Amazing piece. Reading your post, it echoed quite a few points from Yuval Noah Harari's Sapiens, which I read quite a while ago, especially on how cultural evolution basically sped up the whole evolutionary process and allowed us to climb the ladder at an exponential speed, which would otherwise not have been possible.
Another ‘nonrivalrous' idea of some import was the discovery of how to handle and then generate fire (perhaps 1.8 million years ago?), leading to much enhanced caloric intake when food could be cooked and made more easily digestible - both mean and plants. And of course leading to the ability to live in colder climes than before.
One cultural fact I learned about some time ago was that apparently when groups moved as hunter gatherers, sometimes they assigned a child as young as two years old to hold and carry the leaves holding the embers from last night's fire. I have some reservation about having such a critical function performed by such a young child, but presumably he (or she?) was also well supervised.
"... formed neural connections that resembled increasingly complex computers ..."
Aside from the fact that the neuroscientists don't really like that characterization of our brain as a computer, I only recently learned that the number of synaptic connections from a given neuron to its "friends" was not merely 1,000, but 10,000. Thus, with 100 billion neurons (10^11) and (10^4) connections per, we end up with an even more complex network than I had learned about originally: 10^15 connections!! Trying to understand 1000 connections was bad enough, but a 10 fold increase on that is just incredible. I remain a little skeptical of that, but I did double check the internet for confirmation when I saw that. Also that we have at least 100 different types of neurons, whatever that means in detail.
With this even more sophisticated resource at our disposal, it is a lot easier to accept the development and rapid advancement of cultural evolution that you are/ will be discussing.
"Through this method, bad mutations could be swept out of the gene pool more quickly and the mixing and matching of DNA made it more probable that advantageous traits would appear than by random chance alone." Evolution does not have morality: there are no "bad" mutations. Only mutations that may or may not allow the resulting organism to survive and reproduce the next generation, in a given time and place (aka environment). Because evolution seems to be making "better" organisms, eventually leading to us, we too often fail to honor the fact that evolution is not directional or teleological. Thus you are correct that sexual reproduction creates more variations on a genetic theme, such that the probability of successful succession applies at the organism level, but those mutations (as changes at the DNA level) are just as random as asexual ones.
Having said all that, I have just bought a new book (but have yet to read it) that might explain that genetics and evolution are even more complicated and less straightforward than our prior simpler views or (at least) our layman understanding. See: Philip Ball, How Life Works: A User’s Guide to the New Biology [2023].
Well, it appears the Substack SW is not really ready for adult prime time. I just saw I had "somehow" created a duplicate of one of my comments, so I thought I was deleting just the duplicate, not the initial copy. Nope, both are gone.
I think it had something to do with a minor confusion when you bring up prokaryotes not having organelles and then you mention photosynthesis before introducing the idea of eukaryotes with organelles. But chloroplasts are organelles and so photosynthesis had to wait for evolution of the eukaryotes. Adjusting the text order might fix this? [There is that word "order" again!! :-) ]
"Replication/reproduction and evolution are the primary mechanisms through which life attempts to adapt and multiply. " I am not sure it is a definitively accepted distinction, but I understand "replication" applies to the biomolecular level as new molecules form, while "reproduction" applies at the organism level. I like this distinction, since (following Nick Lane and Freeman Dyson) "life" is the combination of metabolism (as the generation and employment of chemical energy, typically across a membrane) AND reproduction (of the cell or protocell or organism).
Later in the text you said: "Early life replicated or cloned itself." Here you are also not using the same distinction. We know what you mean but sometimes specific language matters.
I suppose this detail is orthogonal to your probable discussions of risk at the cultural level, unless you intend to incorporate the risks of particular biochemical replications and reproductions at the biological level (say for diseases or phenotypical features?). Is it better to discuss cultural evolution as memes that were replicated and modified, while only people (or their domesticated plants and animals) reproduced?
Pro and Con; AKA "the Lord givith and the Lord taketh away" :-)
"In order for this nascent life to maintain its filial duty to laws of entropy..." I love it when someone finds a spot-on way of phrasing something, in this case via "filial duty", that takes language normally used in one context and manages to apply it properly and well in another. The richness of (especially the English) language, also supporting your comments about our evolved voice box and (probable) parallel evolution of the brain's language ability to employ it to advantage.
"In order for" or "in order to" are basically redundant. Once you realize this you will see it in many places. :-) [Unless you are discussing something like law and order, or perhaps things in a sequential order.]
Or the Earth and everything and everyone on it was created a week ago, complete with memories. (But I sort of doubt it.)
