Michio Kaku: Mankind Has Stopped Evolving | Big Think

Has Mankind Stopped Evolving?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are no more evolutionary pressures driving gross human evolution, but that doesn’t mean we won’t be able to genetically re-engineer ourselves in the future.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHIO KAKU:

Dr. Michio Kaku is the co-founder of string field theory, and is one of the most widely recognized scientists in the world today. He has written 4 New York Times Best Sellers, is the science correspondent for CBS This Morning and has hosted numerous science specials for BBC-TV, the Discovery/Science Channel. His radio show broadcasts to 100 radio stations every week. Dr. Kaku holds the Henry Semat Chair and Professorship in theoretical physics at the City College of New York (CUNY), where he has taught for over 25 years. He has also been a visiting professor at the Institute for Advanced Study as well as New York University (NYU).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:

Question: Have human beings stopped evolving? Will humans look any different in the future? (Submitted by Kiran Uttarkar)

Michio Kaku: Kiran, if you read science fiction you might think that humans in the future will be slender, short, bald, with big heads and big eyes that sort of the stereotype that you get from the comic books. However, you have to realize that as far a gross evolutionary pressure is concerned; there is none anymore on the human race. For example, in the old days, when we lived in the forests, there was enormous selection and pressures placed on us to develop a large brain, to understand how to use tools, to run, to be able to navigate, to survive in the forests. Enormous pressures on us because if you were not fit to live in the forest, you died. And so your genes are not here today.

But how much evolutionary pressure is being placed on us today? Well, first of all, there are no more Australias. Australia is a content that broke off from the other continents and it evolved very rapidly because it diverged from the rest of the evolutionary tree. There are no more Australias anymore.

In the sense, we have jet airplanes. You can jet airplane… you can go pretty much anywhere on the planet earth, meet people, have children and your genes are now spread throughout the planet earth. We no longer have any isolated pockets, like Australia, which would accelerate human evolution. Now, evolution is still taking place, it takes place every time two people mate. It takes place inside our bodies, in our immune systems, in our body chemistry. Evolution is still taking place. But gross evolution, that is, evolution that will give us big brains, big eyes, bald heads and little bodies, that kind of gross evolution is pretty much gone.

Now, that doesn’t mean that we can’t have genetic engineering. That’s many decades away. At the present time, we can only manipulate perhaps one gene at a time. It is a very painful process, we cannot, for example, create a pig with wings, that would require thousands of genes being manipulated. And we simply don’t have that technology. We only manipulate one gene at a time.

So I think we are many, many decades away from being able to actually influence human evolution. So in other words, chances are, decades from now, we’ll look pretty much the same.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABOUT BIG THINK:

Smarter Faster™
Big Think is the leading source of expert-driven, actionable, educational content -- with thousands of videos, featuring experts ranging from Bill Clinton to Bill Nye, we help you get smarter, faster. S​ubscribe to learn from top minds like these daily. Get actionable lessons from the world’s greatest thinkers & doers. Our experts are either disrupting or leading their respective fields. ​We aim to help you explore the big ideas and core skills that define knowledge in the 21st century, so you can apply them to the questions and challenges in your own life.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow Big Think here:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[raintaken]

This video is almost a decade old and now we have crisper-cas9 boys. Can’t wait to see what happens in another 10years.

[Necron]

we stopped evolving, but our technology will evolve for us. the evolution is not on human anymore, it's on the technologies we create. so in the future, don't expect to see big eye human, but do expect to see robots that can take over the whole galaxy. 

[grimm]

"You can pretty much go anywhere on the planet, meet people, have children..."

I've been on planes. Never did it cross my mind to spread my seeds that far :D

[BrotherWitch]

Evolution is created by cause and effect.  The strongest of the species survive, and go on to make adaptions.  With the weak and ignorant having the most children, we're actually de-evolving.  We need selective breeding to evolve.  Duh.

[TheYear-wicq]

There's intellectual pressure not physical pressure.

[rafarga]

The Kardashians. Sad proof that humanity has stopped evolving ^_^

[theeditor]

We are of course still evolving, that's obvious, it's just a lot slower now because we no longer need to struggle to survive in most cases

[IWashMyOwnBrain]

I JUST HOPE WE EVOLVE BEYOND RELIGION .

[Caspernil]

There's a certain bittersweet guilty feeling that comes along with watching these videos in the sense that I want so much to be alive in 100 or so years to be there for these future mind-blowing discoveries. I feel guilt because it's greed on my part and I understand that progression is slow and we all work together to advance human society. I'm sure I am not the only one, I tell myself Newton, Einstein and Galileo probably felt the same way.

