Evolution by Design

       There's a curious contradiction in the 'evolution versus creationist' debate. One side credits our survival to chaotic circumstances, where chance and fate dictated which traits were "naturally" selected. The other side claims intelligent design played the pivotal role in our supremacy. The truth of the matter is, our species has historically enjoyed a bit of both.

       If you take the deity out of the equation, we have a long history of meeting nature's threats with our own uniquely designed solutions. By paving roads, farming crops, wearing clothes and building cities we've continually reshaped the world around us to cater to our evolving needs. Our ingenuity became the main expression of our natural selection. Complexity and scale aside, there's little difference between us and the ants digging tunnels beneath the soil. Survival of the fittest has become survival of the most adaptive, and the evolution of intelligence is measured in how quickly (or preemptively) we participate in those adaptations. It only makes sense, therefore, that we now seek to fix design flaws within our own bodies.

       Being social creatures in a globalized age, however, also means that our modern innovations tend to change our species as a whole. Airplanes allowed us to traverse the globe in a matter of hours, dramatically accelerating human migration. Medicines fight against viruses and bacteria, keeping our last natural predators at bay. The Internet unifies our collective voices around a common campfire, ensuring the greatest possible wealth of knowledge. Humanity is slowly but surely becoming a collective hive. Progress towards this grand scale unity has thus far been wrought with conflict, and none of these innovations came without painstaking labor, research and failures. Crossing the gulf from the beastly to the divine will often require us to play God, as we messily discover as many dangers as we do solutions.

       So what are some of the life altering technologies being cultivated today? And how might they redefine what it is to be human? The Biotechnology industry regularly pioneers designs that seek to improve the human body's complex mechanisms. There are several companies poised to reach revolutionary milestones as they work to make their products commercially viable:

DNA sequencing has seen drastic improvements in speed and costs. We've gone from the multi-billion dollar Human Genome Project in 2003, to companies that can process DNA at $1,000 per genome. We've mapped thousands of people's hereditary information, opening the door to the possibility of highly personalized medicines replacing the common one-pill-suits-all approach.

Tissue Engineering passed a landmark when Scientists at Wake Forest created a 3D printer capable of making artificial cartilage. The "electrospinning" process creates extremely thin plastic polymer fibers which healthy cartilage cells grow around, allowing for a rejuvenation of elasticity and mechanical function in our joints. As soon as human trials are complete, Arthritics around the world will celebrate a return to mobility. Wake Forest is also pursuing organ printing, including kidneys and hearts customized to each patient's DNA. 

Mind-controlled prosthetics developed by DARPA and John Hopkins allow patients who've lost limbs or suffered spinal injuries to regain their dexterity through complex robotic arms. Patients control the limb via microchips implanted in their brain, capable of decoding neural signals into accurate movements. 

Retinal Implants, a German company, have manufactured a sub-Retina implant that successfully restored vision to some blind patients. One more innovation in an ever increasing array of technologies augmenting and improving our bodily functions. 

       As impressive as these specified solutions may be, they stand to be collectively overshadowed by one particularly significant Bio-medical development...a holy grail once considered science fiction fantasy: Gene Therapy. 

       We currently have the ability to go directly into our DNA and swap genes around. We'll soon know which bad genes can be substituted with good ones, preventing or curing several diseases like cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy - and without the use of drugs or surgery. Being able to turn off or remove certain genes will utterly revolutionize the medical profession. 

       A few steps down the road, and we'll be able to use gene manipulation to pursue 'enhancements' such as increased memory or intelligence. It won't be long before we combine the practice with RNA interference, controlling our internal mechanisms and changing every facet of our body. This will be the most significant paradigm shift of all. Imagine creating customized viruses designed to implant improved RNA made up of our own genes into every cell in within our body. We'll be able to transform back into younger versions of ourselves through natural regeneration. A whole new market of purely aesthetic changes will also undoubtedly emerge: requests for increased height, muscle density, cleavage size, eye color, hair length, etc. We will enter the age of blueprints for dream bodies, modifiable and adaptable to our will. The era of designer babies.

       There is another side to the coin of course. There are those who predict the emergence of a technological class system, separating naturalists from those who can afford enhancements. The potential exists for two or more distinct new species to develop among us, separated by a combination of significant genetic advantages. This also only considers the scope of individual consumer level selections, but what about national programs forcibly instituted by governments? Increased fertility to boost populations? Increased violence in soldiers? Docile obedience in citizens? Control of sexuality? It's easy to imagine what some of history's dictators might have done with this power.

        Finally, what about the philosophical component? The derisive dispute between Evolutionists and Creationists is not merely a disagreement over our origins. These conflicting factions will most likely form the groups who are either ready to venture into the technological age, or too resistant to change to adopt it. The component of human character we call 'faith' is a fascination with the unknown, a desire for the mystical quality of the undiscovered. Science is a balanced discipline of control, seeking to understand and shape the world around us. The marriage of these two qualities is at the core of human curiosity, we yearn to understand while always looking to new frontiers. It's worth asking whether the human spirit will burn as brightly when our emotions are regulated through refined drugs and our bodies maintained through complex machinery? Will we one day yearn for the unpredictable frailty of our former chaos?

