Society has an intrinsic flaw, a weakness that generates a perilous vulnerability, something that, ultimately, may well threaten humanity’s existence.

And although it may sound rather melodramatic, even scaremongering, by observing societal development we can see that there is an evolutionary logic to it.

Society was created as our defensive mechanism to protect us from the vagaries and savageries of Nature. By living together, humanity could support and provide for one another to better ensure our overall survival.

It was a very clever and effective arrangement. Rather than waiting for Nature to generate genetic adaptations to strengthen our survivability, we could do it ourselves. Living together meant that we could be much more resilient and detached from Nature. Nature didn’t necessarily have to dominate our lives as it used to do in our pre-societal state.

Having realised the advantageousness of this evolutionary course, we have advanced it as far and as quickly as possible. In fact, we continue to strive to progress our standing vis-à-vis Nature. We believe that the more we can expand society – socially, economically, technologically – the more protection and opportunity it will afford us and the less under the sway of Nature we will be.

Our continued existence, our dominance across the planet and our relatively comfortable quality of life suggests that this has been a very effective survival strategy. Society has done pretty well for us.

And yet this success may carry with it a danger that threatens our future. This is because our societal development will inevitably have a bearing on our genetic make-up. Society will begin to shape humanity. It may happen in a couple of ways:

Firstly, 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 – it’s 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. Those genes that prevail tend to be those that prosper in society rather than those that thrive in Nature.

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. We are evolving to a world of our own making.

The second mechanism by which society may impact our genetic make-up arises because Nature and society have two very different modus operandi. Nature operates a reproductive system whereby – through natural selection – weak and undesirable genes are eradicated and only the strongest, most beneficial genes survive. It’s a tough, challenging environment – second chances are rare, safety nets are lacking and good Samaritans are non-existent.

Society, in contrast, is much more supportive, protective and compassionate. With regard to genetic selection, without a “survival of the fittest” regimen, there isn’t much of a quality control, filtration process. Sub-standard genes are able to continue. Weak and imperfect off-spring – supported by a welfare state and benevolent society – are able to survive and proliferate.

This means that we are effectively undermining our genetic base. The quality of our genetic resource is being diluted. It exposes a potential vulnerability.

Thankfully, in shielding us from the unsurvivability of Nature, we still have society as our saviour, offsetting our genetic frailties. And, so far, society has been sufficiently able to uphold the burden it has taken on.

But what if that load becomes too great?

The concern is that these two evolutionary developments may become of significance with a resurgent Nature. If our societal bubble bursts and if Nature suddenly becomes more dominant (perhaps through climate change, viral epidemic, nuclear disaster) then our genetic weakness and remoteness from Nature’s core genetic requirements will become apparent.

There is no guarantee that society would be able to overcome the revitalised forces of Nature.

What would then happen to humanity if, once again, we were exposed to the demands and struggles of Nature? How would we cope if we had to return to a more natural existence?

Other species which have continued to focus on their genetic priority may be better prepared for the emergence of a new Nature, meaning that, as we flounder, other species – those more genetically in tune with that new environment – may be better suited to surviving and prospering.

Within society, as such a threat approaches, we are liable to see a growing divergence between the genetically strongest and the genetically weak. It raises the question that is at the bedrock of societal living: will the strongest within our species want to continue to support the weak at an ever increasing cost? After all, if somebody doesn’t bring something to the party, are we that bothered about inviting them?

There is, however, a powerful counter-argument to this. Some of those weak genes (we don’t know which ones, hence our universal approach) may have certain qualities which could be advantageous for our future. Such genes would not survive in Nature but with the right support they could flourish in society and go on to make a valuable contribution to our development.

Society therefore, by supporting the less able, enables us to tap into other genetic possibilities, ones that might not otherwise be available to us.

By opting for society as our evolutionary course, humanity does risk generating disharmony; externally, between itself and Nature as our genes evolve in a very different direction to that which Nature would specify, and also, internally, with regard to the discord which might arise within humanity as different groups become less tolerant of each other, particularly in relation to those that may seem to be a burden.

Society – striving for self-preservation and thereby the maintenance of humanity – will have to work ever harder to reconcile these pressures. As such, we have to wonder at the capacity of society to continue to fulfil this ever-expanding role.

Hence the vulnerability; society – our evolutionary saviour – may carry the seed of our species’ demise.

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