TED has created a strategic initiative to combat creationists disapproving of science and evolution. Their strategy is brilliant because it unconventionally embraces religion and seeks to convince people to understand their religion and use it to do good things.
Religion is a way of life that has been shaping our world since the beginning of time. It's tied to ethnic and cultural roots; it drives our communities. It's probably the biggest reason why atheism has been so slow to catch on. I continue to be amazed at how religious followers have lost touch with the purpose of religion. In most instances I feel like people don't know why they do what their religion tells them, they just follow what everyone has done before them. It's no wonder Richard Dawkins released The God Delusion and talked at TED. At the root of religion is the Golden Rule; treat others the way you would like to be treated, yet religious fundamentalists have lost touch with this reality. Jesus Camp is a good look at what some religions are teaching, showcasing how religions are developing more extreme rituals that separate people instead of bring them together.The Charter For Compassion is a recent TED backed initiative that seeks to do the opposite; change the way people think about religion, as a way to build a global community. The core premise is to remind people of the Golden Rule in an effort to unite communities and prove that religion is intended as a framework to help people coexist. It is a refreshing way to think about religion by seeking to change disillusionment and all negative associations currently attached to religion.
I recenlty read an amazing article in Seed on Evolution. Here are the highlights:
Humans "showed up" 45,000 years ago and it doesn't appear that we've changed much in those years. It's easy to make that assumption since natural selection chooses the most fit to survive through reproductive success; the problem however is that we nurse our sick back to health. Mating isn't a privilege so even the less fit pass their genes on. Well the Human Genome and HapMap projects are changing what we know about how we're evolving. It appears that up to 10 % of the human genome appears to be evolving, but most mutations have a neutral effect, making them neither fitter or less fit. The HapMap project has found gene variations in some populations that were not present in other geographic areas, but are moving over time proving that genetic drift is occuring.
One of the best examples of recent human evolution is the spread of the mutation for adults who can digest milk. It popped up 8,000 years ago and has spread to most parts of the world, but not all, only 9 of 10 Asian Americans lack the mutation. Hawkes, an anthropolist studying demography and the constraints on our adaptation believes that the global population explosion that coincided w/ the agricultural revolution is the main driver of adaptive evolution. He exclaims that our world has changed rapidly and our DNA is still catching up. Hapmap has provided great insight because it lets us compare parts of the human genome that are different between people; it gives us a glipse at patterns of gene inheritance.
So now for the question at large: Are we getting smarter?
Several different studies have been conducted on the topic. Bruce Lahn an evolutionary geneticist raised some controversial issues because his work could easily be misinterpreted as claiming that brain evolution has occurred in some races but not others. The fact is we know very little about brain evolution and it's difficult to understand how intelligence is selected for. Here is one of his most interesting thoughts about the possibility of the evolution of intelligence: "500 million years ago earth experienced the Cambrian explosion, a rapid increase in diversification of life forms. It may take a long time to evolve certain components, but once you have them, very little evolutionary time could give you great diversity. The brain may take a long time to get to a certain level of intelligence and then, once it's there, it makes possible a cultural explosion."
He goes on to say intelligence builds on intelligence, increasing intelligence, increases the complexity of culture, which pressures intelligence levels to rise, which creates more complex culture and so on.
I'm fascinated by the way humans are evolving and becoming more intelligent. It's clear that some people are smarter than others; but that is somewhat of a subjective statement since there's mathematical intelligence, emotional intelligence, creative intelligence, etc. If we follow Lahn's theory it could be possible that these intelligences are merging. In this way maybe we are moving toward another explosion where the brain becomes able to do exponentially more than it has been. Time will tell.
Why aren't we allowed to procreate with family members. I know, I know, that's gross, it's disgusting, shunned; but why? Well why would we condone behavior that creates devolved offspring?
Everyone alive today has FoxP2 - it is a genetic mutation that makes humans smart and, well human. Pidedality is one trait that is a product of our larger brains and increased intelligence. I recently watched a film on KQED called "Family that Walks on All Fours" that raises an intense scientific issue.
The episode is enlightening - the Turkish family is difficult to watch, they are like animals, they walk on all fours and stare into the camera like zombies - actually it kind of freaked me out!
The family, however, sparked an interesting question that is more of moral and societal question than a scientific one. Let me set up the issue this way. We don't breed with our family members because of the risk that society has deemed unacceptable. Same family breeding allows negative genetic mutations to become dominant, often resulting in retardation. The good of society, is a good enough reason not to allow this behavior. So then, what are the limits to acceptable breeding policy.
It seems taboo to discuss, but we all tote our IQ around with us and our society is made up of a variety of people ranging from, simply put, smart to dumb. We are trained to think that we are all smart in our unique way, but some have a few more pistons firing than others. A lack of intelligence isn't always as visually obvious as walking on all fours, but evolutionarily speaking some humans are not as advanced as others.
That being said, let's look at the Chinese governmental mandate called the "One Child Policy", and take a look at how it might be compared to social policy about inbreeding. Both policies dictate that citizens should not procreate in ways that are harmful to society. Watching "The Family Who Walks On All Fours" I started to wonder why social policy doesn't favor intelligent offspring over the offspring of parents who are less evolved. See the movie Idiocracy. Maybe it's too hard to draw a line without obvious visual deformities, or Is it because we don't have a good enough way of testing how smart or evolved certain individuals are? Why isn't there a test that evaluates our DNA, determines our biological intelligence and dictates whether we're permitted to have 1 kid ( below par) or 3 kids ( really smart), or maybe not any kids at all?
I think about mandates currently in place to enhance our society, how they will change and what we can do to encourage intelligence without becoming a bunch of Nazis.
TED has created a strategic initiative to combat creationists disapproving of science and evolution. Their strategy is brilliant because it unconventionally embraces religion and seeks to convince people to understand their religion and use it to do good things.