[Gerkinstock]

"Chances are, decades from now, we'll look... pretty much... the same."

Bold prediction, Captain Humdrum.

[Gorillazilla]

Also, I feel like we don't need to evolve any further because when we encounter a problem we simply use a tool or piece of technology to solve it. We can make our own lives easier with technology and without having to struggle for thousands of years until we are able to solve it because our bodies have evolved that way.

[DeepSpaceNinja]

Natural Selection is still happening. For example, extremely obese people are less likely to reproduce. Which means those genes are less likely to propagate.

[Riken]

Combinations with machines and computers is the next step of human evolution.

[santiagodraco]

Years ago I had a lightbulb go off.... and it's exactly what Michio is talking about... we are no longer evolving forward.   Think about it.   There are no longer evolutionary pressures.   The weak, stupid, even the "sick" no longer die off and the strong, smart and healthy only live.   I'm not saying this to be mean I'm saying it as fact.   As a matter of fact our society has made it even better for those who would normally  fail... we give more money to those with more children regardless of their ability to care for them properly.  We've made it profitable to devolve.    I fear for our future children if this trend continues.

[tiffsaver]

If you don't believe that mankind has stop evolving, simply watch an episode of "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo."

[phatcatrat]

Damn. I expected more from this guy. Evolution is an ongoing process. It doesn't stop, no matter what. Mankind will never stop evolving. It will just evolve in different, more relevant ways.

[MrSmileySpy]

It is very interesting to see all the comments saying that Michio Kaku is wrong when in reality, the place we live in, all ideas about the progression of species are theories. The THEORY of evolution is a great example. This explanation given by Michio Kaku in this clip is just a theory supported with evidence and hypothesis. He is not lying, rather, he is just providing a supported theory about humanity.

[Downthehollow]

i like how people are saying "he's just so wrong." i'm pretty sure as old as he is and as wise as he is, he has thought of what you just thought of.  Then he figured out why it was wrong.  What he's saying is that we don't have anything that will change our physical characteristics.  There is no stress on the physical body that forces us to change our physical appearance.  Girls looking different? they never changed.  The only thing that changed is their diet and what the tastes of men during that specific time period is.  So yes we are evolving like some of you pointed out but we aren't going to physically evolve.  Nothing is forcing us to do so and nothing will force us to do so unless we suffer through a nuclear winter.  Then we have to go back to survival of the fittest.

[BOBMAN]

I have trouble taking anything Michio Kaku says seriously.  More than anything, he seems to be someone who'll saying something about anything--doesn't matter how grounded in real thought or analysis it may or may not be--as long as it means he gets the attention he craves.

[dkdrsrh]

+Mario Alemi 
Ad.1 I'm relieved to hear it. Good for us :-) 
Ad.2. Thanks. I always try and rely on source materials, if I can. I'll keep reading. 
Ad.3 First off, I never said  that humans haven't evolved for the last 50 ky. In fact, I know for a fact that we did. 
Secondly, I'm not a big fun of comparing biologic evolution to what's recently been labeled "cultural evolution". I think that in many ways that's not a terribly fruitful analogy. 
Thirdly, I didn't even evoke the selfish gene hypothesis", for it is more of a philosophical concept and one that doesn't offer much new, in terms of the inner workings of evolution. I was simply pointing out that you can't get evolutionary change to last over multiple generations without embedding it into genome first. That was ALL that I was referring to as the classical take on biologic evolution. Now, if you'll take on board various possible consequences of the epigenetic imprint, then you may deem the classical approach obsolete. That's OK. All I meant was that it is still unclear, at least to some, whether epigenetic alterations actually facilitate evolution. 
Personally, I don't find anything preposterous about "the idea that the human being is made by its DNA", because that is NOT the idea. I don't know anyone among scientists who would think that all the functions that body performs are facilitated solely by DNA. Far from it, they'd say. But DNA is the only molecule with confirmed ability to store all the information necessary to code for both the development and operation of a biologic organism. Or so it was until very recently, as we now discuss the place of epigenetic regulation in all this. Either way, for LIFE to thrive and be reborn you also need CONTINUITY, which I always thought was so moving about living things, because it is so incredibly easy to break it.  
So perhaps, for some, going from genomics to proteomics and epigenetics may constitute a "paradigm shift". Decidedly, it does change the way scientists do research in life sciences nowadays. Still, for me, there is nothing particularly revolutionary about it. All that means is that we've learnt enough to undergo yet another unification of our knowledge, rather than overturn everything we thought was true about DNA. 
Hope that helps. TC :-)