Technological leaps change how humans relate to the natural world and to one another, but they can also change people. The reason is the technological leap changes the environment of people in ways that change selection pressure. The move from hunter gatherer to agriculture is a good example. The sorts of traits that are favored by the former is not the same that is favored by the latter. Greg Cochran and Henry Harpending made this case in the book The 10,000 Year Explosion.
The thing is though, the changes are slow. There’s never been a technological change that has killed off a portion of the population carrying some mutation deemed deleterious in the new technological environment. The changes described by Cochran and Harpending happened over many generations. A person living in the 5th century was not all that different from a person living in the same place during the 10th century. People got a little smarter, a little more peaceful, but people remained essentially the same.
We could be on the cusp of the first great biological revolution introduced by human technological advance. If this is true, and it is most likely is true, the next great technological advance will change humans. If we can alter the DNA of human embryos, we will alter the DNA of human embryos. All the blather about bioethics is just that, as we have seen in every other human endeavor. If people can do it, and see an advantage in doing it, then people will do it, no matter the ethical implications.
Since most of the limits on our life spans are genetic, the most logical use of such technology is to extend our lives. This could be something done on fully formed humans at some point. This would not require changing our DNA, but changing how certain genes express. Of course, “fixing” genetic defects in the embryo could eliminate a wide ranges of diseases. The result of that is a new generation of humans capable of living much longer and living a much healthier than all previous humans.
There may be a hard coded upper limit to life span that is beyond genetics, but curing the diseases of old age would be well within the realm of possible. Aldus Huxley probably got it exactly right when he described a future where humans lived in their prime years right up until death. Since every human culture is based around the inevitability of death, big chunks of it become useless. Why bother developing a relationship with God, for example, if you will never meet him. Immortality redefines mortality.
Of course, another logical step is to improve off-spring. As soon as parents can pay to increase the good traits in their children, they will do it. If we can change our DNA to increase IQ, we will. Getting faster, bigger, stronger, better looking and whatever else we want could be possible if science can alter the DNA. How long before the Chinese create a class of nine foot guys with sprinter speed and near perfect coordination so they can dominate the Olympics? The bet is a week after they figure out how to do it.
Of course, this is still science fiction. The amount we know about the human genome is a drop in the ocean of what can be known. Having a general understanding of genes and gene mutation is a long way from making super men. Still, technology has a habit of moving quickly. It’s also possible we don’t have to know a whole lot in order to make better people or cure some diseases. As agriculture showed, small changes can have enormous downstream consequences of human beings.
