Opinion – Suzana Herculano-Houzel: Evolution is not progress, and progress is not improvement

by

This is a happy week for anyone who studies evolution and appreciates the power of comparative studies, which look at various life forms side by side to understand what is a fundamental rule, what is possible variation, what works and what doesn’t: the Swedish geneticist Svante Pääbo, director of the genetics department at the Max-Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work comparing genomes of modern humans and Neanderthals.

Pääbo insisted on sequencing the DNA of fossilized bones of various human forms, and the rest of the story is a consequence of his determination. My favorite discovery among his many contributions to our understanding of human origins is the demonstration of genetic matching between modern humans and Neanderthals, evidence that, by definition, we were just variations of the same species.

Pääbo continues to use conventional terminology that makes us share only the same gender, Homo, but this is detail; there are unnecessary battles when there is a greater objective. With more technology accumulated in the form of culture, the sapiens variety of the human species invaded Europe and decimated the resident Neanderthal variety; some 60,000 years later, the European variety of sapiens invaded the Americas and decimated the resident indigenous varieties. Both mass invasions left evidence in the genomes of the remaining populations.

If one was more evolved than the other? Of course. Neanderthals and Sapiens, Europeans and Native Americans co-existed on the planet as long as geography kept them apart, each living perfectly well in its corner. By a sum of contingencies, the technological progress of each one followed different paths; But when the barriers come down, whoever has the most technology — more resources to solve problems here and create new ones there, and speak louder, and gather more followers and even more resources — by definition wins in the event of a confrontation, as time continues to happen. all in the modern world.

Which also doesn’t mean that the best wins. “Better” depends on reference: better for whom? The majority that put the victor on the podium? This is circular logic, such as “survival of the fittest”, when “fit” is by definition who survived. Better by what criteria? Agree with current values? Well, that changes all the time, and thankfully.

I would love for them to avenge the smart behaviors: those that keep open doors and future possibilities. Those who keep the Amazon alive and full of diversity that we can hardly imagine. Those who keep everyone, not just the rich, healthy, educated and able to make their own future. Those who keep thinking individuals, full users of their prefrontal cortex’s abilities to envision a desired future and act for it, and not mere guardians of what once worked, not because it was better or more “progressed”, but just because that was all that was known then.

You May Also Like

Recommended for you