Evolution: biological and social. Column in ComputerreOnline #84
When making strategic decisions, we do not take long‑term forecasts into account simply because, due to the organization of our society, we give priority to the short‑term interests of individual groups.
←
Dmytro Shabanov
→
Pendulum Evolution: Biological and Social Mountain Road
Column in KompyuterraOnline #83 Column in KompyuterraOnline #84 Column in KompyuterraOnline #85
Some readers may find the focus of my attention in this column strange. I want to understand how social evolution differs from biological evolution. Some may think there is practically nothing in common between them; to me, they seem to be parts of a single process. Biological evolution is based on genetic inheritance (though not solely on it). This mechanism, in most cases, does not ensure the inheritance of traits acquired during an individual's lifetime. This statement is not absolute. Even now, we know a lot about epigenetic regulatory mechanisms that ensure the inheritance of acquired traits. I have no doubt that we will still discover new mechanisms for controlling genetic information. But still, it can be said that a large part of the information accumulated by an individual during their life is irrevocably lost with their death. In biological evolution, mechanisms have repeatedly arisen that allowed at least partial use of this information to optimize the development of subsequent generations. One of these was cultural inheritance. Although cultural inheritance has arisen more than once, only one – ours – group of animals has made it the primary mechanism for developing adaptations. Does it seem strange to you that we include behavioral characteristics of individuals among the traits whose evolution interests us? I will try to convince you with an example. Crustaceans are mainly an aquatic group, but some of them have mastered the land. First of all, of course, these are the crustaceans that became the ancestors of insects (although fifteen years ago, I would not have believed that insects did not descend from millipedes). Insects have developed a whole range of morphological (i.e., related to structure: dense exoskeletons, tracheae, and much more) and physiological (related to functions, like water conservation in excretion) adaptations for life in dry conditions. However, some crustaceans moved to land without profound restructuring. These are the terrestrial isopods – the well-known woodlice. Why are they called woodlice? They usually live in damp places – there they can breathe effectively using their gills. But imagine, there are woodlice that live in clay deserts! A pair of woodlice digs a burrow that extends to moist clay. All the time, either the male or the female seals the entrance to the burrow with themselves (using the waterproof part of their carapace on the dorsal side of the body). The other partner, meanwhile, either enjoys the humid environment deep in the burrow or even (at night, in suitable weather) goes outside. Anyone who accidentally enters the burrow will not enter: the partners recognize each other by smell. Over time, they will raise offspring in the burrow and release them into the outside world precisely when the clay softens, and their children will have a chance to dig their own burrows. Look: a complex of behavioral traits has replaced the lack of morphological and physiological adaptations for desert life in woodlice. The ability for such behavior is genetically determined in them. And humans inhabiting deserts also have behavioral traits that allow them to survive in harsh environments. For some people, it is the ability to dig wells; for others, it is the ability to use air conditioners and steam condensers, ensuring their power supply using solar panels. The main difference between adaptive behavioral traits in humans and those in woodlice is that in humans, they are based primarily on cultural inheritance and are a consequence of their social evolution. So, all this was a preamble, and the main story concerns the comparison of biological and cultural evolution. What are the advantages and disadvantages of our characteristic way of evolving? The main advantage is speed. And there are two reasons for the acceleration provided by cultural inheritance. The first, of course, is the inheritance of acquired traits. The second is the ability to transmit useful traits not only from parents to offspring but also in other directions. I will give a simple example. In good old England, it was customary for milkmen to drive cars or bicycles around their customers' houses, leaving a daily portion of dairy products on the windowsill. These products were most often packaged in wide-mouthed glass bottles, which were sealed with multi-colored foil caps (their appearance is well remembered by those whose lives were touched by the Brezhnev era). Unfortunately, milkmen periodically began to receive complaints. The housewife opens the front door in the morning, and there is a hole in the cap, and under it – dirt. Tits appeared that pecked through the foil caps, eating the cream accumulated under the cap. I could not find any references that would allow me to accurately state how long the transition from individual spoiled bottles to their mass spoilage took, forcing manufacturers to switch to other packaging. In any case, the duration of such a transition was measured in years or a few decades. What mechanisms ensured the ability to peck through the caps? Let's assume we don't know the answer and compare two hypotheses: about the genetic and cultural mechanism of such behavior. In the first case, we must assume the random occurrence of an allele (gene) that increases the probability of such behavior in a tit, which can lead to a hole in the cap. We must honestly admit that such an event seems to me on the verge of a miracle. Let's not go into details – let's assume that some allele responsible for this trait has arisen. Now it will be favored by selection. Carriers of this allele will, on average, peck through bottles more often, get cream more often, survive more often, and leave slightly more offspring. The proportion of carriers of this allele will increase. Even if the diversity of tits for this gene is the main factor of selection, it will take centuries and millennia for any serious spread of a beneficial allele. No, no, of course, we have simplified. Probably, after selection has fixed the first allele that facilitates pecking, it must promote changes in other genes that make pecking even more effective... The alternative explanation is as follows. Some tit, due to