Horizon 2
David Sloan Wilson
Center Scholar

David Sloan Wilson

Professor of Biology & Anthropology - Binghamton University

View Bio

The Phenomenon of Humanity

Print & Share

A few years ago I read The Phenomenon of Man, by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and was amazed by its current relevance. Teilhard was a Jesuit Priest and famed paleontologist at a time when science was regarded as a suitable path to God. Teilhard’s path was too radical for the Catholic Church, however, and his best-known work was not published until after his death in 1955. Over the decades, Teilhard was largely forgotten as a scientist but remained widely read for his spiritual quality. What did I, a practicing evolutionary scientist, find so relevant about his work?

Teilhard wrote that humans are both a biological species and a new evolutionary process. As a biological species, we are little different from our primate cousins, and there was no divine spark in our origin (this did not play well with the Catholic Church!). As a new evolutionary process, however, our origin was almost as momentous as the origin of life. Teilhard called the human-created world the noosphere, which slowly spread like a skin over the planet, like the biological skin (the biosphere) that preceded it. He imagined “grains of thought” coalescing at ever-larger scales until they became a single global consciousness that he called the Omega Point.

I tell Teilhard’s story in a chapter of my book The Neighborhood Project titled “We Are Now Entering the Noosphere,” where I also say that reading his book was like the strings of a musical instrument resonating to the strings of another instrument being played nearby. Teilhard anticipated, far ahead of his time, the concept of an evolutionary process built by evolution. Today, this concept is sometimes called a “Darwin Machine,” and it is described with great clarity in a book titled Evolution in Four Dimensions, by Eva Jablonka and Miriam Lamb. They remind us that Darwin’s theory of natural selection requires heredity, not genes. Genes constitute one mechanism of heredity. Genes as we know them were not the starting point of evolution; before genes there was evolution without replicators. Genes, in turn, produced other mechanisms of heredity, including epigenetic mechanisms (involving the expression of genes), learning mechanisms, and systems of symbolic thought that are trans-generational. The second (epigenetics) and third (learning) dimensions of evolution exist for many species, but the fourth (symbolic thought) is nearly uniquely human. Moreover, the symbolic inheritance system rivals genetic inheritance for its combinatorial diversity. There are nearly an infinite number of genotypes in a sexually reproducing species, each potentially producing a different phenotype for natural selection to act upon. Similarly, the diversity of imagined worlds is nearly infinite, and each “symbotype” potentially motivates a different suite of actions in the real world for natural selection to act upon. Thanks to this combinatorial diversity, our ancestors spread over the planet, adapting to all climatic zones and hundreds of ecological niches, displacing countless biological species along the way, for better or for worse. Culturally, we are more like an entire adaptive radiation, similar to the dinosaurs, birds, and mammals, than a single biological species.

Teilhard called the human-created world the noosphere, which slowly spread like a skin over the planet, like the biological skin (the biosphere) that preceded it. He imagined “grains of thought” coalescing at ever-larger scales until they became a single global consciousness that he called the Omega Point.

Teilhard also anticipated the concept of multilevel selection, which happens to be my academic specialty. Traits that are “for the good of the group” seldom maximize relative fitness within the group and therefore require a process of between-group selection to evolve. When between-group selection becomes very strong compared to within-group selection, a species becomes ultra-social, which is jargon for “very, very cooperative.” Social insect colonies are the classic example of ultra-sociality (also called eusociality, especially when there is a reproductive division of labor). One of the greatest discoveries in the history of evolutionary thought (due to Lynn Margulis in the 1970s) is that nucleated cells are ultra-social groups of bacteria. This is something that Darwin never imagined! Multi-cellular organisms are ultra-social groups of nucleated cells. The concepts of “organism” and “highly cooperative society” have literally become one and the same.