Amazing piece. Reading your post, it echoed quite a few points from Yuval Noah Harari's Sapiens, which I read quite a while ago, especially on how cultural evolution basically sped up the whole evolutionary process and allowed us to climb the ladder at an exponential speed, which would otherwise not have been possible.
"leading to much enhanced caloric intake when food could be cooked and made more easily digestible - both mean and plants..."
MEAT and plants DOH!! I proof read my posts before posting them, really I do!! :-)
Another ‘nonrivalrous' idea of some import was the discovery of how to handle and then generate fire (perhaps 1.8 million years ago?), leading to much enhanced caloric intake when food could be cooked and made more easily digestible - both mean and plants. And of course leading to the ability to live in colder climes than before.
One cultural fact I learned about some time ago was that apparently when groups moved as hunter gatherers, sometimes they assigned a child as young as two years old to hold and carry the leaves holding the embers from last night's fire. I have some reservation about having such a critical function performed by such a young child, but presumably he (or she?) was also well supervised.
Awesome and concise summary of life.
"... formed neural connections that resembled increasingly complex computers ..."
Aside from the fact that the neuroscientists don't really like that characterization of our brain as a computer, I only recently learned that the number of synaptic connections from a given neuron to its "friends" was not merely 1,000, but 10,000. Thus, with 100 billion neurons (10^11) and (10^4) connections per, we end up with an even more complex network than I had learned about originally: 10^15 connections!! Trying to understand 1000 connections was bad enough, but a 10 fold increase on that is just incredible. I remain a little skeptical of that, but I did double check the internet for confirmation when I saw that. Also that we have at least 100 different types of neurons, whatever that means in detail.
With this even more sophisticated resource at our disposal, it is a lot easier to accept the development and rapid advancement of cultural evolution that you are/ will be discussing.
"Through this method, bad mutations could be swept out of the gene pool more quickly and the mixing and matching of DNA made it more probable that advantageous traits would appear than by random chance alone." Evolution does not have morality: there are no "bad" mutations. Only mutations that may or may not allow the resulting organism to survive and reproduce the next generation, in a given time and place (aka environment). Because evolution seems to be making "better" organisms, eventually leading to us, we too often fail to honor the fact that evolution is not directional or teleological. Thus you are correct that sexual reproduction creates more variations on a genetic theme, such that the probability of successful succession applies at the organism level, but those mutations (as changes at the DNA level) are just as random as asexual ones.
Having said all that, I have just bought a new book (but have yet to read it) that might explain that genetics and evolution are even more complicated and less straightforward than our prior simpler views or (at least) our layman understanding. See: Philip Ball, How Life Works: A User’s Guide to the New Biology [2023].
Well, it appears the Substack SW is not really ready for adult prime time. I just saw I had "somehow" created a duplicate of one of my comments, so I thought I was deleting just the duplicate, not the initial copy. Nope, both are gone.
I think it had something to do with a minor confusion when you bring up prokaryotes not having organelles and then you mention photosynthesis before introducing the idea of eukaryotes with organelles. But chloroplasts are organelles and so photosynthesis had to wait for evolution of the eukaryotes. Adjusting the text order might fix this? [There is that word "order" again!! :-) ]
"Replication/reproduction and evolution are the primary mechanisms through which life attempts to adapt and multiply. " I am not sure it is a definitively accepted distinction, but I understand "replication" applies to the biomolecular level as new molecules form, while "reproduction" applies at the organism level. I like this distinction, since (following Nick Lane and Freeman Dyson) "life" is the combination of metabolism (as the generation and employment of chemical energy, typically across a membrane) AND reproduction (of the cell or protocell or organism).
Later in the text you said: "Early life replicated or cloned itself." Here you are also not using the same distinction. We know what you mean but sometimes specific language matters.
I suppose this detail is orthogonal to your probable discussions of risk at the cultural level, unless you intend to incorporate the risks of particular biochemical replications and reproductions at the biological level (say for diseases or phenotypical features?). Is it better to discuss cultural evolution as memes that were replicated and modified, while only people (or their domesticated plants and animals) reproduced?
Pro and Con; AKA "the Lord givith and the Lord taketh away" :-)
"In order for this nascent life to maintain its filial duty to laws of entropy..." I love it when someone finds a spot-on way of phrasing something, in this case via "filial duty", that takes language normally used in one context and manages to apply it properly and well in another. The richness of (especially the English) language, also supporting your comments about our evolved voice box and (probable) parallel evolution of the brain's language ability to employ it to advantage.
"In order for" or "in order to" are basically redundant. Once you realize this you will see it in many places. :-) [Unless you are discussing something like law and order, or perhaps things in a sequential order.]