random actions, pecked through the cap of a milk bottle. It received a reward, established a connection between its actions and their results. When a favorable opportunity arose, it repeated it, perfecting the optimal implementation of the beneficial behavior. It repeated it in front of other tits, some of whom also established a connection between the holes in the milk caps and the taste of cream. Soon after the chain reaction of transmitting the new trait from trained tits to untrained ones began, the new trait became characteristic of all members of the population capable of learning. Of course, those tits that cannot adopt the new trait due to avian equivalent of stupidity will never master this new food source. These will be gradually eliminated by selection... Thus, the speed of the observed changes in the behavior of tits conclusively proves that the new trait was transmitted culturally, not genetically. Another feature of cultural inheritance is that it has been able to transmit a larger amount of information (I wrote about this once). However, only one single species made such a leap, and only thanks to our ability to use extrasomatic (external) means of recording, storing, and transmitting information. The first leap, which sharply expanded the boundaries of our capabilities, was the invention of writing; the second was electromagnetic and optical recording on various media. On the other hand, comparing information recorded, for example, on a DVD and in a sperm nucleus is a complex task. A DVD contains much more information (in bits). Perhaps the information stored on the disk has even higher Kolmogorov complexity than the human genome (recording it in a "compressed," archived form would require a more voluminous and complex sequence). But genetic information is more valuable because it significantly changes the capabilities of its recipient. Our genotype is a set of switches that reflects the millions of years of our ancestors' experience in surviving in a complex environment. It carries the commands needed by the system that controls our development. And our extrasomatic information carriers, unfortunately, are filled with less valuable information. Such carriers have allowed us to solve another problem. Genetic information can be transmitted without manifesting: a grandchild may inherit an allele from a grandfather that was "silent" in the father. As long as we are talking about a chain of learning mediated by direct teacher-student contact, anything not adopted by the student will be lost. When relying on recording media, the situation is not so hopeless (although manuscripts do burn, and hard drives do fail). And when it comes to secrets that are forbidden to be recorded and transmitted to outsiders (from heather honey to Damascus steel), the risk of losing unique culturally determined behavioral traits remains high. A notable characteristic of cultural inheritance and social evolution is their potential controllability. Remember, we once talked about meiotic drive – the property of some alleles to be transmitted to offspring with a higher probability than their alternatives. In cultural inheritance, this happens everywhere. The more developed a society, the more selective it is about its cultural heritage. We produce a lot of noise: when I happen to hear "cool" trap music from hosts of some morning radio show in a minibus taxi, I feel ashamed of the informational garbage our civilization scatters into space. But, fortunately, we also produce other products, and they remain in eternity with a slightly higher probability. We are moving to the most important point. In biological evolution, there is no planning. If a trait does not bring benefits now, but would bring them in the distant future in combination with some other traits, selection will not support it. All the species we observe are the result of prehistory, which involved an increase in fitness and some random events, but no changes calculated for the distant future. In social evolution, after a phase transition, the point of reflection, at which the evolving collective entity becomes self-aware, makes planning for the distant future fundamentally possible. We everywhere and in all places take actions calculated for deferred, not immediate, reward. Planting a tree whose fruits will only be enjoyed by your children is a completely human act. Unfortunately, this ability of ours is limited by a rather narrow horizon. Forty years ago, in the work "The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome," a group of forecasters convincingly substantiated a simple idea: long-term accelerating growth based on limited and non-renewable resources is impossible. Growth will inevitably suffocate. Knowing this in advance, the crisis can be mitigated. Already forty years ago, optimistic and pessimistic scenarios for the future development of humanity were clearly outlined. The report was heard; however, we all diligently implemented the pessimistic scenario. Twenty years after the first, the second report was published, and ten years later – the third. Those of the developers who remained alive stated – there will be no fourth, because the point of no return has already been passed. As far as I know, there is no substantiated refutation of the limits to growth model, only an ideological criticism based on insufficient understanding ("these are enemies of humanity who weave their conspiracies for the enslavement of the enslaved and the exploitation of the exploited"). Those who make strategic decisions could take into account the conclusions of these models... but they do not. The reason is the structural organization of present-day humanity, in which the solution of short-term tasks of individual groups takes priority over universal human problems. Two slides from a recent lecture by Dennis Meadows in Moscow. We are on the left, in the red dot. Time flows from left to right, and the slides show two possible trajectories of our changes. We want to get to the green dot; our usual time horizon is shown by the blue line. The case we are talking about is complex. Here, we need to move not directly towards the goal, but in another direction. This requires foresight. Due to the peculiarities of our evolutionary mechanism, we could have avoided this trap. We did not avoid it. We see what awaits us ahead... and we are moving towards trouble. Why? This needs to be examined carefully. Perhaps next time...
←
Dmytro Shabanov
→
Pendulum Evolution: Biological and Social Mountain Road
Column in KompyuterraOnline #83 Column in KompyuterraOnline #84 Column in KompyuterraOnline #85