crisis

Ongoing evolution?

For the most part, Bantu-speaking peoples have triumphed, in general, among the other indigenous peoples of Africa.  They have triumphed militarily. economically and demographically.  For instance. about half of all Africans now learn a Bantu-based language in infanthood, presumably from their mothers, before they learn any other language.

​

The many Bantu languages have evolved, in the course of time, from a language that was spoken by only a few people who lived in a small area near the "armpit" of Africa, three or four thousand years ago.  Although not all Bantu-speaking people are direct descendants of the small original Bantu population, the popularity of Bantu languages today indicates that evolution is still ongoing among Homo sapiens.  

​

The Bantus have always been quick to adopt new ideas.  For instance, they didn't invent the smelting of iron, nor did they invent blacksmithing, but somehow they came into early contact with early pioneers of smelting and working with iron, and took up those arts with alacrity.  Moreover, yams (African yams), bananas and millet, all native to Africa, were domesticated by others before the Bantus began growing them.  Bantus took up the herding of cattle as they moved into areas which were too dry for farming, and then came to dominate cattle herding in southern Africa, and they were (and are) the merchants and shopkeepers of Africa.  Bantus have been at the leading edge of new things in Africa for more than three thousand years, and that is how they came to dominate the most productive parts of Africa south of the Sahara Desert.

The Bantu expansion illustrates how competition among different ancestral groups drove hominin evolution for at least two million years, and it still is driving our evolution.

A change in direction?

​

On the other hand, during the last fifty thousand years or so, evolution seems to be taking us toward diversity, rather than versatility, in at least some respects.

​

For instance, the constantly increasing brain sizes of the last two million years, which enabled our ancestors to become more and more versatile, no longer characterizes our evolution.  Instead, current brain-size evolution has turned into random drift.  This is probably because of a combination of features of modern life:

​

1. New birthing procedures enable mothers to successfully give birth even when the infant has an extra-large head.

2. Good nutrition has been a fact of life for most human populations in recent times so that large brains no longer compete for scarce resources that are needed by other tissues, such as muscles.

3. Human societies have become so large and interconnected that people no longer have to be versatile in order to pass on their genes.

​​

Not only do big brains not necessarily contribute to survival, but in the last fifty thousand years they have increasingly become a handicap, and average brain sizes have tended to decline.  This decline of average brain size would most likely be most pronounced in the most modern societies if nutrition had not improved overall.  In other words, modern life seems to support an evolutionary trend toward smaller brain sizes, and we may be following in the footsteps of Homo naledi.

​

What about taking charge?

​

It has been suggested that we should take steps to stop evolution altogether.  This might be safer than letting blind chance rule our future course of evolution, but it calls to mind Adolph Hitler's quest to eliminate genetic characteristics that he thought were inferior (or, in fact, if he thought they might be superior in some ways to his planned Master Race).

The future

So, what surprises lay hidden in future time?  Chances are that Florida will disappear, and major metropolises around the world will sink beneath the waves.  Most of the animals and plants that we find on Earth today will be squeezed out of existence by Homo sapiens.  In short, another existential crisis is staring us in the face, as our population, technology and habits squeeze the life out of our planet.  Again, we find ourselves unable to come to a consensus as to what to do to save ourselves.  But now, the group that needs to agree about the problem and take concerted action consists of all of humanity.  What is clear is that present trends are unsustainable, so I will end my story with this question:  Are we ultimately winners or losers?