Being Human

Here are some excerpts from “Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of our Ancestors” by New York Times reporter Nicholas Wade:

Out of Africa
It must have a required a … genetic revolution … to make possible the emergence of behaviorally modern humans [from Africa] (p. 31)  Religion, language and reciprocity ... all seem to have emerged [there] some 50,000 years ago. (p. 168) 

Between 60,000 and 40,000 years ago much of Africa was depopulated … The reason may have been a long period of dry climate … The ancestral population itself … shrank to as few as 5,000 people. (p. 50-51) Those departing, a group of perhaps just 150 people, planned to leave Africa altogether. (p. 12) [They] crossed over the Red Sea … traveled along the coasts of southeast Asia, arriving in Australia some 46,000 years ago. (p. 8)

Modern language probably evolved only 50,000 years ago [in Africa] … all languages are probably offshoots of a single mother tongue. (p. 226) The propensity for religious belief [also dating from that time] may be innate … wired into the human mind. (p. 164)

50,000 years ago – the evolution of behaviorally modern humans
After the dispersal of the ancient population from Africa 50,000 years ago, human evolution continued independently in each continent. (p. 9) For much of the period during which the exodus from Africa unfolded, from 50,000 to 30,000 years ago, people everywhere may have looked pretty much the same … It seems likely that the first modern humans who reached Europe 45,000 years ago would also have retained black skin and other African features. (p. 95)

It has long been assumed by historians, archeologists and social scientists that human evolution was completed in the distant past … It now appears the opposite is the case. The human genome has been in full flux all the time. (p. 267)  The genome evolves so fast that whenever any community starts to breed in isolation … within a few centuries its genetics assume a distinct signature. (p. 10)

[For example,] a new version of the microcephalin gene appeared around 37,000 years ago … and is now carried by most people in Europe and East Asia. [Another] gene, a new version of ASPM, emerged 6,000 years ago and is now carried by 44% of Caucasians. Both genes are thought to be involved in determining the number of neurons formed in the cerebral cortex [conferring some cognitive advantage]. (p. 271)

The human genome bears many marks of recent evolution, prompted by adaptation to events such as cultural changes or new diseases. (p. 9)  From a historical point of view, the most interesting class of evolutionary [genetic] changes are those that occurred in response to human culture. (p. 270)

The last 15,000 years – the evolution of less violent humans
Human societies have progressed through several major transitions in the last 15,000 years … accompanied by evolutionary [genetic] as well as cultural changes. (p. 178)  Each … major cultural transition … could have become genetically embedded as the individuals who best adapted to each new social stage left more children. (p. 179)

There is a 45,000-year delay between the time of the ancestral human population [who departed Africa 50,000 years ago] and the first great urban civilizations … A suite of genetic changes [may have led to less aggressive behavior] that made people readier to live together in larger groups, to coexist without constant fighting and to accept the imposition of chieftains and hierarchy. (p. 129) 

Warfare was a routine preoccupation of primitive societies. Some 65% were at war constantly … A typical tribal society lost about 0.5% of its population in combat each year. (p. 151) If warfare was the normal state of affairs, it would have shaped almost every aspect of early human societies. (p. 157)  A willingness to kill members of one’s own species is apparently correlated with high intelligence. (p. 148) When they grow beyond a certain size, of 150 or so people, disputes [in tribal societies] became more frequent, and with no chiefs or system of adjudication, a group would break up into smaller ones along lines of kinship. (p. 72) 

It required … a diminution of [innate] human aggression and probably the evolution of new cognitive faculties, for the first settlements to emerge, beginning 15,000 years ago, and it was in the context of settled societies that warfare, trade and religion attained new degrees of complexity and refinement. (p. 265)  With [innately] tamer people, the path was now set for larger and more complex societies … that would transcend the limited horizons of the hunter-gatherer band. (p. 177)

In the Near East, around 15,000 years ago, people at last accomplished a decisive social transition, the founding of the first settled communities. (p. 9) The first evidence of a successful and long term settled community comes from people called the Natufians, who lived in the Near East from about 15,000 to 11,500 years ago. (p. 126)  The first cities started springing up in southern Mesopotamia [Iraq] some 6,000 years ago … As societies became more intricate, their operations demanded … more specialized cognitive abilities.  The invention of writing around 3400 BC opened the way to the beginning of recorded history. (p. 234) 

Though they were probably egalitarian at first, they soon developed a hierarchical form, with elites, leaders and specialization of roles. (p. 178)  Without specialized roles and some kind of hierarchy, a human society cannot grow beyond a certain level of size or complexity. (p. 69) 

Genetics and race
Today’s races did not appear until about 12,000 to 10,000 years ago [after the glaciers began their final retreat 15,000 years ago.]. (p. 200)  People can be assigned to racial groups based on sampling just a few hundred sites in their genome. (p. 194)

Genghis Khan had nearly 500 wives and concubines … An astonishing 8% of males throughout the former lands of the Mongol empire carry the Y chromosome of Genghis Khan [which] raises the question whether grandiose procreation wasn’t just a perk of Genghis Khan’s power but a motivation for it. (p. 236-7)

Richard E. Nisbett, a social psychologist at the University of Michigan, believes there are “dramatic differences in the nature of Asian and European though processes” … Did rice farming encourage the conformity for which eastern societies are known and small-scale farming the rugged individualism of the west? (p 274)

