I applaud Wilson et al. for a great initiative aimed at creating a “science of intentional change.” We need to make informed and rational decisions, and in this respect an understanding of human nature, rooted in biology, offers important contributions that have not been fully exploited. I do have some minor comments about their approach.
My primary concern relates to the use of the term evolution. In the text, it refers to two very different processes: either biological evolution (implying genetic changes) or cultural/personal “evolution” (phenotypic changes). It is sometimes difficult to guess which of the two the authors refer to. Yet, the main problem is that a science aimed at changing human society could engage either type of process, but the strategies involved would be completely different. Consequently, the two types are best dealt with independently.
As has been amply demonstrated – for example, in the case of dogs – it is possible to change the course of (biological) evolution, even in the span of relatively few generations. Nevertheless, in the case of humans, this seems at the present to be politically and practically an unsavory strategy. Therefore, the focus ought to be on cultural change. There is nothing wrong with using terms such as “cultural evolution.” However, in the present setting, I believe the two meanings of the word evolution may confuse the reader, and perhaps alienate people who are skeptical to a biological perspective.
The authors make a case for including all types of human change, from genetics to epigenetics, symbolism, learning, and culture, in a single framework sometimes referred to as a Darwin machine. They argue that the distinction between genetic and other types of change is indistinct. For example, genes can be altered after conception (e.g., immunoglobulin genes); acquired traits may be inherited (epigenetics); cultural factors can influence the course of biological evolution; and the “evolution” of cultural traits is, in many ways, analogous to biological evolution. I do not object to any of these accounts, but I still believe that a science aimed at improving society ought to distinguish between alterations in the gene pool and the development of phenotype. The differences are more profound than the similarities. Rather than lumping all the factors that make an impact on human society into one concept (evolution), it seems more salient to clarify the mechanism used by the various factors, and focus on how the different mechanisms allow for the implementation of change. My point is certainly not to downplay the role of the environmentally based mechanisms, as I believe these represent the avenues worth following.
The authors point out that we should try to improve society by taking advantage of the inherent plasticity of the human phenotype. In my view, the main contribution from biology in this respect is insight into human nature. A biological approach helps us understand just how plastic the human brain is, and how to have an impact. I believe a pendulum (or a rubber band) offers a useful analogy as to plasticity (Grinde Reference Grinde2009). There are vague limits as to how far away from the “default setting” of the human genotype one is likely to move a population. It is, for example, possible to expand our capacity for empathy, and subdue the tendency for aggression. In the case of a carefully raised individual, we can go a long way; but for a larger population, it requires a lot of effort to move far away from the default mix of good and bad behavior indicated by the genes. Energy is needed to keep the pendulum in a position away from an area surrounding the point of gravity. An understanding of human nature offers a handle that helps us pull the pendulum to a desired position.
Evolution designed humans for a life in a certain type of environment (and a concomitant behavioral style). Although this environment can only be vaguely outlined, and a broad range of settings will do fine, some of the changes introduced by modern societies cause problems. The diseases of civilization, including common mental disorders, are presumably a consequence of unwholesome changes. The term mismatch is used for differences between the archaic human environment and the present conditions (Eaton et al. Reference Eaton, Konner and Shostak1988). I use the term discords for the mismatches that can have detrimental effects (Grinde Reference Grinde2004). When instigating changes, one ought to be careful not to introduce factors that, although potentially beneficial for one purpose, are discords in the sense that they also contribute to undesirable effects. Understanding human nature, and the environment that shaped it, helps us avoid this trap.
Another issue is that a science of intentional change ought to discuss why alterations are desired, and in what direction one wishes to move. Evolutionary success for the human species is, for example, unlikely to be advantageous – as our species already had too much of it. The commitment of both my Institute and my own work is to change human society. As to the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, the aim is for better health, mental well-being included; I seek to improve quality of life, taking a biological approach as to what a good life, or happiness, is about (Grinde Reference Grinde2012). The formula introduced by the Happy Planet Index (Abdallah et al. Reference Abdallah, Michaelson, Shah, Stoll and Marks2012) – Experienced well-being × Life expectancy / Ecological footprint – could serve as an aim.
There are many frameworks, and concomitant terminologies, that can describe humans and form a basis for a science of intentional change. How correct they are tends to depend on how one interprets the concepts included. A more pertinent question may be: How well do they serve the purpose – in this context, the process of change? Wilson et al. have done an excellent job at introducing the issue, but I believe a further development of their framework is desirable.
