Fantastic paper. I am have been interested in evolution since I was very young, and I got my bachelors in molecular biology from Berkeley. I have spent a an incredible amount of time thinking and reading about evolution (which is how I came to find your blog) and I have come to similar conclusions about cultural evolution vs biological evolution (although not nearly as clearly defined nor thoroughly researched) as you. However, in my thought experiments, I have always come across this stumbling block: the average person still operates under the biological evolution framework and (at least in the immediate future) are under no selection pressure to change. While reproductive rates have declined in well-educated subpopulations, the uneducated are still over-reproducing and those subpopulations will out-reproduce the educated ones. I teach high school biology (I actually use some of your blogs in my AP class) and I get to directly witness just how few of the students care about their education or improving their minds. The ones that do see the value in education are great, but unfortunately that population is dwarfed by the number of students who don't care. And these poor students are a direct reflection of the values instilled by their parents, so I would argue that they are a decent representation of the community as a whole. And my school isn't even a bad one. I teach in a school right outside of the Silicon Valley and statistically my school is above average. Whether is it fueled by religion or laziness, there are MANY people who do not see the advantage of the investment in knowledge. Perhaps they just don't have the critical thinking skills/capacity to grasp the concept? Now, you and I know that in the long run, the anti-education strategy is a poor one and can only lead to disaster. In a traditional evolution setting, this disaster means death for those who cannot compete. But from a humanitarian standpoint, we cannot allow all these people to go jobless and homeless or perish. So will we end up with a nationwide reflection of what I see in my school where the few that are educated are dwarfed by the uneducated? What do we do with all those people? I think they are exhibiting what I like to call vestigial behaviors. They operate under the immediate gratification/evolutionarily reinforced reward systems that are no longer applicable in today's world. People are overindulging in things that are good in the short-term but detrimental in the long-term. And it seems as if they either don't see the danger or are just too stubborn to change.
Thanks! I appreciate it. Yes, it does seem quite intuitive, the difficult part was working it into modern evolutionary theory, as this certainly would represent a novel phenomena in evolutionary history. Yes, although I think we see the beginning of an exponential decline with the generation born between 1980-2000. Yes, this is tremendously interesting point. But I think the key comes with a few major trends. First, many people who are uneducated and and over-reproducing are doing so because of massive income inequality. However, I feel that in the not-too-distant future, perhaps 2020s, most of the developed world will have implemented a universal basic income (UBI) - or something quite similar to a UBI. This should alleviate many of the stresses and strains that come from massive poverty - and will break the cycle of poverty that many currently live in today. Once people are are freed from the stresses of worrying about how to make ends meet with rent/water/food - there will be a major opportunity for them to do something with their lives - because I believe most humans are intelligent and inherently creative if their base-level needs are met. This is interesting - but to be honest with you - I was one of those kids. I didn't care about anything in high school. You could make the point that the modern education system is not set up in the way that it should be - and that it needs a fundamental re-design. But beyond that - all of those kids that are just goofing off in your class - could also go on to become intelligent and successful adults in the 20s and 30s. Their lack of caring about improving their mind could just be a result of them being young and not ready to take on the work load required of modern cultural life. I think we should also be careful to recognize that - at least in the Life History framework I proposed in the paper - this is not necessarily about investment in knowledge - but rather a shift in energy towards current cultural reproduction over current biological reproduction. This cultural reproduction could come in any form - including wanting to just party all the time instead of settling down and having kids. The point is that - if the effects of aging are slowed and reversed - then the logic to reproduce biologically will simply evaporate. Will some people do it? Maybe, sure. But the vast majority won't. We'll see a world where the average fertility rate drops below 1 (which it already has in 3 countries). No, our societies are massively productive. We don't need everyone to be hyper-educated (although you could make the argument that everyone will be when we get brain-interface devices). Either way - as we progress throughout the 21st century - governments will be forced to ensure that all of their citizens have their basic needs met as computers (both AI and robotics) start to take all of the industrial and service sector jobs. If the Global Brain comes to be - it will be a completely different society. It will be one where no one will necessary have to work. You can choose to work if you want - and if you don't want to - you can do anything else you want. You can enjoy your life. That is the ultimate point of all of this industrial productivity. I highly recommend this paper - would love to hear your thoughts.Fantastic paper.