       The gleaming civilization we stand on today was forcibly imported onto a land once home to natives. They were slaughtered so that a new way of life could be built. The advent of industry offered new comforts, but at what cost? No sooner have we accepted a new paradigm than another arrives to render it obsolete, and we often lose good along with the bad – safety and security at the cost of wisdom; information at the cost of wonder. It is a great accomplishment to master our internal mechanisms, but every time we've pursued a technological advancement it's become a change that is rarely undone. We must ask ourselves, what are we giving away to gain this new advantage? Is this path a way to abandon our true selves? Or become our true selves?


       In this age of accelerating transformation, technology advances almost faster than we can understand it. Ideally we can keep the flame of our ambition burning, while being vigilant in how we shape it. It seems surreal to imagine our future might look like what's been described above, but none of these technologies are theoretical...they're already here. We are the co-creators of our fate, and we can no longer afford to idly wait for the next wave of change to decide what survives. Let us ensure the next great human leap isn't built on a foundation of broken ideals.

The Truce on Drugs: ending decades of failed policy

       Colorado and Washington state recently decriminalized marijuana, once again giving voice to the national divide over our contentious drug enforcement policies. While various groups continue to debate the legal, medical, social and economic factors, one industry has managed to steadily flourish: private prisons.

       The United States currently has the highest incarceration rate of any nation on Earth. We put more of our citizens in jail than any of the religious theocracies, despotic tyrannies or war ravaged military states we decry in our media. No society in history has imprisoned more of its citizens. It seems there is a criminal epidemic in the land of the free…or perhaps we’re not as diligent in safeguarding our liberty as we’d like to believe. 

       By now, most have heard the statistic: “America comprises 5% of the world population, but has 25% of the world’s prisoners.” But why is that the case? Which group of ‘offenders’ is most responsible for this soaring increase? The commonly credited cause tends to be the ongoing “war on drugs”. While other crimes may only have one lawbreaker, the drug trade provides targets for arrest on both the consumer and provider side. Moreover, crimes such as theft, assault and even murder can usually be tied back to the drugs. It’s interesting to note, however, that violent crime rates in America have significantly dropped over the years. Moreover, most people in the American prison system are serving terms for non-violent crimes. Before we can fully understand the nature of our current penal system, we must first take a deviation into the history of our drug enforcement policy.

       The truth is, the priorities and implementation of the war on drugs have shifted with each passing decade, leaving a complex state of conflicting interests in its wake. Nixon first introduced the program as a social welfare campaign, where most of the funds were primarily dedicated to rehabilitation and medical services. During the 1980s competing cartels turned Miami into a war zone, and policy focus was shifted to law enforcement accordingly. The nation was suffering a recession, but the Floridian party-capital was thriving under the influx of cash dealers were bringing in. They had a hand in almost every aspect of the city’s economy, sudden urbanization, land development and skyscraper construction. But this prosperity came at the cost of constant graphic violence that the city was ill equipped to police (leaving a murder count in Miami that was almost higher than the rest of the nation combined.) It was only after Reagan utilized the military to attack the cartels in their South American bases that crime in America returned to normal. But why was the program allowed to continue in this new direction after the threat was dealt with?

       Well for one thing, those agencies which had flourished under increased funding were reluctant to relinquish their newfound power. Just like Homeland Security must justify its bloated budget as it strives to “prevent another 911”, the Drug Enforcement Agency saw a potentially continuous source of profit in globally targeting the trade. Recent Rico laws have allowed local police and federal agents to keep the money they seize from drug busts, incentivizing them with a financial motivation over a moral one. Police officers working on murders or white collar fraud can take months to build a case, while their drug focused colleagues rack in daily busts and gain promotional advantage. This creates a culture of prioritizing drug related targets over any other form of crime. Furthermore, pharmaceutical companies and alcohol lobbies have been very eager to villainize the “drug menace” and keep another competitor out of their market. Leaving the final link in the chain to grow unchecked: the prison industrial complex.

       Many predicted that the war on drugs would fail, most notably Milton Friedman (President Nixon’s former election advisor, free market economist and Nobel Laureate.) Friedman was an avid scholar of the prohibition era of the 20s and 30s, and wrote a letter to Nixon at the onset of the war on drugs. Herein he described a likely pattern of events that would emerge, mimicking the chaos of the failed prohibition policies. 

