperature;
absolutely true, but pretty much irrelevant.
Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 24 2003 - 18:10:39 MDT