Mankind
Quarterly, Vol. 48, No. 1 (Fall 2007)
pp.
83-98
Extinction and Overspecialization: The Dark Side
of Human Innovation
Marc E. Pratarelli
Colorado State University-Pueblo
Brunetto Chiarelli
University of Firenze, Italy
Science and technology are among the principal
characteristics of the human adaptive trait we call
innovation. Our
goal in this report is to provide the logic and justification
for
reconceptualizing innovation as a case of too much
specialization
rather than “general-purpose” adaptation. Generalpurpose/
domain-general traits are assumed by many to be
preferentially selected-for because they offer a species
the
flexibility to switch between available solutions
when
environmental challenges occur. Traditionally, technology
falls
under the guise of domain-general traits manifest
in culturally
universal ways, yet in view of its impact on the environment
we
argue it meets the criteria for overspecialization.
Specialization is
evolution’s answer to fine-tuning a species to its
niche, but it
comes with a high risk should the narrowly defined
niche change
in substantive ways. Without flexibility, the lag
time needed to
adapt through random mutations is too long and collapse
follows.
The authors briefly cover the three basic classes
of extinction, and
then present three assertions why human innovation
should be
reconceptualized as too much specialization. This
position turns
on the notion that technology, consumption patterns,
and
overpopulation together are beginning to compromise
the
integrity of the global ecosystem. The natural history
of
technology reveals a monotonic function suggesting
that humans
have never voluntarily given up their investments
in technology.
While some new technologies are being designed with
the hope of
reducing environmental impacts, there is no hard evidence
to
suggest that enough can be done to reduce the demand
side, nor
help to reduce the population growth rate before the
global
ecosystem is compromised. If the present culture of
technology
endangers the environment much longer, there may be
too few
alternatives than nature’s punishment for monopoly.