The future of human evolution
For social species the most important feature of the environment is their own society. So to the extent that people have shaped their own society, they have determined the conditions of their own evolution. (p. 267)

The inhabitants of the far future are always portrayed as looking and behaving exactly like people today. [But] all that is certain about future evolution is that people will not remain the same as they are today. (p. 275)  Future evolution will differ from that of the past … new genes inserted into the human genome on a widescale basis to replace existing genes [may supplant] the quaint and hazardous method of conceiving at random. (p. 277)  When the first generation of [genetically modified] humans … turn out to be entirely normal and robustly healthy, various enhancements of desirable traits [like intelligence] are allowed … With germline modification … human intervention can reach a desired outcome much more quickly. (p. 278)

The genes that influence human social behavior are inscribed somewhere in the genome but have not yet been recognized. (p. 141) “The human mind evolved to believe in the gods. It did not evolve to believe in biology,” writes Edward O. Wilson.  (p. 266)

Harvard University professor Michael Sandel has recently tried to make the case for limiting individual reproductive choice. His none-too-subtle agenda is to maintain the advantages of the genetic elites, such as himself, at the expense of the rest of society.

Sandel says he's against allowing parents to choose their children's genes. He assumes (correctly) that many social advantages (energy level, self-confidence, intelligence) are innate, and unevenly distributed.  Secretly, he's happy that he can pass along his own traits (ability to focus for long periods, mild charisma) to his children.  (I say "his children" to refer to the children of meritocrats generally.)  But he dreads that the great unwashed masses will soon be able to alter their own genes to be more like his, since then his children would become less rare and special in their innate traits.

Sandel says "there remains something troubling with the ambition to control the genetic characteristics of the next generation".  That's all very well for someone who's already born with the "gifted character of human powers" (i.e. the genes for success).  But what if you're born with other genes?  You'll never achieve as much social influence or status as Sandel and his kids.

Sandel worries that the "meritocracy, less chastened by chance, would become harder, less forgiving".  Yeah, and meritocrats would also become more commonplace, leading to less social disparity in income and status.  Today, corporations pay millions in salary and bonues to a rare cadre of super-smart, super-motivated genetic elites, who can in turn afford better lifestyles, better healthcare, and greater social influence (through political donations, ability to launch a national journal, etc).

"Changing our nature to fit the world," argues Sandel, "is actually the deepest form of disempowerment."  Really?  For you, perhaps.

Last year I wrote a novel called "Napoleon in Shanghai" predicting that China would be the first country to begin a large-scale genetic testing program.

According to CNN, this is already coming true:

[Chinese] scientists claim a simple saliva [DNA test can predict] a child's IQ, emotional control, focus, memory, athletic ability and more ... The Chinese government is also interested in giving talented children an early start on their careers. Children as young as two are regularly hand-picked by the government to represent China on the international stage.

It's easy to see where this is headed:

China's one-child policy often produces anxious and ambitious parents with high expectations for their only child.

If you can only have one child, you'll want to ensure he or she is born with the "very best genes", for traits like charisma, ambition, self-confidence, intelligence, and self-motivation. (Ironic, since one of the central tenets of Communism is that man has no innate character!)  I predict there will be large-scale prenatal genetic screening programs in China in the next few years. The Chinese are practical people, unconstrained by Western ethics, and so will seize upon any means to advance their familial interests.

The response from the rest of the world will also be predictable.  Initially, we'll be horrified and shocked, and claim with indignation that "it will never work" and "all men are created equal".  Then, once we see the results in China, we'll change our minds and want the same for ourselves. Forget the nuclear arms race. "Nowadays, competition in the world is about who has the most talent."

Many companies are trying to assess and differentiate their employees using two dimensions – Performance and Potential. On a graph, performance is measured on the vertical (Y) axis, and potential is measured on the horizontal (X) axis.

Each X,Y combination is assigned a value judgement, or score, from 1 to 9.  Having high performance but poor potential gives you a score of 4.  High potential but low performance is 6, a much better score.  So potential is valued more highly than performance.

What is potential?  It's really a measure of "promotability" or leadership skills, including such innate qualities as charisma, energy-level, and self-confidence.

Performance, on the other hand, is the skill you exhibit at your current job level, including such innate qualities as intelligence, diligence and analytical skill.

Both dimensions are inborn – since how would you train charisma or genius? – so "high potential" genes are more valued than "high performance" genes.  Companies willingly pay large bonuses to charismatic leaders (6), and heap even greater rewards on the rare charismatic leader who's also smart (9), but a high performer with little potential (4) has his job outsourced to India, since those innate qualites are not valued as highly.

Choosing leaders this way is really a proxy for genetic screening. It's not like you can change yourself.  Even Donald Trump says "I don’t think anybody changes, actually. They come out a certain way, and for the most part that’s what you get."

According to the New York Times:

Europe has been colonized three times in the distant past, always from the south. Some 45,000 years ago the first modern humans entered Europe from the south. The glaciers returned around 20,000 years ago and the second colonization occurred about 17,000 years ago by people returning from southern refuges. The third invasion was that of farmers bringing the new agricultural technology from the Near East around 10,000 years ago.

The pattern of genetic differences among present day Europeans probably reflects the impact of these three ancient migrations, Dr. Kayser said.