"Sir David Attenborough says humans have stopped evolving"

[Skwim]

'Sir David Attenborough has said that he is not optimistic about the future and that people should be persuaded against having large families.

​

The broadcaster and naturalist, who earlier this year described humans as “a plague on Earth”, also said he believed humans have stopped evolving physically and genetically because of birth control and abortion, but that cultural evolution is proceeding “with extraordinary swiftness.”

“We stopped natural selection as soon as we started being able to rear 90-95% of our babies that are born. We are the only species to have put a halt to natural selection, of its own free will, as it were,” he tells this week’s Radio Times.'
source

​

While I agree that "people should be persuaded against having large families," it would be interesting to hear why he believes birth control and abortions stifle human evolution.

Anyone here want to give it a shot?

 

[Quagmire]

Well of course we're still evolving. The question is: in what direction?

 

[LuisDantas]

I agree with his advice, but his arguments to support it don't make a lot of sense.

I fear he just doesn't understand evolution despite finding it important.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

'Sir David Attenborough has said that he is not optimistic about the future and that people should be persuaded against having large families.

​

The broadcaster and naturalist, who earlier this year described humans as “a plague on Earth”, also said he believed humans have stopped evolving physically and genetically because of birth control and abortion, but that cultural evolution is proceeding “with extraordinary swiftness.”

“We stopped natural selection as soon as we started being able to rear 90-95% of our babies that are born. We are the only species to have put a halt to natural selection, of its own free will, as it were,” he tells this week’s Radio Times.'
source

​

While I agree that "people should be persuaded against having large families," it would be interesting to hear why he believes birth control and abortions stifle human evolution.

Anyone here want to give it a shot?

I've heard the argument before. lm not supporting it, but the premise is that anything impacting on 'survival of the fittest' can erode the 'normal evolutionary process'.

So you could have the 'best' genes being aborted. Meanwhile, medical science, etc combine to ensure that
those who are born are far more likely to be able to reproduce regardless of fitness.

I think it's fair to suggest the theory is a little onthe simple side, but perhaps there's more to it? That's how l've heard it in the past, though.

 

[philbo]

We've stopped natural selection in its tracks, especially for things (such as infertility) which used to be fairly critical.

Come to think of it, most genetic selection pressures are largely irrelevant to humanity, so I can see what he means; however, that doesn't mean evolution has stopped forever. What worries me is that the film Idiocracy is going to be closer to prophesy than satire..

 

[BioStudent]

Humans, especially in the past few centuries, have greatly slowed the pace of evolution by adapting through technloy and medicine rather than physical traits. In a way, the evolution of ideas and technology has taken the place of evolution by natural selection. I think Attenborough is oversimplifying slightly, but his general point is correct.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Ha ha ha! !

Like biology will listen to the fella.

 

[dgirl1986]

Well of course we're still evolving. The question is: in what direction?

True dat

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There's simply not enough humans being aborted to stifle evolution.

I don't see how he can argue on the one hand that abortion is so significant that it stifles human evolution AND we should have less children.

And if he thinks humans are a plague, why does't he just kill himself?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There's simply not enough humans being aborted to stifle evolution.

I don't see how he can argue on the one hand that abortion is so significant that it stifles human evolution AND we should have less children.

And if he thinks humans are a plague, why does't he just kill himself?

I think his point is more generic. There are a lot of man-made factors which subvert the 'natural evolutionary process'. Abortion, birth control and medical science are examples. Our ability to eliminate predators and grow large amounts of food.

If you look from a purely naturalist point of view,how would you describe a predatory species which has a population growing exponentially yet has an increasing ability to survive disease, source food and protect itself from external predators?

As for him suiciding I would imagine he can rationalize doing more good through raising awareness than harm through his resource utilisation.

 

[Willamena]

It's rhetoric.

 

[RedJamaX]

We've stopped natural selection in its tracks, especially for things (such as infertility) which used to be fairly critical.

Come to think of it, most genetic selection pressures are largely irrelevant to humanity, so I can see what he means; however, that doesn't mean evolution has stopped forever. What worries me is that the film Idiocracy is going to be closer to prophesy than satire..

