I do mean it, although perhaps “immune” is the wrong word. I have been thinking that some people say that we’ve removed evolutionary pressures and therefore aren’t evolving anymore. But, I also realized that direct violence has not particularly decreased.
So, my real question is: are people’s reactions getting faster, more efficient? Are we evolving better skin surfaces or chemical blleding-controlling agents in reaction to gun technology? These could have an enormous impact on the survivability of such wounds. It wouldn’t take much of an edge. Given the vast wars of the 19th and 20th century, guns and violence have extensively touched every nation on earth.
Sure, there’s an evolutionary advantage to faster reflexes–but there’s been that same evolutionary advantage for the past few billion years. Bullets don’t suddenly make reflexes advantageous; nor, for that matter, do they make piercing-resistant skin or faster blood-clotting more advantageous than they’ve been for far longer than humans have been evolving.
Indeed, I’d say the evolutionary pressure is less: before the 19th century, someone stood a huge chance of dying even from a grazing wound, as infection could set in. With the advent of antibiotics and sanitation, the risk of dying from such is far smaller. Therefore, a mutation that makes the skin harder to penetrate is going to have less evolutionary advantage today than it would’ve had two hundred years ago.
Some people would be afraid to jump in with a WAG. Not me.
Seems to me that gun technology is getting more sophisticated, not that people are becoming “immune” to bullet wounds. If we’re strictly talking about domestic shootings, people are being shot by smaller guns with lower-caliber bullets, which leave smaller entry and exit wounds. This explains why 50 Cent is still walking around, after being tagged (IIRC) 8 times.
I’m sure there are some more scientific types lurking here that can offer up charts and diagrams. I don’t happen to be one of them.
Don’t get me wrong here: I highly doubt we’re going to evolve bullet immunity anytime soon. I was, however, thiking that if its at all possible, the human race has been through a lot of bullets and presumably, those with bodies vulnerable to piercing wounds would be the first to die.
I’m not talking about skin like a bullet-proof vest, but more like the ability to absorb more damage, which would be related to but not identical too the ability to resist wounds from bladed weapons, and maybe not at all like the ability to resist wounds from clubbing weapons.
Secondarily, logically the human race would, if possible, be tending toward better and better bleeding-control systems for deep wounds like these. If you’re fighitng wild animals, you probably don’t have to worry much about getting deep-body wounds. You’ll be bleeding out the neck and eaten first. With bullets (and arrows) that’s a major concern.
Imagine a mutation comes along that allows deep wounds to clot faster. If the person in question gets wounded before they have their last child, and survives the wound due to the superior clotting property of their blood, then the mutation will have an evolutionary impact. If not, it won’t.
This same clotting agent may have other effects: perhaps, for example, it’ll lead to increased risk of death from an internal blood clot. If the person in question dies from an internal blood clot before they have their last child, then the mutation will have an evolutionary impact. If not, it won’t.
Evolution is not working toward an end: it’s just a set of random mutations that accrue because they, on balance, lead to more successful breeding. I’m not sure that, even if a mutation for superior blood clotting occurred, it’d be on balance helpful.
But it is possible that over the next few million years, humans or some other animal will develop superior blood clotting ability, if a mutation occurs in the population that on balance leads to more successful breeding.
I’m far less sanguine about the chances for tougher skin: that seems likely to involve decreased skin sensitivity, and humans depend pretty heavily on sensitive skin both for working and for courting.
But for that matter, why concentrate on physical responses. Say, pacificism, or looking intinidating, or attention to detail re: saftey catches may be being selected for. It’s interesting to consider how humans might be evolving.
The amount of harebrained speculation taking place in this thread is sickening.
That said, here’s MY take on it: Success is a trait that will gradually be bred out of humanity becuase it’s clear that successful people choose to have fewer (if any) children. As such, we’ll eventually return to a hardscrabble agrarian existence, with occasional cycles of economic and technological success that each end in decline and collapse.
