Press Release 14-120
How evolutionary principles could help save our world
The age of the Anthropocene–the scientific name given to our current geologic age–is dominated by human impacts on our environment. A warming climate. Increased resistance of pathogens and pests. A swelling population. Coping with these modern global challenges requires application of what one might call a more-ancient principle: evolution.
That’s the recommendation of a diverse group of researchers, in a paper published today in the online version of the journal Science. A majority of the nine authors on the paper have received funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF).
“Evolution isn’t just about the past anymore, it’s about the present and the future,” said Scott Carroll, an evolutionary ecologist at University of California-Davis and one of the paper’s authors. Addressing societal challenges–food security, emerging diseases, biodiversity loss–in a sustainable way is “going to require evolutionary thinking.”
The paper reviews current uses of evolutionary biology and recommends specific ways the field can contribute to the international sustainable development goals (SDGs), now in development by the United Nations.
Evolutionary biology has “tremendous potential” to solve many of the issues highlighted in the SDGs, said Peter Søgaard Jørgensen, another Science author from the University of Copenhagen’s Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate. The field accounts for how pests may adapt rapidly to our interventions and how vulnerable species struggle to adapt to global change. The authors even chose this release date to coincide with the upcoming meeting of the UN General Assembly, which starts September 24.
Their recommendations include gene therapies to treat disease, choosing drought-and-flood-resistant crop varieties and altering conservation strategies to protect land with high levels of genetic diversity.
“Many human-engineered solutions to societal problems have turned out to have a relatively short useful life because evolution finds ways around them,” said George Gilchrist, program officer in NSF’s Division of Environmental Biology, which funded many of the Science authors. “Carroll and colleagues propose turning the tables and using evolutionary processes to develop more robust and dynamic solutions.”
Applied evolutionary biology just recently made the leap from an academic discipline to a more-practical one, spurred by an effort within the community to better synthesize and share research insights. And–above all–increasing environmental pressures.
“The fact that we’re changing the world means that evolutionary processes are going to be affected,” said Thomas Smith, of the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and another Science author. The question is, according to Smith: Do we want to be engaged in this change, or not?
The paper also serves as a platform for establishing a cross-disciplinary field of applied evolutionary biology, Carroll said, and a way to promote the field as a path to sustainable development solutions.
“Evolutionary biology touches on many elements of the life sciences, from medicine to conservation biology to agriculture,” said Smith. “And unfortunately, there hasn’t been an effort to unify across these fields.”
This disconnect exists despite the use of evolutionary tactics in many disciplines: treating HIV with a cocktail of drugs, for example, to slow pathogen resistance. And the effects of evolution already swirl in the public consciousness–and spark debate. Think of the arguments for and against genetically modified crops, or warnings about the increasing price of combating drug resistance (which costs more than $20 billion in the U.S. each year, according to the nonprofit Alliance for Prudent Use of Antibiotics).
Seldom are these issues described in an evolutionary context, said Smith. “We’re missing an opportunity to educate the public about the importance of evolutionary principles in our daily lives.”
In conservation, evolutionary approaches are often disregarded because of the belief that evolution is beyond our ability to manage and too slow to be useful, according to a paper Smith co-authored in the journal Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics (AREES).
That article, recently published online, also tackles applied evolution. It was co-authored by Carroll, University of Maine Biologist Michael Kinnison, Sharon Strauss–of the Department of Evolution and Ecology at University of California-Davis–and Trevon Fuller of UCLA’s Tropical Research Institute. All are NSF-funded. Kinnison and Strauss are also co-authors on the Science paper.
Yet contemporary evolution–what scientists are observing now–happens on timescales of months to a few hundred years, and can influence conservation management outcomes, according to the AREES paper.
Considering the evolutionary potential and constraints of species is also essential to combat “evolutionary mismatch.” This means the environment a species exists in, and the one it has evolved to exist in, no longer match.
