Society’s Genetic Challenge

Our genes are the central beings of Nature – the powers that be. We, like all species, are merely vessels for their containment. Our human behaviours are governed by our genes. We live, we procreate, and we raise our offspring on the basis of what is good for our genes. We act on their commands.

Early in our evolution, our genes identified a problem: the human form was not a particularly effective structure for ensuring survival. Although the human species had developed a high level of intelligence, there were no guarantees for its long-term prospects. It needed additional adaptation to ensure its survival in a harsh natural environment.

In marketing terms, humanity needed a USP – a unique selling proposition – something to give it an edge.

Without any game-changing physical endowments, humanity, directed by our genes, used its intelligence to pursue an alternative course of development. We identified that, by cooperating together, we could be a much more potent force, and so we evolved the genetic essentials required to form societal relationships.

By living and working together, humanity could thereby acquire the means to ensure its genetic survival.

Societal organisation – living together – is our support structure. It has provided us with food, shelter, protection – all the things our species needs for its survival. In fact, society has been humanity’s great saviour. By communal living, we have been able to overcome the environmental forces that would have put such a strain on our continued existence. It has given us strength over Nature. Without it, we would be weak and impotent, and our survival would have been in jeopardy.

Society has undoubtedly saved us from the tyranny of Nature.

However, just as with any life choices, there are always implications in the decisions that we make. Not only does the selection of one path mean that we are obliged to forsake other genetic possibilities, but, more significantly, we should also realise that there will be longer-term consequences of our chosen action – evolution shapes both us and our future.

Significantly, the development of societal living has exposed us to five vulnerabilities that could potentially threaten our future:

• Mixed Messaging.

Society’s influence and pervasiveness have grown massively, making it an environmental force in its own right. For most of us, we live more in the societal world than we do in the natural world.

Such is our societal development that we have created a bubble for ourselves. Nature exists all around us, but we have separated and continue to separate ourselves from it. We have established a world within a world. Nature now only exists on the periphery of our lives.

In fact, society is so dominant and all-encompassing that it has become our new Living Environment, and it is to this that we are now evolving. Our evolutionary guidance system has changed. We are now forsaking those genetic qualities that would be beneficial within Nature for those that are advantageous within society.

Those genes that prevail tend to be those that prosper in society rather than those that thrive in Nature.

As society has grown in stature and significance, becoming our Living Environment, the pressure on our genes to identify, nurture and adapt to those attributes that thrive in a societal structure has increased. This is because certain genetic qualities are more desirable in a societal environment, whereas in a natural environment, other qualities would be more preferable.

In society, we value sociability, communication skills, compassion, and empathy; in Nature, we value strength, speed, fitness and health.

A good example of a human genetic attribute that receives very different treatment in society and Nature is the quality of our eyesight. In society, we don’t concern ourselves too much with weakened eyesight – we can compensate for poor vision; in Nature, it is a life-saving necessity.

Each environment brings a different perspective to the condition of our eyes, which will affect the prioritisation of our genes.

The genetic demands of society do not always align with those of Nature. Sometimes they will be contradictory, sometimes conflictual.

This gives our genes a dilemma: to which environment should they direct themselves? Do they adapt according to what is required in Nature or to that which flourishes in society? Which is in their best interests? Do they prioritise one environment over the other, or, as they seem to be doing, should they strive to pursue a delicate genetic balancing act?

Caught between two powerful, competing forces, our genes walk a tightrope as both society and Nature actively court them.

Difficulties and confusion regarding the mixed messaging will inevitably arise.

It would be like an employee with two bosses, each giving different instructions – how does the employee know whom to obey or what to do?

How can there be loyalty to two masters? Given that each requires different attributes, how can we satisfy both? In our attempts to please both, do we merely end up pleasing neither?

Of course, by choosing the most beneficial adaptations, our genes might be considering not only the prevailing environment but also the one that will be there in the longer term. We really do not know whether or not our genes have any sense of a future. Like many other forms of life, they may only recognise the past and the present. For them, the future may not be an evaluable consideration in choosing their evolutionary course.

