Is it more important to look good, or be good? Here’s an excerpt from Fourth World, in which Benn Marr unravels a knotted debate over the use of recombinant genes purely for cosmetic purposes:
When the crowd noise had settled, Dr. Neelin shook his head and said, “I confess, I would never have thought of applying the principle of Natural Selection.” He sighed at the sea of vacant faces and added, “For those unfamiliar, it’s the passing down of genes which increase survivability, for the good of the species. For a thousand years, outward appearance has replaced survivability as the driving criterion in choosing a mate, has it not? What did you so aptly call it, Benn- “Unnatural De-selection”? Thanks to cosmetic procedures, Mr. Marr is telling us, genes that weaken the species are just as likely to be passed along as genes that promote survival of the fittest. It’s hardly better for the human species than, say, choosing mates by the attractiveness of their clothing!”
Richard Prum, an ornithologist and evolutionary biologist at Yale, argues that female birds choose their mates (a process called sexual selection) based on beauty- not because an attractive appearance reflects underlying health and fitness, but for the sake of beauty itself. This is a challenge to the mainstream understanding of natural selection. As proposed by Darwin, good genes encoding beneficial physical traits, such as speed and strength, increase survival and are therefore more likely to be passed on to the next generation. It seems to me that selecting mates by their beauty, which does not help birds fly faster, hunt more successfully or detect predators better, may actually dilute survival of the fittest. On the other hand, among humans, an expensive suit and large blond comb-over may attract potential First Ladies, so cosmetic appearance can be a Darwinian advantage!
As we evolve in the Information Age, survivability becomes further and further removed from what our genomes dictate. With the aid of prostheses (eyeglasses are an early example), medical advances, internet avatars of ourselves (no, not just online dating services), and of course robots, survival is now vastly multifactorial. And we’re just talking about surviving to childbearing age. Our physical deficiencies have become less crucial to our chances of having offspring, whereas a nearsighted, clubfooted caveman would not have survived long enough to attend the Junior Prom.
In light of this departure from Darwin, perhaps my characters in Fourth World are too humanoid. In 2196, people may be closer to moles on wheels: inarticulate, nearly blind, not beautiful in any sense, hybridized with cybernetic parts, texting one another with tiny hands but massively hypertrophied thumbs. Bizarre, maybe- but still having kids!