Change evolution 

Posted by

Ok so we can change naturally (Passive adaptive) or we can change through a conscious act of need for change (active change).

What is the difference and how do we manage change?

As a young graduate engineer I was always taught that change management will be one of the most resistive characteristics of working in an industry which has been underpinned by some of the most revolutionary fundamental laws for hundreds of years. Changing or tweaking any of this requires determination, commitment and most importantly patience.

So how do we proactively change? And what do I mean by passive adaptive and active change?

Consider the Darwinian theory. To summarise Darwin gives that evolution of all living things has been the result of natural selection. Natural selection is; that only the most adaptable and strongest species will continue to develop in their environment. So, as the environment has changed, species have changed in harmony with the environment.

This in my opinion is classed as passive adaptive change where over thousands of years species have naturally evolved based on resources available. It is not a conscious evolvement but a passive adaptive evolvement.

I believe Darwin’s theory of evolution is flawed and there has been very convincing arguments to support this, I will discuss this later, however let us carry the Darwinian theory to the present day.

The majority of the human race are passive adaptive by nature. Most of us enjoy the luxuries and convenience of modern technology and the simplistic feeding of information from many passive sources around us. Over the years we have learned to evolve with industry and technology and more often than not we will passively adapt to the functionality or service. As technology develops so we adapt but the changes are so discreet in many cases that we would not recognise them as change.

Consider the ideal Darwinian case one who is constantly adapting to the environment subconsciously without too much thought. He has done this through small incremental changes of which he is not conscious of. The changes are so small that there is very little need for radical adaptation.

This is true of the current day human race. Consider how we have adapted to the mobile telephone. Little incremental changes have subconsciously taken place and adaptation has occurred. (the domino effect)

Ok so we have discussed the Darwinian passive adaptive theory of evolution and on the basis of that discussion I estimate 60% of the world’s population spend 80% of their lives in the Darwinian adaptive change state.

So what about the other 20%. So lets consider Darwin again and look at his theory of the survival of the fittest and evolution through natural selection. What about those who didn’t make it through Darwin’s gates, the ones who did not evolve or cope with the environment  ( again I only use the theory as a basis because I am not sure that Darwin’s theory is the be all and end all.) So take the Dodo bird why did it not survive? Because it didn’t have a gun ? Simple. It wasn’t because it couldn’t adapt to the environment it was the environment that couldn’t adapt to it.

Ok let’s go a little further back and try another. The Wooly Mammoth. So why did that become extinct?  it was because it’s very existence had become a resource for survival. Ok let’s go even further back in time and consider the dinosaur. So this case is a little less harder to explain . We are led to believe that Dinosaurs became extinct due to the ice age/ some cataclysmic event. Now we can’t expect anything to survive this but wait a minute ….we are told dinosaurs existed millions of years ago,  we passively accept this. But wait….Darwin states that evolution through natural selection ( fittest strongest adaptive) why then does these giant versatile animals no longer exist. We are told that they were Lizard like creatures so we could only assume then they preferred warm weather being of reptilian breed. On this basis if we assume a cataclysmic freeze then i guess it is feasible that it would be difficult for that speed of adaptation to occur.So history must point to a cataclysmic event. There is no way these giants would not still be here. They simply could not adapt quick enough to the environment and they were unable to exist. I guess it’s like if we take a person from the early eighties and ask them to make a call to the fire brigade on an I phone 8 ….they would very likely fail to adapt quick enough and the delay in ability to adapt would be devastation.

Ok getting back on track. My point is this, if we follow the theory of Darwin’s evolution and if we apply that theory to the evolution of Dinosaurs, then it must have taken millions of years for those species to evolve prior to that point of cataclysmic extinction. It’s as almost like the earth had a previous life and during that life it reached ultimate complexity. Everything had adapted and evolved to such a state that it could no longer become any more complex relative to the environment at that time. We can conclude that Dinosaurs had never been exposed to the environment which was caused by the cataclysmic event or they would still be here, so it was at this point after millions of years of evolution that the planet decided to reboot.  So we started again and it is here that Darwin has his starting point. So life now as we know it has come to a particular point of complexity.

So what about the other 20 %. Now I only make assumptions here. For example we have been adapting for a long time and it seems that our brains have developed from passive functionality to an adaptive functionality and as such more and more of us are using our brains actively. This is where we look at the 20%. I believe % of the population cyclically regress from adaptive functionality to passive functionality  (old age) Our brains are not evolving because we can’t or wont adapt to the environment around us. We become lazy & our basic needs dictate our functionality, the result is that they don’t progress through natural selection they have reached ultimate complexity.

Ok there is more to our being than the brain of course, there are the physical aspect and that leads me to the flawed dynamics of Darwin’s theory. Evolution through natural selection fittest strongest adaptive was ok when we are speaking about physical environments for example through the industrial revolution, but I think we can now dismiss the naturalistic physical term. With reference to the general population we are no longer evolving as fast and our physical ability has reached a plato. We as a race are evolving more through mental ability. Animals for example have reached a point of ultimate complexity and humans physically are not far behind. This is where I believe passive & adaptive physical change in evolution can add no further value only state of existence.
However mental adaptive change and active change are very much at their strongest and have overtaken physical adaptive change in terms of evolution. 20% of the human race cyclically eventually switch off to the mental adaptive & active change evolution &  fall back  Into a passive environmental state which exponentially regresses into non compatibility (old age).

The remaining 20% are moving away from being led by adaptive change to actively changing the environment around them.Those who are actively changing are not only changing the environment around them but also changing it for those who are in the adaptive group of 60%, this 20% will make 80% of a difference (Paretos Law). However I believe these stats will relatively change with the assumption that we are exponentially driving towards ultimate complexity. As more and more of us choose to live in the active change bracket then we are creating a history of evolution on our own, the cerebral evolution. There will always be a portion of people who will remain in the adaptive change group. But the active change population will grow to a point where we have less conformists and more free thinking doers. This will result in a more intelligent race who can accelerate the environmentaround us to ultimate complexity.

To conclude, I am convinced that someday our existence will lead to ultimate complexity the same point where those ultimate beasts the dinosaurs ruled the world, but I can’t help thinking what our environment(atmosphere, lands and waters) will think our cerebral evolution. So to conclude; is Darwin’s theory valid prior to the human race? and was it fair to support the claim that life adapted to the environment. I don’t think so. I think it is the environment which has adapted to life. Some might see it more as a harmonious relationship. The future will be one of active change where we will look to change the environment around us more and more and I think that it may be the environment who is subject to Darwin’s theory of adaptability. Will the environment remain passive and adaptive in such times as rapid change or will it decide that it will once again deliver a cataclysmic event and initiate active change….ladies and gentlemen. I give you Armageddon and the end of this life cycle, maybe next time round birds will be the dominant species or sea animals or even gigantic insects, who knows ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s