This does not mean, however, that they cannot be cautious or circumspect in their selection of evolutionary adaptations.

How confident are our genes in thinking that society will be an effective mechanism for ensuring human survival? How fearful are they that Nature might initiate an onslaught that humanity, with its societal protection, could not withstand (a virus, perhaps)?

It may be that our genes are reluctant to give up too many of Nature’s genetic characteristics for fear that, one day, they may need them again.

Our societal existence is only a blip in evolutionary development, whereas Nature has existed for billions of years. Who knows whether or when Nature will want to resume its direction and domination of humanity’s genetic activity?

Nature, like a cat toying with a mouse, may just be giving us a bit of slack. Should Nature wish, it could end the game at any time it chooses!

Although society may be seeking to challenge Nature’s hegemony, Nature is also probably fairly confident that it has the upper hand; that it can regain its dominance; that it will ultimately triumph.

In fact, Nature has a proven record. Whenever and wherever humanity is displaced, Nature quickly regains a foothold and re-establishes control – for example, at the Chernobyl nuclear site following the disaster, where, without a human presence, the wildlife has thrived. Nature has also recovered from past mass extinctions. It is an adjustment that Nature is more than capable of making.

• Unnatural Behaviour.

There is a stark behavioural contrast between living in a natural world and living in society. Living in society requires us to be generous to and supportive of others. This is not a thought process that tends to prevail in Nature.

In Nature, our instincts are to be selfish and greedy; to act separately, to do what is in our own best interests; to prioritise our own genes over those of others. The emphasis is on the individual. Certain conditions proliferate, namely, freedom, self-governance and solitariness. Nature thrives on self-interest. By acting in our own best interests, we can secure the best outcomes for us. And that is all that really matters – doing what is right for us and our genes.

In society, we challenge Nature’s superiority. We can’t just think of ourselves and what is good for us. We can’t behave as we naturally would. Society has rules and expected behaviours. In a societal existence, we live together; we cooperate and support one another. In so doing, we provide safety, support and protection. The emphasis is on reducing conflict, inequality and injustice.

This requires a very different set of behaviours from those we would exhibit in Nature.

It is this behavioural divergence that exposes us to a vulnerability, which suggests we might not be able to uphold a harmonious relationship with our prevailing environment.

The contrasting modus operandi between Nature and society is most clearly demonstrated in the foundation of evolution – reproduction.

Nature operates a reproductive system whereby, through natural selection, the best of the species – acting with self-interest and with no regard for others – can command the best reproductive partners and can thereby genetically prosper. The future of a species is secured through the survival and procreation of those most adapted to their environment, usually the fittest and strongest.

By this reproductive process, the weak and less desirable are filtered out of the species. It’s a tough, challenging environment – second chances are rare, safety nets are lacking, and good Samaritans are non-existent.

But, ultimately, this is beneficial for the survival of the entire species.

Society, in contrast, is much more supportive and protective. Humanity is expected to demonstrate consideration, compassion and care for others. There is no “survival of the fittest” regimen. There isn’t much quality control or a filtration process. Sub-standard genes are able to continue. Weak and imperfect offspring – supported by a welfare state and a benevolent society – are able to survive and proliferate.

The vulnerability that this could generate is that these inferior genes may undermine our genetic base – they can become a burden, a dilution and a distraction.

In terms of reproduction, this approach of society may perhaps be justified as a means of raising the average by lifting up the base. By caring for individuals with genetic disadvantages, society seeks to improve the overall condition of the species. We are lifting from the bottom rather than pulling from the top.

The risk is that the more we support second-rate genes, the more we weaken ourselves in relation to the wider world. These weaker genes place an ever-growing pressure on the structures required to sustain them. This means that society has to work ever harder to support the population and fend off Nature’s constant, lurking threat. Society therefore has to constantly increase its strength, reach, and activities to protect our species.