Only during the last decade have evolutionists begun to realize that we are an ultra-social primate species and that this accounts for virtually all of the differences that set us apart from our primate cousins. Mechanisms evolved in our ancestors that suppressed the ability of individuals to succeed at the expense of members of their own group, causing succeeding as a group to become the primary evolutionary force. We are designed to be team players in ways that penetrate so deeply into our subconscious that we are only beginning to understand the proximate mechanisms, even though we play them out every moment of our lives.

For thousands of generations, the ultra-social groups were small groups—what Teilhard called “grains of thought.” Then, with the advent of agriculture, cultural group selection increased the scale of human society by many orders of magnitude, resulting in the mega-societies of today. It is important not to romanticize the increasing scale of society—it was due largely to the carnage of warfare. In addition, most people will probably always feel most at home in small groups. It is part of our genetic heritage. If society must exist at a large scale, let it be multi-cellular. Finally, the mega-societies of today must become still larger to solve our largest and most recalcitrant problems at a planetary scale. We have not yet reached the Omega Point.

Insofar as Teilhard portrayed the Omega Point as inevitable, that is the biggest thing that he got wrong....Call it social engineering or stewardship, it is up to us to turn the earth into the super-organism that Teilhard had in mind.

In deference to new-age sensibilities, let’s call the updated version of the Phenomenon of Man the Phenomenon of Humanity. What does it auger for the future? For one, I look forward to a coalescing of academic disciplines, especially those that have been divided in the past on issues such as genetic determinism and social constructivism. Our capacity for open-ended change, which is so often conceptualized as outside the orbit of evolution, is far better understood as an elaborate product of genetic evolution and an evolutionary process in its own right. When the study of humanity (life? all academic disciplines?) becomes conceptually unified in the same way as the study of the biological sciences, we will have reached an intellectual Omega Point of sorts.

Becoming an ultra-social species at the planetary scale—another kind of Omega Point—will be much more difficult, although theoretically possible. The first step is for everyone to realize that it will not happen spontaneously. Insofar as Teilhard portrayed the Omega Point as inevitable, that is the biggest thing that he got wrong. Dozens of contemporary theorists speculate about the global brain emerging spontaneously from the Internet, as if complexity and inter-connectivity are the only necessary ingredients. That’s wrong, and the sooner we reach a consensus on this point the better. Multi-level selection states very clearly that adaptation at level X requires a process of selection at that level and tends to be undermined by selection at lower levels. We can’t expect natural selection to operate at the scales required to solve our largest and most recalcitrant problems, so the only alternative is policy selection. Call it social engineering or stewardship, it is up to us to turn the earth into the super-organism that Teilhard had in mind. We will not succeed without a sophisticated knowledge of our species as a product of genetic evolution and a process of evolution in our own right.

Print & Share
‹ Back to All Answers

Join the Conversation (5)

User Gravitar Image
It's really a sickening level of conceit for our culture to be teaching itself re-animation, all the while sending the entire biosphere ever deeper into a death spiral. The same urge to mastery is behind both initiatives, despite how opposite they may appear.

In the end our lust for power will be satisfied by acquiring the *ability* to de-extinguish species. There will be no need or motivation or even opportunity to actually use that power extensively, on account of the resource cost of returning habitat to ecosystems as would be needed to sustain viable wild populations. We are far too attached to monopolising the landscape for our projects, to leave any of it for ecosystems. Much more likely is a few novelty specimens at zoos -- at best, some isolated sanctuaries holding highly managed semi-wild populations. Both of which are really human vanity projects, not genuine ecological restoration.

So really I don't think we can seriously consider ourselves worthy of considering the questions you raise, for now.
Reply
User Gravitar Image
To me, Harry's approach steers clear of any grand claims about how much can be accomplished. There's no hint of the technofantasy—“We’ll bring ’em all back, and nature can be made whole again!!!” Really, the argument rests on a fundamentally pessimistic view of how humans are changing nature—“We’re losing everything. If the only way to save some of these creatures were through human interventions, reintroducing, even relocating, even attempting some biotechnological changes to keep representatives of these species around, would we do it?” The argument is fundamentally about love of nature rather than fascination with technology—in fact, it might be sort of a begrudging, resigned acceptance of the technology. By my lights, it’s a much more thoughtful and moving way of arguing for de-extinction than one often finds.
Reply
User Gravitar Image
I'm with you, Harry-- recent extinctions in particular have been so arbitrary.

