Say Goodbye to Darwinian Evolution

Freeman Dyson is a venerated physicist. He claims that it is time to say goodbye to Darwinian evolution within the next fifty years. He believes that biotechnology will pervade everyday life. This idea is not new in itself, but Dyson paints the picture with uncommon clarity. According to Dyson many of our chemical industries will be replaced by "Green" industries.

Green technology could replace most of our existing chemical industries and a large part of our mining and manufacturing industries. Genetically engineered earthworms could extract common metals such as aluminum and titanium from clay, and genetically engineered seaweed could extract magnesium or gold from seawater. Green technology could also achieve more extensive recycling of waste products and worn-out machines, with great benefit to the environment. An economic system based on green technology could come much closer to the goal of sustainability, using sunlight instead of fossil fuels as the primary source of energy. New species of termite could be engineered to chew up derelict automobiles instead of houses, and new species of tree could be engineered to convert carbon dioxide and sunlight into liquid fuels instead of cellulose.

However how we are supposed to proceed from today, where biotechnology is sparse, to the tomorrow of prevalent biotechnology is still up for debate.

Dyson also claims that Darwinian evolution is coming to an end:

We are moving rapidly into the post-Darwinian era, when species other than our own will no longer exist, and the rules of Open Source sharing will be extended from the exchange of software to the exchange of genes. Then the evolution of life will once again be communal, as it was in the good old days before separate species and intellectual property were invented.

I'm skeptical, but it's an interesting read anyway. Check out the entire article:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20370

I'm skeptical as well, especially with the gene-sharing. There will be a lot of people resisting, not to mention corporations will be wanting to keep anything from becoming 'Open Source'. I don't think evolution will ever become 'Communal' again, I'm pretty sure that bridge has long been burned.

The green economy thing in your first quote is interesting though, those would be some pretty serious tasks for biological engineering.

Yea, while Dyson may be a renowned physicist, he's too much of a futurist for me.

Honestly, that seems to have quite a bit of Transcendent thought, too much to be realistic.

I think he underestimates the greed of humanity.

I could see it happening in socialist societies, however. While corporations don't really have any incentive to switch over to green technology, governments might.

Honestly, I don't think our government would switch if the Corps weren't interested. There's entirely too much influence there.

As much fun as his Green technology theories sound, does anyone else see the problem with genetically engineered termites that eat substances other than wood? If those things got loose, we'd all be F'd in the A.

I'm definitely noting a hint of the ramblings of a futurist here, but someone has to be looking forward. If you read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (and believe what Thomas Kuhn has to say in it), science is perpetually experiencing paradigm shifts. As progress is made in a particular field and discoveries build upon each other, eventually the entire scientific community undergoes a change so drastic that new possibilities open that were never before thought possible (take the discovery of the round earth, for instance). It definitely seems that we could be approaching one of these paradigm shifts. That's not to say that Dyson is accurate in his specific predictions. Given where we are technologically, though, who is to say what is out of reach.

Oh, and I agree on the whole corporate/government link.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Off-topic, but you're my hero. I finished that book about a week ago, and you're the only person I know now other than myself who has read the book.

I had to read it last summer for a core course called Understanding Information. It was surprisingly good. Much better than some of the other required reading for that course.

Gene splicing, biomechanics...all the same thing. Our minds are still evolving. Unless all mankind becomes sterile, it will still be Darwinian evolution.

"Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun."

True, we'd still evolve, but it would not be Darwinian evolution, as we would have basically slaughtered the process of natural selection.

Gene splicing, biomechanics...all the same thing. Our minds are still evolving. Unless all mankind becomes sterile, it will still be Darwinian evolution. "Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun."

Darwinian Evolution is based on the concept of Natural Selection. If we're able to bypass Natural Selection with the ability to correct flaws before they manifest, how could it be considered Darwinian?

Edit: Looks like Mj said the same thing.

Interesting theory but a bit dramatic. Even if we have rampant biotech that is certainly not going to stop humans from making and keeping furry creatures with pleasant or exaggerated features for their amusement.

I see a battle going on between "intellect" and natural order (even though we all know who has the upper hand ). We build everything around us to keep out big scary dangerous nature. Watching commercials for disinfectants worries me even more. We are going to kill ourselves with this healthcare business. :/

Anyway this rant is too fuckin' disjointed to make sense!

Cannot stop Darwinian Evolution or Natural Selection. At the risk of sounding lame(er) nature always finds a way.

Cannot stop Darwinian Evolution or Natural Selection. At the risk of sounding lame(er) nature always finds a way.

Sure you can. Government imposed eugenics.

MJ even though eugenics may be logical in a biological sense it is so far off the social acceptance scale that it could never be enacted in a modern government after WWII unless something pretty substantial happens.

I'm actually not sure that it is logical from a biological perspective. For the record, I am both scientifically and ethically against eugenics. I was simply stating that natural selection could be bypassed through systematic eugenics.

Well I think eugenics messes up natural selection in a way that what you create will not be suited for its environment unless you have cosmically perfect knowledge of everything. However, this idea of artificial evolution being the next step gives me some interesting thoughts. I picture the iconic image of the "Alien being" that is always described (lithe, grey, sexless, faceless, cold, neutral, frail) and I think that describes a being totally dependant on technology and completely without natural enemies. Sounds like where we could be heading if we succeed (we will) in creating our own version of the universe from the information we have built around us.

I will always be more powerful than biotechnology.

My friend, you are biotechnology!