I have come to similar conclusions about cultural evolution vs biological evolution
the average person still operates under the biological evolution framework
the uneducated are still over-reproducing and those subpopulations will out-reproduce the educated ones.
I teach high school biology (I actually use some of your blogs in my AP class) and I get to directly witness just how few of the students care about their education or improving their minds.
MANY people who do not see the advantage of the investment in knowledge.
we cannot allow all these people to go jobless and homeless or perish. So will we end up with a nationwide reflection of what I see in my school where the few that are educated are dwarfed by the uneducated?
What do we do with all those people?
Maybe you can clear something up for me. In the past year or so, I've seen one or two articles about rises in early puberty, for example, this article: link. If this is actually a thing and it seems like it might be, is it significant enough to (eventually) have an effect on those incremental stages of delayed procreation that your paper talks about?
Early puberty may be being caused by abundance. Our abundance makes our biology 'think': "you've got all this new found stable energy! Why aren't you using it to maximize biological fitness! Have kids, have kids quicker! Have more of them!" If we weren't bio-cultural creatures - that is exactly what would happen. Whenever a species experiences a random windfall of energy - they reproduce like crazy until their population crashes. However, what we are seeing throughout the developed world is a decline in fertility. A tremendous decline. The world fertility rate is at or below 2.4. Over 90 countries are below 2 fertility rate (replacement level is 2.1). There are over 30 countries with below 1.5 fertility rate using 2013 statistics. In my explanation, what is happening is that cultural reproduction is supplanting biological reproduction. We are making culturally mediated decisions to not have kids. If we take my modified version of life history theory to account for cultural evolution, this can be easily explained. The more abundance we have and the longer we live, the less likely we are to biologically reproduce. If we take that to its logical extreme, a world of energy abundance and a world of radical life extension, will be a world without very many - if any - biological offspring.
What about these fertility programs run by governments? For example, I know that Japan and Singapore (and maybe Russia?) have created incentives to get their citizens to have kids, such as tax breaks and government support. Right now these programs don't really seem to have much traction, but let's say that job creation around the world remains sluggish and automation becomes more and more commonplace. These programs might begin to be a kind of "labor" (no pun intended, seriously) for a portion of the populace, no? I guess what I'm really getting at is, how unshakable do view this trend in cultural reproduction?
This view requires the continuation of two trends that were ignited with the Industrial Revolution (which caused the demograhic transition), that being: more energy, and longer lives. These two features fundamentally rupture human life history - and I'm arguing that it is all part of a fourth major primate life history transition (in my view particularly, I view this as one massive transition out of the animal kingdom, but that is for another paper). So, if we get abundant energy globally (which is unlikely short-term, but likely between 2050-2075), and if we extend our life expectancy beyond 80 (which is likely before 2050), than we will see cultural reproduction come to pre-dominate completely over biological reproduction (according to the Life History Theory I detail in the paper). Government programs to stop this will end in failure. The only way they could force people to reproduce is to control their lives with force - and that won't go down in a world with abundant energy (and a global brain). Governments will also worry about this less when radical life extension moves from theory to practical reality.I guess what I'm really getting at is, how unshakable do view this trend in cultural reproduction?
I was really envisioning less of a government forcing a population into re-population and more of a circumstance where people might find the programs appealing as in, "there are no jobs, but people can 'work' for the government by increasing the population in exchange for wages". I can see how repopulation might be less of an issue in a world with radical life extension, though I imagine that new problems would arise in such a society.Government programs to stop this will end in failure. The only way they could force people to reproduce is to control their lives with force - and that won't go down in a world with abundant energy (and a global brain).
Abundant energy = jobs completely redefined (i.e., you won't necessarily need a "job"). The early stages of a transition towards this type of new economy (which are still blurry), should be instituted with a universal basic income (UBI). Basically, we should have enough energy to make sure that no one goes without shelter, food, water, etc. This is possible now - if we had competent governments this would already be happening - but with abundant energy this would certainly happen. There are always problems. The point of this paper (as stated in the paper) is to identify the non-problems - one of the biggest being - overpopulation as a result of radical life extension."there are no jobs, but people can 'work' for the government by increasing the population in exchange for wages".
I can see how repopulation might be less of an issue in a world with radical life extension, though I imagine that new problems would arise in such a society.
I look forward to reading the piece/series Cadell.
It's not a series, it's just one paper. PDF is attached.
Nice! Thanks, I'll check it out this afternoon.