I was among those who helped the eastern Peregrine return, and yes, they were of mixed subspecies. But evolution never stops and is once again molding the new birds to their habitat.

Bring 'em back, American lions, Passenger pigeons, Thylacines, mammoths; bring 'em all back.
Reply
User Gravitar Image
This is a fascinating concept that would be very important in our understanding of human nature. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around it. Would you say that humans and our cultures evolve separately through both genes and memes? What puzzles me is how we expect a newborn to become an adult today compared with a a hundred thousand years ago. The culture has evolved, specialized and diversified in countless ways. Is the human body evolving genetically to facilitate or implement our evolving culture?

Anyway, many thanks for addressing this important topic!
Reply
User Gravitar Image
In much of the discourse regarding humans and nature, there is little mention about human nature. When it does make an appearance, it is often received with suspicion. One of the wnderful things of evolutionary theory is that it presents a story of the kinship of life. We are all related. Sooner or later we come upon common ancestors until we reach the origins of life. Often overlooked in the narrative of "competition and survival of the fittest" is the other side of the coin which Dr. Sloan Wilson so rightly points out: that of cooperation. Multicellualr organisms are communities of cooperation. We exist because cooperation has been a strategy that increases fitness. But noly at the cellular level. Kin selection has been a strategy of cooperation created by natural selection engendering feelings of love and caring. But also beyond kinship groups, intra and inter-specific reciprocal altruism has also emerged by natural selection. And it seems that this has been a slow but inexorable movement (I might even agree with Teilhard de Chardin that it is inevitable!) of life in nature. Maybe the Omega Point is when this process becomes conscious and we recognize the advantage of reciprocal altruism with the rest of life.
Reply
User Gravitar Image
We at the Center are deeply interested in human nature. Stay tuned for more Questions exploring this important area!
Reply
User Gravitar Image
" before genes there was evolution without replicators." you say.

You may like our paper

"Evolution before genes", but which has holistic replicators not template ones.

Cheers,
Chrisantha

http://www.biology-direct.com/content/7/1/1/
Reply
User Gravitar Image
Your suggestion of Co-operativeness or Super-Sociality (developed through Group Selection) as the genuinely unique Mark of Man – the main source of our strange extension worldwide - delights me. I had almost given up hope of finding any such single mark that accounted so well for the odd fate of our species. Of course theorists haven’t been eager to name natural helpfulness and friendliness as our Mark because it isn’t something you can boast of. It has to be something you take for granted. But it surely does go far to explain our worldwide cultural proliferation.

There is something odd about it, however, in that it divides us so sharply from our primate cousins, who hardly ever seem interested in working together. I wonder what you think of the recent suggestion that this change may have been due to the influence of dogs? with whom we have long been linked, and who certainly do have co-operation as part of their heritage?

But the thing that most worries me about this idea is a trouble that you touch on – the fact that group-selection largely works by conflict. The in-group cohesion seems to depend on having an outside enemy. And, as you say, society has indeed largely grown to its present scale by `the carnage of warfare’. What’s more, the development of technology, along with the mere scale of current conflicts, keeps making these interactions more and more destructive.

Does it seem possible to you that we should somehow break this powerful link between love and hatred? Or that we can find cultural devices to control it? As you point out, we can’t rely on this change just happening `in the course of evolution – on `a global brain emerging spontaneously from the internet’. Evolution isn’t that kind of force; it works by selection. What are your predictions?

Yours, much impressed,

Mary Midgley
Reply
Get your picture by comments?

Get a picture next to your comments! Visit Gravatar.com and link a picture to your email address.

Weigh in with your thoughts!

All fields required unless otherwise noted.







Copyright © 2013 Center for Humans & Nature. All Rights Reserved.
www.humansandnature.org