       Milton explained that during Al Capone’s reign over Chicago, American’s desire to drink was not extinguished by the new laws. Instead, they were forced to find illegitimate sellers and suffer the harms of products created under reduced quality controls. Buyers were motivated to stray away from soft drinks like wine and beer, and explore quicker extremes in hard liquor (which profited the bootleggers as well.) Those criminals providing consumers with alcohol cared little for their safety, well being or budgets. A now unreasonably expensive habit caused increases in crime to pay for it.

       But Friedman saw new dangers in the criminalization of drugs as well. He predicted that an impressionable youth would find the “forbidden fruit” of drugs more seductive. He knew that competing dealers would be incentivized to brand themselves by creating the most potent products on the market. He knew that if drugs were no longer classified under the canopy of a health issue, users would feel like criminals and be far more reluctant to seek help. Friedman explained that the duality of consumption and alienation from the law, would cause citizens to have decreased respect for the other laws of society. The overnight portion of society that were suddenly labeled criminals, would require police forces to move away from other crimes to deal with them. Furthermore, criminals with large profits would more effectively bribe police and judges, reducing the legitimacy of the legal system.

It is a sad state of affairs, that we so wholly embody a forty year old prediction…

       There is no doubt that drugs can harm the individual, families and even communities. But it is important to distinguish the harm caused by the substance, and the harm caused by the prohibition. The misguided laws created for this “cure” only add to the misery. Those very same dangers we were warned against: unknown substances, from unknown sources, with unknown effects are a direct result of laws not the substances themselves. Decriminalization can lead to regulation, quality control, researched medical advice and treatment. Instead, the chaos created by these laws is used as justification to defend them. It’s a vicious self-repeating cycle that has gone on for far too long. So why hasn’t it stopped?

       That brings us back to one of the most deplorable industries profiting from this public misery:  Private Prisons. 

       Before we examine the mechanics and distinctions of private prisons, let us come to grips with the relevant statistics. In 2008 approximately one in every 31 adults (7.3 million) in the United States was behind bars, or being monitored (probation and parole). The breakdown for adults under correctional control was as follows:

- 1 out of 18 men
- 1 in 89 women
- 1 in 11 African-Americans (9.2%)
- 1 in 27 Latinos (3.7%)
- 1 in 45 Caucasians (2.2%)

       Private Prisons, and the various businesses that supply them, have been advocating for ever increasing control over the national prison population, under the guise of offering a more “efficient” alternative to state run facilities. Construction firms, surveillance companies, guard unions and several other businesses have aligned themselves with this ever growing industry. On top of being paid by the states to house each criminal, private prisons are also permitted to transform their prisoners into a work force. Aside from construction, field work and other physical labor, prisoners in America produce all military helmets, ammunition belts, bullet proof vests and ID tags. They account for 98% of the total market for equipment assembly services. They make 36% of home appliances, 21% of office furniture and 30% of all microphones, headphones and speakers.

       For the corporate owners of these private prisons, this is like winning the lottery. They own a labor force which the government pays them to house, making money on both ends. America has strict laws that prohibit the importation of products made by slave labor abroad. Meanwhile, we’ve essentially reinvented slave labor at home. Prisoners can of course refuse to work, but they face solitary confinement as punishment.

       Prison Industry-funded studies have concluded that states save money by using private prisons. However, state-funded studies found that private prisons keep only low-cost inmates, sending the rest back to state-run institutions. Evidence has shown that private prisons are neither discernibly more cost-effective, nor more efficient. Our antiquated and ineffective war on drugs, has become a war on the poor. It feeds those who cannot plea or pay their way out of harmless drug possession charges into a forced labor machine.

“In the past two decades, the money that states spend on prisons has risen at six times the rate of spending on higher education. In 2011, California spent $9.6 billion on prisons, versus $5.7 billion on higher education….. The state spends $8,667 per student per year. It spends about $50,000 per inmate per year. Why is this happening? Prisons are a big business. Most are privately run. They have powerful lobbyists and they have bought most state politicians. Meanwhile, we are bankrupting out states and creating a vast underclass of prisoners who will never be equipped for productive lives.”

— Fareed Zakaria, CNN, March 30, 2012

       The success of these prisons is a reflection of the failures in our campaign against drugs. The Amsterdam model is often utilized as an example of functioning drug policy. A less known success case is Portugal, where over ten years ago all known drugs were decriminalized. They have since reported dramatic drops in their crime rates and drug related health problems. The World Health Organization and United Nations have both advocated Portugal’s example. South American countries have begun to follow suite, most notably in Guatemala where President Molina has called for legalization.

       What may have begun as a campaign against the specters of addiction, crime and destruction, has since grown into a creature that feeds itself on the vulnerabilities of the impoverished. The war on drugs is a terrible injustice and should have ended 20 years ago. Our methods have been proven utterly ineffective. Industries have grown on the backs of citizens who have been torn from their families and communities. Despite all this, the demand for drugs has only increased. There are a surplus of solutions available to explore, the only certainty is that our current policy is no longer tolerable.