As regulars on sci.bio.evolution are aware I'm a big fan of Stephen Hawking's comments on areas
outside his expertise of theoretical physics. Not that I wouldn't necessarily be a fan of his
physics ideas..I just don't understand them. In any event, some may be unaware of Stephen Hawking's
ideas regarding aggression so here's a list....(paraphrasing them)
(a) The human species can't wait for Darwinian evolution to catch up. Biologically we haven't
changed in thousands of years but in terms of "cultural evolution" ie technology and science
there have been great changes...particularly within the last 200 years. As a result, there has
been a tremendous lag between our biology and scientific and technological advances. Cultural
evolution as represented by scientific and technological advances has far outpaced our biology.
(b) The advent of written language and the printing press enabled the mass dissemination of
information. Currently our DNA only contains so many bits of information. According to Hawking
he would have to travel at 60mph just to keep up with the end of all the new information which
is being disseminated. Hawking has stated we need to make our DNA more complex so that our
biological systems aren't superceded by computers. I don't think this is too much of a threat as
I think we would destroy ourselves long before that was possible. I don't know much about
computers but there is something called Moore's Law which states every few years computers
double in their information.
(c) Hawking has stated the greatest challenge we face is from our aggressive instincts. He has
stated we can't wait for Darwinian evolution to remove aggression. In our evolutionary past
aggression was imprinted on our DNA through natural selection and was necessary for survival. It
protected us from other animal predators. Today, most of us no longer live in caves and have to
face other animal predators but aggression is still imprinted on our DNA.
(d) Hawking has stated it will be at least a hundred years before we understand the biological
mechanisms of aggression and through genetic engineering be able to remove it. I think 100 years
is an optimistic projection. I would be more inclined to say 200 years.
(e) Hawking has stated we as a species won't change much in the next 100 years. That much I agree
with and when one thinks about all the horrors which occured in the 20th century I'm not looking
forward to it.
(f) Natural selection still operates but it has been weakened by advances in science, medicine and
technology. Overpopulation is a serious problem and threat. Even with all the wars, famine and
disease in the world the human population continues to grow. There are some countries where the
birth rate has declined such as in Singapore, France, etc. but generally the world human
population continues to grow. Unless sensible measures are taken to control human population
growth it will take a cataclysm of some sort (such as a widespread nuclear war or genetically
engineered virus) to signifigantly reduce the human population. Whether this could be considered
"natural selection" or just misfortune I leave to the reader.
(g) Hawking has stated when germline genetic engineering of humans does become possible governments
will ban it. I think there are already a few countries such as Germany and Japan which have
banned it. I'm not sure. Maybe even if its not possible yet some countries have banned it. In
any event, it boils down should humans continue to rely totally on natural selection or should
governments make conscious decisions which will shape the genetic makeups of their populations
through genetic engineering? I think the answer has to be the latter. The "How" is where it gets
interesting. The first common use of germline genetic engineering will likely be the removal of
certain genetic diseases. As we learn more genetic engineering will be used on traits such as
aggression, aspects of intelligence, etc.
(h) Hawking has stated this will eventually create social and political problems. Increasingly
through genetic engineering superior human specimens will come into being and they will be in
conflict with the population which has not been genetically engineered. My favorite quote of
Hawking is "It's uncertain whether intelligence has any long term survival value. Bacteria do
quite well without it."
Do readers agree or disagree with any of these ideas?