This does not necessarily mean that we should not support weak, defective or non-viable genes; it merely suggests that we need to be aware of the consequences of doing so.

• Man-made Construct.

Society is our creation, designed by us, built by us. As a man-made construct, society has no instructions, no limitations, no oversight. We have full control over it. We direct its actions and development in line with our own ambitions.

So, with society as our Living Environment, with society having taken over from Nature as the underlying force and guide for genetic change, we are now genetically adapting to something that is of our own creation, of our own specification. Our evolution is no longer so much governed by Nature but by ourselves.

This carries certain dangers.

The problem is that society is made to our design, for our choice of purpose. It’s down to us to decide what it looks like, what it does, and how it operates. As a man-made device, it can be weak and ineffectual, used and abused. It can be structured to achieve misguided, mistaken goals; it can function with prejudice and irrationality; it can be governed to favour certain interests.

Separated from Nature, there is no managerial supervision, no checks and balances, no thinking of the bigger picture.

We are increasingly evolving based on which genes will fare well in a societal environment. This means that we are becoming objects of our own making. We make society; society makes us – our attitudes, our behaviour, even, given time, our physicality. We are, in fact, feeding off our own architectural creation.

It is a form of inbreeding. And, without a wider array of genetic influences, the danger is that humanity will go on to develop some kind of congenital defect, a fault that could bring about the onset of our destruction.

Perhaps even more threatening, when humanity fully embraces genetic engineering – which it inevitably will – we will be taking away even more of the power of our genes to choose their direction of travel. We will make those decisions ourselves.

Questions have to be asked. Do we really know what is best? Do we really know what is right? Do we really know what is good for us?

The problem may also be exacerbated by the fact that we have such a belief in society. Society saved us from Nature, protecting us from it, distancing us from it. If we have issues, then society will resolve them.

We are the one-club golfer, reliant entirely on society as our saviour.

We believe that the more society is able to distance and shield us from the forces, vagaries and shackles of Nature, the better it serves humanity. This intent drives an insatiable appetite to progress our society, which is one of the reasons why technology and science now pervade all our lives.

Consequently, we are becoming more insular. We may have a relationship with society, but we increasingly lack a connection with Nature.

• Diversionary Temptation.

Societal living – and this is part of its great attraction – has made life easier and better for us.

With our survival reasonably assured, life isn’t so much of a struggle. There’s more to life than merely surviving. We have actually acquired free time. Society has given us greater control over our personal lives. As such, we now believe we should be better able to live as we choose rather than as Nature requires.

And so we want comforts, pleasures, indulgences.

To satisfy this need, society brings us new interests and recreational pursuits. Embracing these attractions, we have become preoccupied with the satisfying of our own personal fulfilment.

This means that as society has progressed, as we have become more integrated into societal living, we have become increasingly diverted from our genetic focus and responsibility – the very purpose of our being.

We have lost or are losing our Genetic Priority – the notion that our actions should always be in the best interests of our genes.

Instead, we want to get more out of life, more for ourselves. We want job satisfaction; we want fancy holidays, we want sexual satisfaction; we want to live in well-furnished houses; we want to eat and drink pleasurable foods; we want to get the full benefit of the gains we are making in our social, economic and technological development.

These are all diversionary temptations that distract us from the real purpose of life.

Doing the best we can for our genes has become secondary. Our genes no longer rule over us. We have lost our Genetic Priority. This may well weaken our genetic strength, the very essence of what has enabled us to survive for as long as we have.

• Incongruity.

In theory, there is a similar connection within the two driving forces of change: between Nature and its relationship with the natural environment and between humanity and its association with society.

Nature shapes its environment, but then that environment determines the evolutionary choices made, which in turn establish changes within Nature. Similarly, humanity develops society, but as society advances, it also shapes our human development.

Each shapes the other, their progress and futures being intertwined. But there is also a stark practical contrast in the two relationships.

