Brezina 1

Crystal Brezina
Stephens
LIT 4433
December 9 2014
Societal Evolution versus Societal Extinction
For hundreds of years, humans have become innovators rather than evolvers. We did not
grow wings in order to fly; we created planes. We did not learn how to breathe underwater; we
created submersibles. The human species learned to create something out of nothing and learned
how to change and alter their surroundings to better suit them. In essence, we have stopped
evolving physically and have started to evolve intellectually. Due to the rise of culture, humans
are able to create complex systems. This is evidence that humans have evolved past a normal
state, as our brains are able to compound knowledge better than ever before. The question
however, is how we have adapted to this knowledge. America is bent on the idea that we must all
be bigger, better and faster, but at what cost? While young generations have little problem
learning and even excelling at the use of technology, the older generations have trouble catching
up. And if the population has stopped evolving physically and now evolves intellectually through
culture and technology, what is going to become of the older populations? Of course, these
generations arent going to die out the way natural selection states, but it is entirely possible that
they will be unintentionally ostracized from society and therefore, culture and technology.
Focusing on America, it can be argued that due to the influx of technology, people are observing
a cultural and technological evolutionary shift, and those who cannot adapt will be for lack of a
better term, extinct.

Brezina 2
In order to tackle the idea of cultural evolution, one must first understand the idea of
evolution. Richerson and Boyd describe this by comparing the difference between pre-Darwin
thinking and Darwins theories: Before Darwin, people thought of species as essential,
unchanging types, like geometric figures and chemical elements. Darwin saw that species were
populations of organisms that carried a variable pool of inherited information through time (13).
This theory examines the physical evolution of early hominids to Homo sapiens, but does not
reflect the change in the human species since. Hundreds of years and generations have passed; it
is unlikely that any species would have not evolved at all over such a span of time. Given that
humans are the only known animal capable of conscious thought, how humans came to be the
kind of animal we are can only be answered by a theory in which culture has its proper role
(Richerson 13). Conscious thought more or less sets humans apart from other animals, as we are
able to not only adapt, but innovate. Even so, Kolbert makes a point to note that language,
wisdom, a sense of right and wrong---had evolved in the same manner as other adaptive traits,
such as longer beaks or sharper incisors(64). Kolbert is making the point that humans are not
much different than other animals, especially given that we have all evolved from essentially the
same point. This statement follows the theory that humans evolved via culture while other
animals evolved in other ways. Due to humans ability to adapt and change the area around them
however, they are no longer a victim of the struggle for life (Kolbert 83).
Cultural evolution can also not be properly identified without first knowing how culture
works. Richerson accurately argues that culture is crucial for understanding human behavior
(12). While many know that culture is essentially secular behavior amongst a group of
individuals, culture exhibits the opinions, beliefs, attitudes, habits of thought, language, artistic
styles, tools and technology, and social rules and political institutions (Richerson 13) through

Brezina 3
the use of teaching imitations and other forms of social transmission (14). Fundamentally,
everything that a human does in his or her daily life is directly due to instinct, culture or both.
Because culture is a learned trait, culture in of itself is in a constant state of change. This gradual
change in culture directly mirrors the same change that evolution defines. Richerson
acknowledges that humans have culture because we have brains that have been shaped by
natural selection to learn and manage culture (16). Just as evolution has helped animals live
and change throughout generations, culture affects the success and survival of individuals and
groups (Richerson 13). This can be seen when a group of people die out or completely
assimilate themselves with the dominant culture or cultures. While our culture is not killing off
those who cannot or do not engage themselves in the current culture, it can certainly be said that
this paradigm shift changes the dynamic of American citizens, partially for better and partially
for worse.
The cultural shift that is in progress in America is directly related to the overwhelming
explosion (Mckibben 9) of information. Since the mass accumulation of television and later,
computers, the availability of information is astounding compared to previous eras. American
citizens can access almost any bit of information they could want instantaneously from multiple
sources. Mckibben states that tv is a pipeline to the modern world (18) and although that was
certainly true in 1992 when The Age of Missing Information was published, television could no
longer be considered a pipeline to the modern world, but is certainly a catalyst to the rise of the
modern age. This has only grown since the increasing convenience of smart phones, tablets and
other electronic devices. At the present moment, the idealized youth [has] reams of data
unavailable to the wisest adult of a few generations earlier(Mckibben 25). Obtaining any

Brezina 4
information has never been easier, whether one is using a phone app, using the internet on their
tablet, or retrieving it from their laptop.
Mckibben argues that we are in an age he refers to as the information age in which
communications is the currency we trade in (19). This is certainly true, but at the time of
publication, Mckibben likely had no idea how much is statement would prevail over the years.
The ability to communicate with anyone and everyone is astounding, and it is only getting more
advanced as time goes on. We are able to see and hear from another person on the other side of
the world with just a click of a button. Groups of people can all make plans easily and fluidly
whether they have internet access or not. And while the younger generations who grew up with
the inception of these products are able to use and understand them quickly, it can become
overwhelming and daunting to those generations who grew up while technology had a slower
rate of innovation. If these generations have such a technological gap between the younger
generations, what does this mean? And how will it affect the lives of Americans?
The increase in technology is a double edged sword; it is capable of both advancing the
country and can also be its downfall. The problem with the increase of technology is that it
alters perception (Mckibben 22). The younger generations are so used to having technology
within an arms reach away, that some believe they cannot function without it. Mckibben argues
that this creates less access to precisely the kinds of fundamental information that older
generations have (25). Mckibben is primarily referring to agricultural abilities, but can also be
used within this context. With the ability for younger generations to access almost anything at
any time, when that ability is taken away from them, many do not know how to function. They
lack critical thinking and reasoning skills, and often get frustrated if they cannot figure

Brezina 5
something out quickly. In this aspect, older generations are necessary to create a balance between
two cultures; one which needs everything immediately and one which believes in waiting.
On the other hand, older generations are at a disadvantage. Once the younger generations
grow old enough to have control over the nation, the older generations will become more or less
obsolete. Because the information generations are able to draw data and communicate from
everywhere, they are characteristically quicker at doing nearly everything. A normal day of
errands for a member of the older generation may take an hour or two for the younger generation
with advanced technology. This creates a disproportionate advantage not just socially, but
politically and commercially. When the younger generations start having a greater role in the
government and business, their skills are going to out-compete everybody else. To make matter
worse for the older generations, the paradigm shift of having a country reliant on the latest
technology is going to disable them compared to the rest of the country. Coupled with the shift in
political ideals within the younger generations, is going to severely date the older generations, as
if they were stuck in their old time as everyone around them is living at warp speed. Thus, we are
back to Kolberts definition of humans as one weedy species (21), in which we are weeding
out those who do not belong in our modern America.