Natural selection is the basis of evolution, a basic tenet of biology. Natural selection occurs by genetic selection in mating individuals. This theory includes the evolution of the adaptive capacity of "intelligence". Most investigations of "intelligence" explore how this feature of brain operations developed in the course of primate evolution. The selection of genomes as "more fit" is not absolute but related to a specific environmental parameters, and variations in genome are selected to optimize this "fit".
With the development of more complex behaviors and language, an associated "culture" accompanies humans from generation to generation, and with the development of writing and more advanced methods of information storage, it is possible to store and transmit this "culture" for the forsee-able future. "Culture" is not transmitted in the genome, and the Lamarkian theory that behavior contributes to natural selection is rejected in evolutionary theory. This leaves the question of whether (and how) "cultural knowledge" contributes to adaptation, and evolution. Several theories of "cultural evolution" involving "memes" have been proposed. It is not clear if changes in memes are efficiently selected for adaptive value. Questions might be raised about whether one economic system is more adaptive because it is more "productive". Does maximizing "productivity" represent the highest level of adaptive capacity, or are other variables involved which must also be included? Is "religion" an adaptive cognitive survival skill? Given the extensive mass killings, historically associated with religions, it is unclear how this promotes adaptive survival. Is the dominance of one religion explained by "survival of the fittest"?
Science would seem to be the area of culture most clearly associated with adaptive value, and many scientific achievements have contributed to prolonging human life. But the relationship of science to evolution is growing more complex, and several recent achievements raise troubling questions about how evolution is influenced by scientific achievements. These include: 1) nuclear weapons and radiation, 2) gene modifications and CRISPR, 3) cloning of organisms, and 4) AI repurposing of cognitive activity.
Discoveries in the nuclear structure of matter are a prominent achievement of 20th century physics. Separate from this investigation of basic knowledge, nuclear fission and fusion reactions can release large amounts of energy, and were studied for use in creating weapons. These weapons exist, have been used, and are relatively widely distributed in the developed countries. Their use threatens the genetic integrity of those exposed, and these genetic effects including later development of various cancers is well documented. The risk of the widespread uncontrolled use of these weapons is an evolutionary threat, so it makes sense to manage the control of their use. Whether this is the current situation is unclear, and no formal system for preventing their unrestricted use exists, and evidence for individual leaders with a poor reputation for appreciation of consequences who have threatened the use of these weapons raises serious questions.
There is a long history of genetic modification of plants and animals by selective breeding to improve the value of plants for human consumption, and animals as domestic assistance or for food. This distorts the evolutionary viability of these organisms, and usually makes the animals dependent on human management for survival. More subtle genetic modifications are occurring as animals adapt to human urban environments. Two more dramatic interventions are cloning and CRISPR. In cloning, animals (or humans) are reproduced from selected genetic material. This is the extreme of "eugenics", not breeding for ideal offspring, but cloning yourself to be the offspring! The assumption that the clone would be identical to the original person takes into account only the genetic component, and the role of environmental programming cannot be predicted in the same way and is unlikely to reproduce the same personal configuration. The danger of cloning is its disregard for recombinant genetic variation. Cloning an individual is the ultimate narcissistic statement that indicates the person is ideal, and no modifications in their genome are needed. Cloning of animals (or plants) sometimes occurs in Nature, but for more complex animals it does not, as adaptive selection is prevented. Most troublesome is CRISPR. The ability to modify plants and animals by introducing genetic material by non-sexual selection methods ENTIRELY BYPASSES EVOLUTION in favor of "scientific" presumptions of better adaptive value. Its use has been proposed for correcting single locus genome abnormalities in human illnesses, where somatic cells can be modified, and also proposed for as yet unachievable interventions in embryos. The medical application seems humanitarian and does not automatically alter evolution. But the urge to find genetic material that enhances human capacities, and insert this to produce "ideal" embryos is a lurking danger. Here again, bypassing the evolutionary process produces unknown non-evolutionary consequences.
AI is the ability to combine and integrate human cultural production to produce new cultural "products". Since all human culture bypasses evolutionary selection, it is not clear how this particular modification poses risk other than more direct cultural interventions. In a recent opinion, Karp has compared the development of nuclear
technology to AI.
(https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/25/opinion/karp-palantir-artificial-intelligence.html) To understand the danger of AI, one must understand that human cultural products are created by individuals. Each person receives training from others about basic cultural memes and how to use them to participate in the social system in which he/she is embedded. The evolutionary impact on culture depends on how cultural elements
appeal to and manage the motivations of individuals. When this impact
is mal-adaptive, the long term result is a contraction, or elimination of the culture. Economic rewards, sexual selection, and social support are all linked to appropriate performance of cultural behavior. (The failure to consistently conform is usually considered "mental illness".) In more complex societies, bureaucratic entities, governments, corporations, etc, are given legal existence to have power to enforce and reward cultural performances. These artificial entities may demand cultural behaviors that are mal-adaptive (that interfere with evolution). When evolution is effective, mal-adaptive behavior of these "artificial organisms" results is eventually selected out. What makes robotics/AI so threatening is the possibility of creating entities that perform actions with a significant level of human intellectual capacity, but are not regulated by human motivations. What then are they responsive to? The current fear is that they are responsive to corporations that are not empathic to the needs of the larger society. This is the (alleged) effect of social media corporations and other technological developments that have emerged in recent years. But it is unclear if they are disregarding the larger society, or responding to conflicting influences with different political interests. (An intelligent governmental response in this country appears to be impossible due to the current technological ignorance of the political leadership.) The danger of AI is that human intellectual capacities can be mimicked by computational devices that humans will be unable to discriminate from interacting with another human, and so will be unaware of being manipulated by some entity. The evolutionary extreme would be humans manipulated to "fall in love with" pornographic AI productions which distract them from human reproduction and materially alter the ability of evolution to influence natural selection. (How much this already occurs in dating sites is unknown.)
So long as intelligence is closely linked with human motivations in individuals susceptible to social and sexual selection, it is indirectly influenced by evolution, including its "cultural" component. Any intellectual activity that bypasses the evolutionary selection process threatens to alter evolutionary processes with unknown consequences!
