Universal Selection Theory, Abiogenesis, & Transhumanism

Universal selection theory holds that natural selection via survival of the fittest can actually explain a lot more than just biology. You can expand Darwinian theory into the realm of physics, cosmology, and other fields. For instance, when subatomic particles interact, the most stable interactions and combinations tend to survive. When they form atoms, atoms tend to interact, and the most stable interactions survive. There are different types of chemical elements. Hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon are stable elements, but there are also unstable or “synthetic” elements. These unstable elements have a tendency to break down into more stable elements. The process through which stable elements survive and thrive and unstable elements tend to “die off” is analogous to the process of natural selection that we see in living creatures. Molecules that are more fitted for survival are naturally selected and the ones that aren’t as well suited for survival “die off” (are broken up into more stable molecules).

Now, suppose that some molecules were to have characteristics that helped them to survive instead of being broken up. Those molecules would pass the test of natural selection better than other molecules. And, if a molecule had the ability to reproduce, it would have an “evolutionary” advantage over other molecules. In fact, a sort of Darwinian selection seems to take place in the areas of physics and chemistry, and the line between “living” and “non-living” becomes blurred as we discover more and more non-living things that behave in ways that seem very “lifelike.” When you get into chemistry and the way physical molecules behave and interact, at some point they become “alive.” Certain polymers (large molecules), like protein, RNA, ribosymes, and enzymes, can behave in ways that appear to be “lifelike.” And we know that these non-living molecules are essential to life. Then there are viruses, which we don’t even know whether to classify as “living” or “non-living” because of their unique properties. Virus behave like living things, but only when they are in the presence of living things. Virus’ lack metabolism and the ability to reproduce, unless/until they come into contact with a living cell. Metabolism is the process of consuming things and turning them into energy in order to sustain life. Viruses don’t do this. They also don’t have the ability to reproduce, unless they come in contact with a living cell. So, basically, viruses are creepy “non-living” molecules that “come to life” when they come into contact with living cells. Then there is the phenomenon of molecular self-assembly. And scientists have been able to induce reproduction in RNA in laboratory conditions. This all starts to blur the line between “life” and “non-life” and suggest that there is really a spectrum rather than a clear divide between living and non-living things.

The RNA world hypothesis suggests that life may have evolved from RNA molecules. This is just one supposed route by which non-living matter may have evolved into living organisms. There are other theories of abiogenesis as well, and research is being done to determine how abiogenesis might have occurred and to see if we can replicate it.

Science has made, and is making, discoveries that paint a picture of a universe without a God. Universal selection theory is really close to having a full chemical explanation of the origin of life. Darwinian theory explains the way that primitive life evolved into other lifeforms and how the multitude of species we know today came about. Larry Arnhart’s work on Darwinian natural right demonstrate that a universal code of ethics can be grounded in evolutionary theory. Peter Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid complements this theory. The moral sentiments are the result of evolutionary processes. The picture of the universe that is emerging is a universe without a God; or, at least, without a God in the theistic sense. The theistic concept of God paints a picture of a deity that created human beings and all the animals. Upon theistic assumptions, our bodies operate like machines and our moral sentiments are innate because our bodies basically are machines fashioned by God and our moral sentiments are part of our programming. We are basically AI robots built and programmed by God. This conception of God as a way to account for the apparent design of human/animal bodies and as an explanation and basis of ethics no longer seems tenable in the light of modern science. Even most deistic conceptions of God seem inadequate today. If there is any “God,” it is truly absolutely other and has no real bearing on our understanding of human origins and human ethics. Perhaps some “God” created the universe like a sort of artificial simulation and set the scientific laws through some sort of divine programming, but the evolution from atoms to simple molecules to polymers to quasi-biological molecules to living things to living beings with rational and moral sentiments appears to be entirely the result of unguided processes of natural selection. The God that may exist, then, might not have anything analogous to our logic and our morality. The more our knowledge of reality increases, the less room there seems to be for any Holy Spook behind it all.

It’s a bit scary to think that there is no ultimate purpose behind it all, that we might have come into being because of mere coincidence. At the same time, it appears that we may be on the verge of creating something like “God” or maybe even becoming “gods" ourselves. This is simultaneously terrifying and wonderful. We are starting to understand neural networks, can turn living neurons from animal brains into functional computers to control robots, and we can even make brain-machine interfaces that allow brains to control robots. We’re also starting to understand the process of aging and might be able to unlock the door to biological immortality in our lifetimes. If brains can interface with computers, and we can build quantum computers, and we can achieve biological immortality—all things which are not too far-fetched anymore—humans will essentially become gods, or maybe God. The amount of information available to every man or woman may become nearly infinite. Humankind is the result of a long evolutionary process which may soon culminate in the birth of the first transhuman. God is not the creator of the universe, but the universe reaching self-consciousness, the culmination of evolution that started with basic molecules. God is not the creator of mankind, but the next step in human evolution. Maybe we are living in a simulated universe created by such a God as we are about to become, and perhaps we will create a simulated universe from which a God will emerge.

Brace yourselves, we're at the end of history! We may perish or we may transcend. I'm not sure that there is any third option.