I have recently, half in jest, written a few diaries (Marching-Towards-Armageddon,On-the-road-to-Armageddonand What-to-do-while-Marching-Towards-to-Armageddon-) that discussed recent events and trends in relation to biblical Armageddon. Several others have written on similar topics here in Daily Kos and in other blogs (See,Apocalypse, Extinction,-Incrementalism-and-the-Fate-of-Humanity, , How it could Happen? and finallyArmageddon Online). Writing those Diaries and reading the mentioned articles and others got me to thinking about the role of extinction in evolution and what that portends for humanity now.
The Current Consensus:
Most of us, not hampered by the blinders of certain religious doctrines, know that apparently the current scientific consensus holds that over the eons life as we perceive it changes (evolves). The random mutation of certain molecules essential to the propagation of particular life forms and acted upon by natural selection imposed by the impact of environmental factors on all organisms in a set generates this change.
Although that process is manifestly random, the only situation that we know of and have had the opportunity to study this evolution of life exists here on earth and of which we are a part. To some that evolution appears, at least here on earth, to indicate a trajectory of change producing ever more complex and competent life forms, more anti-entropic if you will ( Although in fact the so called "less evolved" remains the a primary component of the Earth's biomass).
Some have deduced from this tendency to complexity an anthropic or supernatural influence although essential randomness remains a perfectly adequate and simpler explanation for the observed process.
Mass Extinctions:
Any history of the evolutionary process on earth generally includes mention of periodic extinctions of some or a large number of organisms. There is a generall background rate (historically between one and five species per year) by which species go extinct and then there are Mass Extinctions. Several times some of these events were large enough and extensive enough that it appears certain predominant life forms existing prior to the event were ultimately replaced by new dominant forms, arguably more complex and survivable in some way than their predecessor. Of the estimated 1 to 4 billion species to have ever inhabited the earth, all but about 50 million have gone extinct and about 1/3 or those extinctions have resulted from a small number (about 6 to 8) of mass extinctions caused by cataclysmic events (How Extinction Works).
About Sixty-Five million years ago for example, it is theorized that an asteroid collided with earth ultimately causing the extinction of the large dinosaurs, the apparently dominant life form at the time. These creatures ostensibly had roamed the earth for millions of years unchallenged except for the leisurely adaptations of standard evolution. Suddenly (in cosmic time at least) these creatures appear to have been replaced in their dominance by the arguably more complex and adaptable mammals, ultimately including Homo Sapiens.
Now it could be argued that the once immutable laws of classical physics maintain that this eventuality, the collision of the asteroid with earth, was determined at the commencement of time. However, more significant than this deterministic solar event is that in our currently probabilistic universe I believe that in the enormous length of time required for the evolution of life on a planet such as earth periodic mass extinctions should be viewed as almost a certainty.
This all makes me wonder if the current Mendelian/Darwinian synthesis which along with the theory of genetic drift that more or less make up the modern evolutionary synthesis should not include also the effect of mass extinctions on the process in order to provide adequate description of the evolutionary process here on earth. In other words although the Mendelian/Darwinian process continued unabated following the mass extinctions something different appears to have occurred resulting in the relatively rapid emergence of a wholly new ostensibly more complex dominant life form.
In my mind there is no reason other than semantics why evolution should be limited to certain biological processes and not to sociological and technical evolution and viewed as a single process. After all sociological and technical changes can be reasoned as biologically based but not founded in genetics (See The-Evolution-of-Everything, and Richard Nelson's Article in the Journal of Evolutionary Economics "Evolutionary Social Science and universal Darwinism).
Some commentators such as Dawkins, Denett, Vannelli and others already apply Darwinian analysis to other phenomena. If they are correct, then perhaps we can observe a quickening of the process of evolution in historical times as the Mendelian pillar of evolution responsible for the protracted pace of simple biological alterations is subsumed by some version of potentially more rapid acting natural selection. Even the pace of extinctions appear to be quickening.
The emergence of modern humans a few tens of thousands of years ago was accompanied by the extinctions of many large mammals and as humanity itself covers the globe with its ever increasing biomass, the pace of the extinctions of those large mammals has increased during the blink of the cosmic eye represented by the time elapsed from modern humanity's emergence until today,
Allied to this population increase we are witnessing the increasing pace of sociological and technological change impacting extinctions to an even greater extent, going even so far as to put the current dominant life form at risk from this social and technical complexification(Human Extinction Scenario Frameworks).
Conjecture:
Could it not be that there is a new emergent, for lack of a better term, life form that we cannot (or have not yet) fully comprehend because somewhat like the Dinosaurs had they the ability to do so, they still would not understand true meaning of mammal.
It also can be suggested that humanity itself under the influence of sociological and technological environments, has specialized (although not permanently for any individual) into classifications that ultimately fill the niches of existence necessary for that life form to thrive.
Perhaps we are witnessing at this time several dynamics. First the elimination, except at our sufferance, of the large mammals (and perhaps all species whose genotypes preceded us). And secondly and most immediately important the extinction of whole phyla of humanity as they may have been socially and technologically determined. They in turn to be replaced by what, a techno-biologic symbiosis, a world mind based on the internet of something like it or something else? Some have theorized about it (e.gTeilhard de Chardin), but who knows?
The Real Issue:
The real issue is the conundrum always presented to humanity ever since it achieved a conscious appreciation of its environment, are we the hapless victims of implacable, physical, biological, political, economic or other natural forces or have we for whatever reason evolved enough to struggle for control of these forces and bend them to our needs? Or as Shakespeare mused "…to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing, end them" (Some think not. SeeAre-We-Doomed).
We must remember that the real enemies of humanity are those who tell us of the inevitability of things or point to seemingly implacable, invisible or supernatural forces, ranged against that they warn are futile to resist. They or those urging them on are almost always those with the most to gain from the existing process allowing them to accumulate wealth and power.
If evolution has any meaning at all it is that life itself has progressed enough that it controls its own immediate destiny. The struggle we all must engage in now is for the soul of humanity and yes even for its very existence.