If only we could make all children sterile at birth... then require that they pass a test to qualify to have children again ...

Ok, I jest... but seriously... we do need to address the serious lack of education to most of the world... Perhaps that would shift the balance of natural selection that me have manually adjusted...

 

[LuisDantas]

Let's see if I can make a formal attempt at refuting his view.

1. Evolution is not a duty, nor is it even directed towards any particular type of change. It is also not cooperative with lifeforms; on the contrary, it involves their constant competition for limited resources, and it does not even have the means to attempt to be "fair". It is not a benefactor that we should keep on our good side, because it has no good side, or even a bad side. It just is. It does not assign missions to lifeforms and hopes for their dedication; it pits them all against each other literally for their lives. There is no good reason to refuse to challenge it, and it is arguably not even possible to try.

2. Evolution takes a number of generations to cause significant changes, and our recorded history is very recent indeed. The choices that he disapproves of are just a very few generations old, to the point that it is impossible to even argue whether he is right.

3. "Stopping natural selection" (among humans, I assume) is at the end of the day just being succesful at taking control of our collective survival and well-being. It is certainly not a bad thing in and of itself.

4. The main worthy differential of humans is exactly their intelectual capability. We have no good reason to put our biological characteristics ahead of it. And above all, we have no good reason to want to make our biological future uncertain and subject to the winds of natural selection. Natural selection is neither wise, nor fair, nor benevolent, while humans have at least the potential to have any or all of those attributes.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

There are very few factors which shape evolution in humans:
1. The reduction of the winnowing of our population (including those with less beneficial genes), through societal care and technological advances (offset somewhat by our self absorption)
2. Providing more individuals (in comparison to natural selection) the opportunity to produce offspring with a limited number of potential partners through the practice of a higher degree of monogamy (offset somewhat by our tendency to cheat)
3. Inconsistent selection criteria used by females to select biological father of children (offset somewhat by societal trends, though impermanent, towards certain characteristics)

Within sexually reproductive species, Women are afterall those who determine what changes evolution leans towards producing in the following generation. Subjective characteristics that are effected by society and change over time provide limited uniformity for a sustained effort to predispose the future generations to some specific evolutionary outcome, particularly when an approach such as monogamy is used to further obstruct the process. We haven't 'stopped' evolving, it is simply that our evolution is inconsistent and is therefore unlikely to produce significant outcomes in the future provided that our breeding habits remain as they have (though perhaps through technology we might one day augment this process through artificial selection or even artificial alteration).


edit:
4. The attempt to reduce the prevalence of completed reproduction; whether it be through family planning, prevention or abortion (offset somewhat by lack of education, lack of wealth and so forth)

Especially when combined with 2 this results in a larger proportion of individuals each producing a smaller number of offspring, reducing the prevalence of specific genes within the next generation, i.e. it reduces the probability that future offspring will have similar traits shaping evolve in a certain direction.

 

[philbo]

There are very few factors which shape evolution in humans:

One more for you:
A dislike of people that "aren't like us"
..which will tend to stymie any continued progression away from a norm.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I would include this within 3, I believe that this would be an inconsistent, temporal characteristic, not sustained for long enough to result in biological predispositions (more than we already have) however it is indeed likely to remain a societal predisposition and thus enshrined within cultural and memetic evolution.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

"Stopped" and "loss of direction" are two very different things. We will still have genetic drift.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

But that is just it, evolution occurs as a result of sustained breeding habits which see the prevalence of certain genes being passed onto the next generation increase as time goes on (for as long as those conditions persist). If there is a lack of direction then the breeding habits are NOT sustained, i.e. there is no significant underlying predisposition for a certain subset of genes to be more prevalent in the next generation. His position is not incorrect if one looks at it in terms of the effects of evolution, it is merely that the process of evolution within modern humanity has been retarded by (amusingly enough) our intellect's ability to determine extremely heterogeneous breeding selection criteria.

 

[dust1n]

I didn't realize infant mortality was a necessary factor for evolution. [/sarcasm]

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Probably not necessary, but certainly something which facilitates the process.

So is murder, rape and a bunch of other things; just because they are factors which facilitate evolution does not mean that a morally normal person would consider them desirable.