In Nature, the adaptive process is slow and steady – deliberately so. It has to be, to ensure the maintenance of the delicate balance between the two operating forces of Nature and the environment. Each acts independently, but neither is master of the other, neither having any dominance over the other. They operate in tandem, feeding off each other, shaping each other.

It’s an inspired arrangement that ensures sustained progress whilst also enabling and encouraging change. As a species’ adaptation affects an environment, that changed environment affects other species. Through this process of perpetual evolution (excluding the occasional cataclysmic event), dramatic change and disruption are largely prevented.

Contrast this with humanity’s relationship with society. Society is prone to rapid, sudden and substantive change – change that may not be matched by a parallel human evolutionary development. As a result, humanity is in danger of being unable to adapt sufficiently and quickly enough to cope with a changing environment.

As such, there may well develop an increasing incongruity or discord between humanity and society.

It would be like running down a hillside. We’re going faster and faster. At some point, our legs won’t be able to keep up with the momentum, and we will tumble.

This potential incongruity arises because human change and adaptation are still largely governed by Nature. We may have separated ourselves from substantial parts of Nature, but in one fundamental area. We are still subject to Nature’s rules – reproduction.

Nature remains the basis for our continued state of being. Biologically, Nature is still responsible for shaping us into who we are today.

Given this reproductive limitation, there is a real danger that, in our efforts to offset the threat of Nature or even just to drive society in our chosen direction, we can strive to advance society at a pace faster than we can genetically adapt to.

It is this discrepancy between the pace of societal change and our reliance on Nature’s gradual evolutionary reproductive process that may threaten our long-term survival. With these forces out of kilter, we may increasingly suffer from alienation, disharmony and disillusionment.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to gauge how far down these routes of vulnerability we are and the extent to which they represent a threat to our human existence. Nor is it possible to assess whether these vulnerabilities are singular threats or whether they can be compounded, thereby becoming even more onerous.

The one thing that we can be sure of, though, is that societal living has and will continue to impact our existence as a species. We do need to be fully aware that there are genetic consequences for the way we choose to live our lives and that we must recognise the potential dangers to our continued survival as a species.

In terms of avoiding these issues, there are two possible solutions that stand out:

Firstly, we could try to put the brake on progress. By limiting societal advancement, we would give our evolutionary development a chance to align properly with society, allowing humanity to keep pace with the rate and direction of societal change.

However, the prospects of this happening are unlikely. The desire for progress seems to be a conveyor belt that we would be reluctant to step off.

Secondly, we could pursue genetic engineering as an evolutionary corrective.

Given that our societal world is changing so quickly, it may be that our genes and their selection process cannot keep pace with that change. Perhaps, singularly, Nature is no longer up to the job. Perhaps Nature needs our support and involvement.

By embracing genetic engineering, we could bypass or supplement Nature’s reproductive role and shape humanity in accordance with the demands of our prevailing societal environment.

Unfortunately, as we have observed, there is an underlying flaw in pursuing this action. It may solve some of the problems, for instance, incongruity – by improving humanity’s evolutionary performance in relation to our societal environment – but it would also directly contribute to the inbreeding issue in that it increases our genetic self-build.

The more we try to shape ourselves, the more we potentially sow the seeds of our own downfall.

Inevitably, given humanity’s drive for progress and belief in our capabilities, genetic engineering will have to be our chosen means to resolve any perilous chasm that might arise between human evolution and societal progress. Genetic engineering (as we will describe later) is something that we will have to get more involved with. There is no other realistic option.

The trouble with genetic engineering is that we’re damned if we do; we’re damned if we don’t.

Perhaps the time has come to ask some fundamental questions: What is driving society? Is it doing its best for us as a species? What is it ultimately hoping to achieve? Where is it taking us?

It’s that most disliked and awkward of job interview questions: “Where do you see yourself in five years’ time?” Can we ask the same of us as a species? “Where will the human species be in fifty, a hundred, a thousand years’ time?”

For other interesting blogs on this subject area, check out Articles or the Article Index