Such disharmony can be “dire and costly,” the authors write in Science, citing the increasingly sedentary lifestyles–and processed food diets–of modern humans. These lifestyles are linked with increasing rates of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disorders. Restoring our health requires greater physical activity and less refined carbohydrates: “Diets and activity levels closer to those of the past, to which we are better adapted,” the Science paper said.
Implementing applied evolutionary principles often requires very careful thinking about social incentives, said Jørgensen. Public vaccination programs, for example, and pest control in crops often create tension between individual and public good.
Applied evolution, therefore, requires input from biologists, doctors, agriculturalists: “We’re making a call for policy makers, decision-makers at all levels,” to be involved, Jørgensen said.
Evolutionary biologists don’t have all the answers, said Smith. And using applied evolution is not without risk. But we have reached a point “where we need to take risks in many cases,” he said. “We can’t just sit back and be overly conservative, or we’re going to lose the game.”
-NSF-
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think the world is adapting perfectly –
“Food prices drop to four year low
Thursday 11 September 2014
August saw food prices drop to a four year low, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation. FAO’s monthly food price index, which measures the price of a range of staple foodstuffs around the world, reached its lowest level since September 2010”
I’m not sure who they are polling, but food prices are at an all time high in my neck of the woods. And didn’t they report that beef, bacon, milk, etc. are skyrocketing in price lately?
They’re not part of the sample.
It’s always been a source of amusement to me that the people who most are enthralled by the theory of the origin and evolution of species seem determined to prevent that evolution in both our own species and others.
Think I’ll just invest in tropical drinks .
Adaptation is the only way to deal with any climate change, I’ve always held this belief to be true.
There seems to be no comprehension, by these fine scientists, of the irony and contradictions in their world view, which is, if I may summarize:
We, the experts on evolution (and all the world’s problems and solutions), will tell all the other people how to think, using proper “evolutionary thinking”, which we will concoct entirely from our perspective and what we believe is best, . We are very concerned about environmental diversity, but never can there be diversity of opinion on what the proper evolutionary thinking (including the details of our proposed solutions) shall be. And so we will enforce our common and best solutions consistently word-wide.
…..all leading to massive failure due to lack of diversity and the lack of competition required for any successful evolutionary process.
Hey Thinair – “We, the experts on evolution (and all the world’s problems and solutions), will tell all the other people how to think..”
You’re absolutely on target – your take is called scientism: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism
We, the experts on evolution (and all the world’s problems and solutions), will tell all the other people how to think, using proper “evolutionary thinking”, which we will concoct entirely from our models and with our perspective and what we believe is best.
You forgot they use models divine the future so they’ll know how to steer society. First they have to write history.
“Evolution isn’t just about the past anymore, it’s about the present and the future,” said Scott Carroll, an evolutionary ecologist at University of California-Davis and one of the paper’s authors.
I never was about the past. Evolution is always about the future.
Doesn’t “evolve or die ” apply to all species, all the time?
Do not worry Mother Nature will take care of it.
It’s not evolution. Evolution is a chaotic process. Evolution will result in misaligned development. Progress (i.e. monotonic change) even more so. The principles of evolution describe practices which will increase the likelihood of reaching and maintaining a stable state. The best way to deal with uncertainty is risk management, rational, reasonable, moderated.
How have species handled crises from day one?* Adapt or die.
Human have an advantage in that we don’t have to wait for our genes to evolve, we can adapt culturally — that includes technologically — to changing circumstances.
*This is not to say we’re in a climate crisis due to AGW or GHG or “carbon pollution,” whatever that is.
We need to remember that species adaptation IS evolution. This is not a process that happens to individuals within a species. Now, we can adapt, by changing our behavior, but that will not help our descendants except that they get born.
The idea that natural ecosystems with low species diversity have low overall diversity is wrong from an evolutionary point of view. In natural ecosystems,there is a lot of diversity within the few species that occupy the ecosystem, and they will use that diversity to adapt as a species to any changes. This is just as true of humans as it is of any other species.
