• for: gene culture coevolution, carrying capacity, unsustainability, overshoot, cultural evolution, progress trap

• Title: The genetic and cultural evolution of unsustainability

• Author: Brian F. Snyder

• Abstract

• Summary
• Paraphrase
  • Anthropogenic changes are accelerating and threaten the future of life on earth.
  • While the proximate mechanisms of these anthropogenic changes are well studied
    • climate change,
    • biodiversity loss,
    • population growth
  • the evolutionary causality of these anthropogenic changes have been largely ignored.
  • Anthroecological theory (AET) proposes that the ultimate cause of anthropogenic environmental change is
    • multi-level selection for niche construction and ecosystem engineering.
  • Here, we integrate this theory with
    • Lotka’s Maximum Power Principle
  • and propose a model linking
    • energy extraction from the environment with
    • genetic, technological and cultural evolution
  • to increase human ecosystem carrying capacity.
  • Carrying capacity is partially determined by energetic factors such as
    • the net energy a population can acquire from its environment and
    • the efficiency of conversion from energy input to offspring output.
  • These factors are under Darwinian genetic selection
  • in all species,
  • but in humans, they are also determined by
    • technology and
    • culture.
  • If there is genetic or non-genetic heritable variation in
    • the ability of an individual or social group
  • to increase its carrying capacity,
  • then we hypothesize that - selection or cultural evolution will act - to increase carrying capacity.
  • Furthermore, if this evolution of carrying capacity occurs - faster than the biotic components of the ecological system can respond via their own evolution,
    • then we hypothesize that unsustainable ecological changes will result.

It has been suggested that - the human species may be undergoing an evolutionary transition in individuality (ETI).

there is disagreement about - how to apply the ETI framework to our species - and whether culture is implicated - as either cause or consequence.

Long-term gene–culture coevolution (GCC) i- s - also poorly understood.

argued that - culture steers human evolution,

Others proposed - genes hold culture on a leash.

After review of the literature and evidence on long-term GCC in humans - emerge a set of common themes. - First, culture appears to hold greater adaptive potential than genetic inheritance - and is probably driving human evolution. - The evolutionary impact of culture occurs - mainly through culturally organized groups, - which have come to dominate human affairs in recent millennia. - Second, the role of culture appears to be growing, - increasingly bypassing genetic evolution and weakening genetic adaptive potential. -Taken together, these findings suggest that human long-term GCC is characterized by - an evolutionary transition in inheritance - from genes to culture - which entails a transition in individuality (from genetic individual to cultural group). Research on GCC should focus on the possibility of - an ongoing transition in the human inheritance system.

// In Other Words

• we must undo the myopic cultural evolution that has already taken place with a more collectively conscious form of cultural evolution //

• Title: Gene–culture coevolution and the nature of human sociality
• Author: Herbert Gintis

//Abstract - Summary - Human characteristics are the product of gene–culture coevolution, - which is an evolutionary dynamic involving the interaction of genes and culture - over long time periods. - Gene–culture coevolution is a special case of niche construction. - Gene–culture coevolution is responsible for: - human other-regarding preferences, - a taste for fairness, - the capacity to empathize and - salience of morality and character virtues.

• Title: Human niche construction in interdisciplinary focus
• Author:
  • Jeremy Kendal
  • Jamshid J. Tehrani
  • John Oding-Smee
• Abstract
  • summary
  • Niche construction is an endogenous causal process in evolution,
• reciprocal to the causal process of natural selection.
  • It works by adding ecological inheritance,
  • comprising the inheritance of natural selection pressures previously modified by niche construction,
  • to genetic inheritance in evolution.
  • Human niche construction modifies selection pressures in environments in ways that affect both human evolution, and the evolution of other species.
  • Human ecological inheritance is exceptionally potent
  • because it includes the social transmission and inheritance
  • of cultural knowledge, and material culture.
  • Human genetic inheritance
  • in combination with human cultural inheritance
  • thus provides a basis for gene–culture coevolution,
  • and multivariate dynamics in cultural evolution.
  • Niche construction theory potentially integrates the biological and social aspects of the human sciences.
  • We elaborate on these processes,
  • and provide brief introductions to each of the papers published in this theme issue.

//Summary* - The central question of the Anthropocene: - why did behaviorally modern humans gain the unprecedented capacity to change an entire planet? - cannot be answered by genetic changes in human behavior. - To explain why human societies scaled up to become a global force capable of changing the Earth and why there are so many different forms of human societies and ecologies shaped by them, - explanations must be sought beyond the theories of - biology, - chemistry or - physics. - Here I introduce a new evolutionary theory, sociocultural niche construction, - aimed at explaining the origins of human capacity to transform the Earth . - As will be seen, this theory also explains why - behaviorally modern human societies came to - transform ecology in so many different ways over the past 50,000 years as they expanded across the Earth. //

• Abstract
• summary
  • The exhibition of increasingly intensive and complex niche construction behaviors through time
  • is a key feature of human evolution,
  • culminating in the advanced capacity for ecosystem engineering exhibited by Homo sapiens.
  • A crucial outcome of such behaviors has been the dramatic reshaping of the global biosphere,
    • a transformation whose early origins are increasingly apparent
    • from cumulative archaeological and paleoecological datasets.
  • Such data suggest that, by the Late Pleistocene,
  • humans had begun to engage in activities
  • that have led to alterations in the distributions of a vast array of species
  • across most, if not all, taxonomic groups.
  • Changes to biodiversity have included
    • extinctions,
    • extirpations, and
    • shifts in species
      • composition,
      • diversity, and
      • community structure.
  • We outline key examples of these changes,
  • highlighting findings from the study of new datasets, like
    • ancient DNA (aDNA),
    • stable isotopes, and
    • microfossils, as well as
    • the application of new statistical and computational methods to datasets that have accumulated significantly in recent decades.
  • We focus on four major phases that witnessed broad anthropogenic alterations to biodiversity:
    • the Late Pleistocene global human expansion,
    • the Neolithic spread of agriculture,
    • the era of island colonization, and
    • the emergence of early urbanized societies and commercial networks.
  • Archaeological evidence documents millennia of anthropogenic transformations
  • that have created novel ecosystems around the world.
  • This record has implications for:
    • ecological and evolutionary research,
    • conservation strategies, and
    • the maintenance of ecosystem services,
  • pointing to a significant need for broader cross-disciplinary engagement between:
    • archaeology
    • the biological sciences and
    • the environmental sciences.

• Title: Ecological consequences of human niche construction: Examining long-term anthropogenic shaping of global species distributions
• Author:
  • Nicole L. Bolvin
  • Melinda A. Zeder
  • Dorian O. Fuller
  • Michael D. Petraglia