What is the evolutionary advantage of consciousness?

One of my readers recently made the comment on my recent protopanpsychism re-post: "...it is not clear what the evolutionary advantage is of subjective states and therefore how they evolved."

To answer the question I will borrow a quote from neuroscientist and Nobel laureate Gerald Edelman:

The evolutionary advantage is quite clear. Consciousness allows you the capacity to plan. Let's take a lioness ready to attack an antelope. She crouches down. She sees the prey. She's forming an image of the size of the prey and its speed, and of course, she's planning a jump. Now suppose I have two animals: one like our lioness, has that thing we call consciousness; the other only gets the signals. It's just about dusk, and all of a sudden the wind shifts and there's a whooshing sound of the sort a tiger might make when moving through the green grass, and the conscious animal runs like hell but the other one doesn't. Well, guess why? Because the animal that's conscious has integrated the image of a tiger. The ability to consider alternative images in an explicit way is definitely evolutionarily advantageous.

Lisa Bennett: Humans are hard-wired to ignore the threat of climate change

"But now a growing number of social scientists are offering their expertise in behavioral decision making, risk analysis, and evolutionary influences on human behavior to explain our limited responses to global warming. Among the most significant factors they point to: The way we're psychologically wired and socially conditioned to respond to crises makes us ill-suited to react to the abstract and seemingly remote threat posed by global warming. Their insights are also leading to some intriguing recommendations about how to get people to take action-including the potentially dangerous prospect of playing on people's fears."-- Lisa Bennett

From Alternet.

The notion that 'Western man has stopped evolving' is wrong

Steve Jones, head of the department of genetics, evolution and environment at the University College London, says the forces driving evolution, such as natural selection and genetic mutation, "no longer play an important role in our lives."

Consequently, says Jones, the people living one million years from now -- assuming humans will still be around -- will resemble modern-day humans; he thinks that humans have stopped evolving.

He basically argues that the mechanisms that drive ongoing variation are now absent in modern life, a factor that he believes has halted evolution.

I think Jones is a bit off the mark, here. Evolution and genetics are more than just adaptation to changing environments and stressors. His analysis fails to take a number of factors into account, including:

Genetic drift

Also known as genetic randomness, this genetic process involves the accumulation of random events that slightly change the makeup of a gene pool, but are compounded and re-enforced over time. Genetic drift arises from the statistical effect of sampling errors during reproduction across the overall population. 

Jones dismisses this possibility on account of the large and interlinked global population -- a consequence that prevents small populations of people from evolving in isolation. It's conceivable, though, that genetic drift (in conjunction with other genetic mechanisms) will slightly alter human morphology given long enough time frames. Moreover, as the number of people increases, so too do the number of mutations generated by random chance.

Vestigiality

All morphological and psychological characteristics must have their genetic integrity re-enforced over time through the process of natural selection; environmental pressures continually justify a trait's presence and integrity within the genome. A physical trait that is no longer important to a species' survival will start to lose its informational integrity over time, leading to diminished function and eventual disappearance.

Given Jones's suggestion that selectional pressures have stopped for humans, it's likely that many of our unnecessary characteristics will slowly fade away. What Jones doesn't account for, however, is that this will result in morphological alterations. 

Sexual selection

Not all evolutionary changes are brought about by seemingly rational environmental pressures. Sexual selection and competition for mates has led to some bizarre and often nonsensical changes to species (think of the male peacock's tail feathers, for example).

Humans are still very much in the business of competing for and selecting mates. Again, given long enough time frames, and given inevitable changes in perceptions of human beauty and fitness, this could lead to changes within human morphology and psychology.

Gene expression

The human genome is not a stand-alone document -- it needs environmental stimulai to inform it as to how it should express itself. Because humans live in a diverse set of environments, and because we are all raised in unique settings, our minds and bodies are moulded accordingly (this is why identical twins separated at birth are not 100% identical and why clones will be even less identical).

Given the potential for even greater environmental diversity in the future (i.e. barren desert wastelands brought about by global warming...I'm only half-joking), it's not unrealistic to think that our genes -- even if they collectively remain somewhat static -- will express the human species with some variation.

Look at the difference, for example, in height over the past few generations. And imagine the kinds of bodies that our genes would express in a different gravitational environments like Mars or space itself. 

...and last but certainly not least:

Self-guided evolution

Darwinian natural selection is giving way to self-guided evolution. The human species will soon have a host of transformative technologies in its possession that will allow us to modify our bodies as we see fit. 

Some of the key technologies in this area will include genomics (and other biotechnologies like regenerative medicine), molecular nanotechnology, information technologies (like the integration of AI), and advances in cognitive science. This will lead to the so-called posthuman, which could be anything from cyborgs and genetically enhanced humans through to uploaded consciousness streams. 