I shudder at the thought that anybody is going to monkey with evolutionary processes–those processes have functioned quite well for the past 3.5 billions years.
I believe Mother Nature has established that evolution works.
We’re at the top of the food chain, what more do you want?
How did man evolve to survive the last ice age change in climate? I presume the NSF is referring to the coming ice age we should evolve to survive, because there ain’t no AGW climate change happening on the good earth. We will need some serious GMO development to survive the coming glacial period.
Not much adaptation needed for global warming.
Hang up the parka…slip on the wife beater.
Swap the ski-doo for a sea-doo.
Done and done.
I think before we can adapt there has to be a meeting.
With many people with big stomachs.
And no brains.
In a big room.
With plenty of dire warnings.
About not having more meetings.
Then.
At the end of each meeting there must be.
A proposal for a big tax.
That goes no-where.
Because it is stupid.
Thats the way evil enviro-loons would do it anyways. What will actually happen though is
Those that do not adapt will fade away.
And those who do adapt will thrive.
Because evolution happens to be happening.
Pretty much all of the time.
Regardless of how many self-important meetings held.
Just throw away the warning labels and watch evolution go.
“Applied evolutionary biology”
Readers know what happens to species that don’t “evolve” and “adapt”: they go extinct. Death is an extremely important component of so-called evolutionary development. And this article is suggesting “applying” evolutionary biology.
This is extremely threatening, violent language.
Since I am a believer, and do not accept evolutionary theory or applied evolution, I will warn you that whatever any one plots and schemes against others, he will do to himself. Do not be deceived…Whatsoever a man sows, that he shall reap. It is the Law of Just Recompense.
So don’t plot or scheme to direct extinctions, or take away people’s land or homes or children or possessions, or put them on drugs, or intentionally scare them about technology and crops and cows, or use any other method to trap them in ignorance and poverty.
Here’s the deal. I promise to evolve. In return, I don’t want the kind of juveniles who theorise in potty New Class journals like Science or the Guardian or New Scientist to evolve me. I totally don’t want their “robust and dynamic solutions”, which is just management-speak for “more trillion dollar white elephants”.
Evolving? I’ll do it myself.
Evolution is ateleological and random and that’s still a thousand times better than any U.N. or Euro strategy. OUTSTANDING! !
I’m sorry but this tome smells. Evolutionary Biology has been tried in the past. Remember? So who says which path is better…and then tries to enforce it? This just seems to be a turd taken from past efforts and is now being polished.
Smells just as bad.
Evolution was doing a pretty good job of things in a place we now call Yellowstone. A while back, humans decided to try some managed evolution there. As I recall, it was pretty much a disaster.
The benefit of natural evolution, or more specifically, its much quicker component, adaptation, is the ability to respond to the infinite possibilities of change. This is important because the changes that will take place cannot be known completely, and often not at all. This is not only a vital requirement for the survival of the species, it is also the bedrock principle of free markets. In both, it is the ability to respond to unpredictable changes quickly and beneficially that make these methods the best possible choices.
Managed evolution and centralized economic planning will always do more harm than good, because they cannot cope with an unpredictable future. Decisions made under these systems will be inappropriate when the expected future does not come about (which will be most of the time) and the ‘fixes’ will usually be obsolete before they are even implemented, making matters even worse.
Adaptability is first and foremost the function and responsibility of the individual organism. The freedom to choose is the vital component of adaptability.
‘Managed evolution’, by definition, would restrict that freedom.
It is a dangerous tool, to be used very cautiously.
A warmer world also drives biodiversity.
Ive been using this mindset for about a decade to build alternative ag models, with trees as a back bone since I am in the high desert and with “terraforming” methods I can have trees doing well. There is a lot of wisdom in this mindset for many fields. Problem is with all the underlying agendas and biases it is very unlikely we get the real benefits of such mindsets.