I applaud Wilson et al. for a great initiative aimed at creating a “science of intentional change.” We need to make informed and rational decisions, and in this respect an understanding of human nature, rooted in biology, offers important contributions that have not been fully exploited. I do have some minor comments about their approach.
My primary concern relates to the use of the term evolution. In the text, it refers to two very different processes: either biological evolution (implying genetic changes) or cultural/personal “evolution” (phenotypic changes). It is sometimes difficult to guess which of the two the authors refer to. Yet, the main problem is that a science aimed at changing human society could engage either type of process, but the strategies involved would be completely different. Consequently, the two types are best dealt with independently.
As has been amply demonstrated – for example, in the case of dogs – it is possible to change the course of (biological) evolution, even in the span of relatively few generations. Nevertheless, in the case of humans, this seems at the present to be politically and practically an unsavory strategy. Therefore, the focus ought to be on cultural change. There is nothing wrong with using terms such as “cultural evolution.” However, in the present setting, I believe the two meanings of the word evolution may confuse the reader, and perhaps alienate people who are skeptical to a biological perspective.
The authors make a case for including all types of human change, from genetics to epigenetics, symbolism, learning, and culture, in a single framework sometimes referred to as a Darwin machine. They argue that the distinction between genetic and other types of change is indistinct. For example, genes can be altered after conception (e.g., immunoglobulin genes); acquired traits may be inherited (epigenetics); cultural factors can influence the course of biological evolution; and the “evolution” of cultural traits is, in many ways, analogous to biological evolution. I do not object to any of these accounts, but I still believe that a science aimed at improving society ought to distinguish between alterations in the gene pool and the development of phenotype. The differences are more profound than the similarities. Rather than lumping all the factors that make an impact on human society into one concept (evolution), it seems more salient to clarify the mechanism used by the various factors, and focus on how the different mechanisms allow for the implementation of change. My point is certainly not to downplay the role of the environmentally based mechanisms, as I believe these represent the avenues worth following.
The authors point out that we should try to improve society by taking advantage of the inherent plasticity of the human phenotype. In my view, the main contribution from biology in this respect is insight into human nature. A biological approach helps us understand just how plastic the human brain is, and how to have an impact. I believe a pendulum (or a rubber band) offers a useful analogy as to plasticity (Grinde Reference Grinde2009). There are vague limits as to how far away from the “default setting” of the human genotype one is likely to move a population. It is, for example, possible to expand our capacity for empathy, and subdue the tendency for aggression. In the case of a carefully raised individual, we can go a long way; but for a larger population, it requires a lot of effort to move far away from the default mix of good and bad behavior indicated by the genes. Energy is needed to keep the pendulum in a position away from an area surrounding the point of gravity. An understanding of human nature offers a handle that helps us pull the pendulum to a desired position.
Evolution designed humans for a life in a certain type of environment (and a concomitant behavioral style). Although this environment can only be vaguely outlined, and a broad range of settings will do fine, some of the changes introduced by modern societies cause problems. The diseases of civilization, including common mental disorders, are presumably a consequence of unwholesome changes. The term mismatch is used for differences between the archaic human environment and the present conditions (Eaton et al. Reference Eaton, Konner and Shostak1988). I use the term discords for the mismatches that can have detrimental effects (Grinde Reference Grinde2004). When instigating changes, one ought to be careful not to introduce factors that, although potentially beneficial for one purpose, are discords in the sense that they also contribute to undesirable effects. Understanding human nature, and the environment that shaped it, helps us avoid this trap.
Another issue is that a science of intentional change ought to discuss why alterations are desired, and in what direction one wishes to move. Evolutionary success for the human species is, for example, unlikely to be advantageous – as our species already had too much of it. The commitment of both my Institute and my own work is to change human society. As to the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, the aim is for better health, mental well-being included; I seek to improve quality of life, taking a biological approach as to what a good life, or happiness, is about (Grinde Reference Grinde2012). The formula introduced by the Happy Planet Index (Abdallah et al. Reference Abdallah, Michaelson, Shah, Stoll and Marks2012) – Experienced well-being × Life expectancy / Ecological footprint – could serve as an aim.
There are many frameworks, and concomitant terminologies, that can describe humans and form a basis for a science of intentional change. How correct they are tends to depend on how one interprets the concepts included. A more pertinent question may be: How well do they serve the purpose – in this context, the process of change? Wilson et al. have done an excellent job at introducing the issue, but I believe a further development of their framework is desirable.