Exploring the possibility of humanity evolving into a new species through genetic modification as genetic engineering advances, we discuss whether reproductive isolation and genetic change will mean the extinction of Homo sapiens or whether it is simply part of evolution. The implications of these changes for human social structure and life are considered, along with predictions of human extinction and evolution and their implications.
In 2011, Yuval Harari predicted the extinction of the human race in his book Sapiens. He laid out three scenarios in which humanity could become extinct, and they caught the attention of many. One of the scenarios he discussed was the extinction of the human race through genetic engineering, predicting that as genetic engineering advances, people will continue to modify their genes to the point where they won’t be able to call themselves human anymore.
However, there are many different opinions on this prediction. Whether we will become extinct or evolve into a new species is still being debated. Will humans be able to modify themselves, and if so, will it really create a new species? These questions have gone beyond mere curiosity to become critical issues that will determine the future of humanity.
But will we really go extinct? It’s all speculation, but I don’t think we’re going to disappear from a genetic engineering perspective. In this article, I will first discuss whether genetic modification is possible, and if so, I will describe my thoughts on whether it will lead to a new species. Finally, I will discuss whether the transformation of humans into a new species would mean the extinction of Homo sapiens.
Can we improve our genes through genetic engineering? In order to avoid causing problems when altering genes, we first need to know exactly how every gene is expressed. With over 20,000 genes, we need to fully understand their individual basic functions, and we need to know how they interact with other genes to be expressed. We also need to know how these interactions change when the environment changes, and we need to know all of their functions, including what happens as we age, when pathogens invade, and in response to hormonal or nervous system stimuli. Modern biology and neuroscience are thriving in this area, but the jury is still out on whether we can solve all these mysteries.
If genetic modification of the human race is indeed possible, how will it affect our lives? Genetic modification isn’t just about changing physical traits. It can change human life in many ways, including cognitive abilities, emotional regulation, and disease resistance. These changes would have a profound impact on our social structure, culture, economic system, and more. However, these changes are not all positive. Ethical issues, social inequality, unforeseen side effects, and other problems can arise. For example, if genetic modification is only available to the wealthy, it could lead to new forms of social inequality.
Let’s assume that all the research has been done on the genome, then a new challenge arises. When you introduce a new gene, will it function properly in all environments, conditions, and interactions between genes? Will it turn a normal cell into a cancerous one? Will it cause problems when sperm or eggs are made? Will it be expressed in an abnormal place and cause something terrible to happen, like growing an ear on your back? These are just a few examples of the problems that can arise when genes are studied by humans that are beyond our control.
Let’s say we get really lucky and find a gene that can improve the existing genome without causing catastrophic problems, given all 20,000 genes, their relationships to each other, and the different environments and body parts. But does the accumulation of these genes create a new species? To determine this, we need to understand what we mean by ‘biological species’ and ‘speciation’.
A biological species is a group of organisms that, when interbred, can produce reproductively viable offspring. No matter how similar a wolf and a Siberian husky look, they are different species because they cannot interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Conversely, no matter how different Siberian huskies and bulldogs look, they are the same species because they are capable of producing fertile offspring.
Speciation is the emergence of a new species, a new group of animals that cannot produce fertile offspring when crossed with an existing species. According to population genetics, reproductive isolation is necessary for speciation to occur. If different populations do not come into reproductive contact with each other, and reproduce only within each population for many generations, they may not produce fertile offspring when they later interbreed with each other. This is because, over a long period of time, mutations can accumulate within each population while genes are blocked from exchanging with each other, making it impossible for them to interbreed in the future.
Harari argued that genetic improvement would come from those in power who could support the research. The expectation is that powerful people will have offspring with superior genes, and that superior genes will accumulate over generations. I don’t disagree with this. However, this would not lead to reproductive isolation. Reproductive isolation would occur if only those in power married each other, but this is almost impossible. There will be an exchange of genes between people without power, and as it spreads, other people will be the beneficiaries of the superior genes. The lack of reproductive isolation would make it difficult for species other than Homo sapiens to emerge.
Of course, it is possible that genetic engineering could produce generations that are unable to reproductively interact with living humans. But would this really mean extinction? I think “evolution” is a better word than extinction. But it doesn’t matter what you call it. Some people might think it’s extinction, others might think it’s evolution. But in either case, the scenario will have nothing to do with “extinction” as we usually think of it. They might have new genes and be able to do things we couldn’t, but it would be a change in a few traits, not the “extinction” of Hollywood movies. Just as we call prehistoric humans Homo sapiens even though they are different from us, future humans may think of themselves as humans like us even though they are different from us. So the “extinction” vs. “evolution” vs. “change” debate is meaningless. There is only the possibility that there will be people who are different from us, who will live and think and act differently from us.
So far, I’ve discussed views on whether Homo sapiens will go extinct. I’ve discussed whether genetic modification is genetically possible, and if so, whether it will allow new species to emerge, and whether the birth of someone different from us means extinction. Based on these thoughts, I conveyed the idea that Homo sapiens will not go extinct. Let’s go back to the question we asked at the beginning. Will we really go extinct? I would rephrase the question: Will we evolve? Maybe, but even if we do, we will not disappear.