I agree that the main evolutionary pressure to evolve resistance to bullets and fragments would have been mainly in the years 1800-1950…millions upon millions of people died due to gunfire during that period, whereas in the past 50 years, millions upon millions have still died at the hands of fellow humans, but not due to projectile weapons.
I do think, though, that if our technology and culture stayed in the 1800-1950-era for millenia, that we would evolve some resistance. For instance, I am reminded of the column on Alaskans, who have shorter limbs to reduce heat loss. We might evolve smaller limbs as well as other circulatory evolutions, to minimize death due to hydrostatic shock and blood loss.
But such evolution, even after millenia, would still tend to be only on the margins, for instance, a 45% chance of dying from a wound rather than 50% (I’m being generous here.) I’m sure it would take millions of years to evolve total immunity, if it can even be done (would it not certainly involve plastic and/or metal skin?)
That’s rather oversimplified. Firstly, single individuals are rarely, if ever, evolutionarily significant. Natural selection is a population-level phenomenon, and creates populational trends based on the differential survivability and reproduction of all individuals in the population. A single mutation (or even a suite of mutations) in a single individual would very quickly become too diluted within the gene pool to matter one way or the other. Secondly, evolutionary success is not measured simply from one generation to the next. If an individual has 20 kids, but none of them survive to breed, then the first individual is still an evolutionary failure. “Success”, in evolutionary terms, is relative, and can only really be determined after the fact. What is successful now could easily become a dead-end in a single generation.
IF an enhanced-clotting mutation were to show up in a population, then we would still have the problem that not all individuals are likely to be exposed to the same “selective pressures” - the number of people who’ve actually been shot is small relative to the total population size. Thus, in some individuals, the mutation proves to be neither a help nor a hinderance. In others, it may save their lives. And, in yet others, it may not matter (there would still be some wounds which are simply unsurviveable).
Because of the numerous survival / breeding permutations possible, it would be unlikely that the persistence of such a mutation would be the result of natural selection. More likely, if such a gene (or genes) arose, it would spread through the population via genetic drift; for most of the population, the survival benefit would be nil - after all, how many bleeding wounds have any of us had, yet survived, without the benefit of super-clot-genes?
:quasi-hijack:
Is there any kind of theory that would address a species as an organism in and of itself? If so, then the technology employed by homo sapiens would be considered an evolved trait which would indeed improve survival odds vs. bullets.
:/quasi-hijack:
You are assuming that natural selection will have any relevance on the individual level once we discover how to control what traits our children have. Any countries or cultures that outlaw improving humanity genetically will eventually be made obsolete by people from countries that encourage or turn a blind eye to such practices. Natural seletion of cultures will still exist. Stronger cultures have always wiped out or assimilated weaker ones.
Eventually, people will be able to make themselves or their children bulletproof if they so wish. I find it unlikely though, since there are far more potent weapons than bullets, and defenses that can withstand bullets would be metabolically very expensive. A shell that can withstand bullets for example would be very heavy, while weaving kelvar into muscle tissue would decrease its range of motion. Though a bullet resistant skull wouldn’t be a bad idea, it would protect our most fragile asset against many things. Therefore I could see such limited bullet resistance developing.
You’re kinda right: I shoulda said “MAY have an evolutionary impact.” I was trying to demonstrate how unlikely it would be for such an event to have any significance; you’re correct that this same sequence of events would need to occur through both a population and a large time frame in order for any evolutionary impact to occur.
It occured to me that we are evolving another sort of immunity - a collective military ability that enables the US to infliuct heavy losses without sustaining them. Sort of cultural reinforcement. Of course, cultural evolution is lamarkian, not darwinian. (well, it can be darwinian but its unusual).
It also occurred to me that even if this were true, we’d probably never know. I mean, maybe the average person is a bit better protected against those wounds now. But how would we ever tell? Technology, war, and records change too fast to make comparison. Darn it, the world will never know.
Actually, Fiddy got shot 9 times–and drove himself to the hospital to boot. I’d say he is the next evolutionary stage. 50 Cent *is * a metaphor for change.
