But the tenets of sociobiology -- that our personal and social behavior is driven by the forces of evolution -- can't go over very well, for instance, with creationists.

Yes, that's right. It was very curious that I never got attacked by the right on this front. The only reason I could figure out was that leading thinkers in the religious right, including anti-evolutionists who would be most concerned, simply didn't know about sociobiology. It was too arcane, too theoretical. And now, even today, the creationists mostly direct their attacks on fossil evidence that humanity evolved from ape-like forms. They don't get into the intricacies of neuroscience or behavior.

Speaking of neuroscience, do you believe that consciousness itself is also an evolutionary adaptation?

Yes. Proof will require a lot more information about, for example, neuro-circuitry and the nature of memory and emotional inputs in reasoning. Once we get a grip on that, I believe it will become evident that consciousness is a Darwinian adaptation.

What does that do to the notion of the soul? Does that mean you believe there is no such thing?

Yes, in the religious sense. I think the Cartesian notion of dualism between body and soul is dead forever. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. Which is another reason for having deep thinking about human values and where we want the human species to go.

Well, the human species has certainly grown and prospered from putting the Earth's resources to use. Is plundering those resources an ironic example of survival-of-the-fittest Darwinism as well?

Unfortunately, yes. It's always been to the advantage of people in a Darwinian sense to convert agricultural and grazing land. It's always been an advantage for the short term. But it could be disastrous for the species in the long haul. The great thing about humans is that we're capable of looking far enough into the future to avert tragedy that comes from our actions.

How about evolution as a solution to our environmental problems? Couldn't we evolve biologically to adapt to a seriously deteriorated biosphere?

That's the comic-book scenario. I've actually read people who have said this, without any evident irony. But the notion that we should just go ahead in a blockheaded way -- over-reproducing, destroying the natural environment that our species evolved in and then trying to change our genes as everything winds down -- is a nightmare that no sane person would ever want to take seriously.

Are humans still evolving at all?

No, at least not in any directional sense. But we are changing quickly in another sense. We are changing into a more homogeneous gene pool -- a trend that in a few more centuries could result in a fairly similar human population. The genes that make up traditional racial differences will be more and more shared.

Stephen Hawking recently said that the human race won't last this millennium unless we start to colonize space. Do you agree?

I admire Stephen Hawking but I think he's completely wrong. All of the evidence shows that we can turn Earth into our permanent, safe home. This is where our species evolved. It's what our biology adapted to, in exquisite detail -- our physiology, the way our mind developed.

What about colonizing space just to take the load off a little bit?

The great majority of physicists and biologists who have given thought to this agree that colonizing space would be one of the most ruinously expensive ways to try to alleviate human overpopulation. It's not the destiny of humanity to pilot escape vehicles away from a dying Earth. We are the first species to really have the ability to control the planet as a biophysical force. We are also the first species to see far into the future and plan our impact on the planet. We are also the first species to have volitional evolution: We can turn ourselves genetically into what we wish to be.

Does that mean we could use bioengineering to change human physiology to live in a deteriorated environment?

This raises the question of whether we will be stupid enough to continue to let the environment deteriorate, and not worry about it because we might be able to change ourselves to be able live in a hotter world with more atmospheric pollutants and a different diet. But it would be substantially removed from what we think of as a natural human condition.

If we do everything we can to sustain life on Earth, how much longer have we got as a species?

Oh, I think until the sun dies.

But what if we do stay on the same track we're on now?

Then Stephen Hawking might turn out to be right.

And in that case how long have we got?

It's highly unlikely that homo sapiens will go extinct -- ever -- but we will have lost most of the natural environment, and the species of animals and plants in it, by the end of the century. I don't, however, see it going that way. We can and we will learn to live on this planet sustainably.

You won a Pulitzer for a book called "On Human Nature," and you really believe that?

Yes. I think people are smart enough to act in the global interest when they see it is their own interest writ large.

Recent Stories