And if anything, humans are evolving faster than ever -- even without the aid of technology.

Latest podcast posted: 2008.03.18

The latest episode of the Sentient Developments Podcast is now available. Alternative audio formats are also available.

This episode: The Fermi Paradox is back with a vengeance, nanotechnology will reshape humanity, and why evolutionary psychology says we should cut Spitzer some slack.

His biology made him do it: why evolutionary psychology says we should cut Spitzer some slack

Ryan McReynolds's recent post about prostitution has inspired me to scrutinize the Elliot Spitzer scandal a bit further.

Typical media interpretations would have us believe that this is a story about corruption, hypocrisy and arrogance. Many of the commentaries that followed in the wake of the scandal offered explanations as to why men of power often risk everything and why politicians are so prone to sleaze.

But very few pundits asked the harder questions, like, why did Spitzer go to a prostitute in the first place, and what are the cultural norms currently in place that prime men for such scandals?

And even if they did ask these questions, I doubt that many would analyze it through the lens of evolutionary psychology, sexual selection and gender differentiation.

No, it's much easier to point a holier-than-thou finger at someone and declare them to be weak and corrupt. It feeds our appetite for schadenfreude and our collective inability to question social norms.

What's the underlying story, here?

Did Elliot Spitzer break the law?

Yes.

Did Spitzer violate cultural mores and social expectations – particularly as they apply to politicians?

Yes.

Did he show lack of restraint and a possible abuse of power?

Definitely.

But further, was Spitzer behaving in accordance to his biological programming, particularly that of a man with power and status?

Yes.

Now, I’m not making excuses for Spitzer, he clearly exercised poor judgment, and it’s probably for the best that he resigned his governorship. At the same time, however, this scandal shows how many of today’s social conventions can be artificial and even suppressive.

The layers of this affair run deeper than mere political opportunism and indiscretion. Spitzer's dramatic fall from power is a telling story about our underlying needs and urges and just how much we're willing to put at stake to satisfy those latent desires. Humans are still very much gendered and sexual creatures driven by genetic imperatives. Society would have us believe otherwise, but the evidence is right there before us.

Going back to a question I posed earlier: Why did Spitzer go to a prostitute in the first place? Well, it's not because he's corrupt or evil; those are labels applied to his actions after the fact. Rather, it stems from a deeply hardwired desire to get some action on the side, for sexual fulfillment outside of marriage.

Simply put, he was being a typical guy.

The science of infidelity

The science of male-female differences is beginning to mature; it's providing us with an enhanced understanding of mate selection and sexual behavior.

Evolutionary biologist David P. Barash has noted that males of most species are sexually aggressive and apt to engage in sex with multiple partners when they can. This strategy makes sense; males who succeed in doing so simply leave more descendants.

Geoffrey Miller, another evolutionary psychologist, reached a similar conclusion in his book, The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature. Fueled by Richard Dawkins’s selfish gene notion, Miller argues that humans have developed a complex psychology that encourages sexual choice.

And Robin Baker, author of Sperm Wars: Infidelity, Sexual Conflict, and Other Bedroom Battles, has shown that upwards of 10% of children are not fathered by their “fathers” and that all sperm are not produced for fertilization, but to literally fight off the sperm of other males (how telling is that!?).

Interestingly, and perhaps quite obviously, infidelity is not specific to males. Baker also shows how women have “smart” vaginal mucus that encourages some sperm but blocks others. Women are also far more likely to conceive through a casual fling than through sex with her regular partner. Other studies have shown how women are more prone to ‘cheat’ during specific stages of the menstrual cycle; women select two types of men: those they partner with and those they actually mate with.

From having wealth, status and power….to having to visit prostitutes

Indeed, one of the most surprising discoveries of the past two decades has been the extent of sexual infidelity – what scientists call extra-pair copulations. As Barash has noted, "It's clear that social monogamy -- physical association and child rearing between a male and a female -- and sexual monogamy are very different things. The former is common; the latter is rare."

Prior to the onset of the monogamous imposition, men of wealth, status and power typically acquired multiple wives and partners. Well over a century ago, a politician like Spitzer would have likely had a mistress and no one would have questioned it. Today, a successful male is likely to have a wife and a girlfriend on the side (along with the hope of not getting caught).

But for men like Spitzer, a mistress is not possible. So instead they visit prostitutes and risk virtually everything. He is a victim of the times.

Again, this is not an apology for Spitzer. As a politician, he knew the sacrifices he would have to make and work to fulfill the public’s expectations. He clearly failed in that regard.

But we need to weigh his actions with a certain amount of understanding. Let's not be too quick to judge the guy and cut him some slack.

[Photo credit: Art of Chad]