The Future Driving Force of Human Evolution

If the technological progress happens to cancel the old process of natural selection which had the virtue of leading to the emergence of relatively intelligent humans, as happened in the last 2 centuries or so by letting most people survive and reproduce no matter their defects, while coercing the most intelligent into half-life-long mental slavery to the academic system (in addition to the negative selection practiced by religions since about 2 millennia, of sending the wisest people either to monastery, priesthood or death penalty depending on whether they agree or disagree with the official creed, and other effects of confusions between love and sin), then how can the human specie continue a positive genetic evolution, towards higher intelligence and other qualities ?
This question might seem frightening, as if we had to choose between 2 evils :

As surprising at it might sound, I have a good news to bring : I envision a possible way for genetic progress to still go forward, at least as fast as the previous effect of Darwinian selection, but that does not require any kind of dictatorship nor mass murder. It does not even require any large number of people to opt for any futurist artificial procreation with synthetic genome. There will be some artificial procreation of course, but it will not need to be any more widespread nor sophisticated than current practice. Generally, it won't even require any deliberate collective organization (hmm... let's just admit the method described against overpopulation, that's all we need). Amazing news, isn't it ?
So, at this point you may feel very curious and enthusiastic at this news. You want to understand how it can happen, yes ?
However, I'm afraid you will hate it when you will understand it. Well, it does not matter anyway, since it is not a project I'm going to describe here, but a predictive description of what is most probably going to happen no matter whether anyone likes it or not, no matter whether anyone cares about it, works for it or against it.
So you might prefer to not understand it, after all. But it will happen anyway. So do you really want to know what will happen anyway ?
Okay, let's go. Be warned : you might hate it. Read it at your own peril ;-)

Here is the idea :
A little factor is that the current negative pressure by the education system that spoils the life and time of the intelligent, is going to fall down, as it will become clear that this waste is not needed.
But the main factor is that, in the free time thus obtained, new online dating technologies will offer people optimal means to find their dates.
All will happen based on freedom : people will use these efficient tools of online dating because it will be everyone's best available means to find love. Such tools will be chosen to be used as determined by the condition of being everyone's best method to find what they are looking for. And it will have consequences. Let us describe these consequences in details.

In a first attempt of analysis, let us compare it to a market, with offer and demand of relationships. In usual markets, the balance of offer and demand in transactions is regulated by price. Here it is not exactly a market since there is (usually) no price of transaction, as the object of the transaction is to form a couple that will usually constitute an economic unit instead of 2 separate people where one pays to the other for the transaction. But still the deep structure of the problem is similar, whether or not it works with prices.
So for the sake of analogy, let us analyze the equivalent problem where transactions are regulated by price.
Then the regulating parameter that would adapt to make offer an demand meet, would be a "distribution of values" between people, that is constructed as follows:
Every individual A's preferences towards others B1,B2,...can be expressed as values he puts on each: v(A,B1), v(A,B2)... meaning that A is ready to pay v(A,B1)-v(A,B2) to get B1 instead of B2. Then the final choice for A will be the B makes the "best offer", that is, the price p(B,A) that B will pay for A is the best of all B for the fixed A, that is, B provides the maximum value of (p(B,A)+v(A,B)) among all B for the fixed A. In this way the "market regulation" consists in the search for the maximum value of (p(B,A)+v(A,B)) for each A, finding the B that is ready to give this maximum. The "market regulation" provides a distribution of success between people, where the "success of A" is defined by the maximum value of (p(B,A)+v(A,B)) for each A, thus letting B the chance to relate with A if the price p(B,A) reaches the value in agreement with the level of success of A. But this p(B,A) itself happens in the context of B's search, where it is similarly obtained by correcting B's preferences to each A with B's overall success in the bid for B by all other A, so as to make this transaction as interesting as the next best option for B.

Now if there is no monetary price, and even if there is no explicit regulating system, things will anyway regulate themselves in a way or another no matter if the regulating variables are visible or not.
And the structure of the problem is similar even in the absence of financial counterpart. So the natural regulation will anyway involve similar adjustment variables, even if these variables are hidden. These variables are "How successful is each individual in one's search for love".
Some people are very successful, i.e. they have a large and comfortable choice of possible partners ready to accept them.
Others have low success, i.e. they cannot get the partners they would best prefer because these preferred people have better available options.
Anyway, things are no less cruel than if they were regulated by price. Maybe even more cruel.
An advantage of a powerful dating system is that people who would have the best qualities in the absolute (such as a high intelligence) but are of an "exceptional kind" that cannot find partners in their immediate surrounding and thus would be lost in the absence of dating system, can then have the good chances of finding their best match by searching in the larger population, where they can be preferred by the exceptional others who they will prefer there.
So the diversity has 2 dimensions : a vertical dimension of "comparison of success" between people, and a horizontal dimension of separation between people of different characters, similarly successful in different manners, towards different people, according to the diversity of tastes.

In the case of a market with monetary prices, only horizontal proximity would determines who fits who ; vertical distances do not matter as they can be crossed by paying the price. But in the absence of payment, this solution is impossible.
With old inefficient dating ways, people with different levels of success would happen to relate because the possibly more successful people have not many others with whom to relate, horizontal proximity is rare and precious, so that people can match if they happen to meet each other and fit in their particular taste. Who could otherwise be more successful may have to accept someone otherwise possibly less successful for this reason that they happen to meet and fit, in the lack of chances to find someone better who does not happen to be locally present.
But in the presence of efficient dating methods, this constraint is removed. So, people able of success in the large picture get the opportunity to find who they prefer, as horizontal proximity becomes easy to find at the same success level.
The consequence is this one : in the non-monetary version of the market with efficient dating methods, the best goes with the best. Relations are much more likely to take place between people enjoying the same level of success, than people at different success levels. A person A cannot relate with more successful Bs because these Bs have better other opportunities to choose from ; but won't accept less successful Bs because other Bs horizontally close to A (i.e. with common tastes) can be found at the same success level as A.

Now let us deduce the consequences of this rule on the genetic evolution.
Each person has a mixture of genetic traits, some good, some bad. Even if things can be complicated and non-linear, let us imagine a simple model where each trait has a definite contribution to the success level : we define "positive traits" as those bringing a higher level of dating success, and "negative traits" as bringing a lower level of success.
Now if the possibility for 2 people to relate requires them to have roughly the same level of success, then the result on the next generation is an increase in the discrepancy (standard deviation) of success levels between people : positive traits are more likely to be combine with other positive traits, while negative traits are more likely to combine with other negative traits.
But if the standard deviation between success levels of people gets wider and wider every generation, then where is the limit to this deviation ? It cannot extend up to infinity. Sooner or later, a physical limit to this deviation will be reached.

The result is that negative traits are going to disappear, not because they kill the person directly, but because they are more likely to be oriented in the next generations into individuals with other negative traits.

Let us recall the diverse mechanisms which can contribute to switch from such accumulations of traits of the same sign in the same people, into differences of overall numerical presence of each trait in the population:
Now things are clear : positive natural evolution of humanity can go on in a high-tech, comfortable, wealthy society, even without any dictatorship nor any high-tech means of artificially designed DNA...

Up : On humanity's failures to steer itself properly