Thought-Provoking Piece. Couple of Caveats
While focus is primarily on biological evolution, with hint of machine evolution, a broader context would add greater insight and weight to your case for “purposeful evolution.” In order of your points:
Evolution is NOT blind. As you describe, if looked at solely from a Darwinian (e.g., Dawkin’s dialectical mix of selfish gene and extended phenotypes), it does seem blind. However, when biology as a whole is viewed as a single evolving system and contextually nested with other major evolving systems in the cosmos (think single evolving cosmic ecosystem) there already is a directionality to macro-evolution (i.e., maximize evolvability). Ultimately, to survive and thrive all evolving systems (biological, human and machine) must align with and follow to continue evolving.
For a species to succeed does require amplifying novelty. But, ultimately, for a specific species to thrive in the long run of evolution (e.g., Homo sapiens or machines) the novelty amplified must align with and reflect the larger evolving nested ecosystem in maximizing evolvability of the entire nested ecosystem. Knowing and understand this already enables us to begin consciously directing evolution, not only for biological but also social and machine systems.
As for directing biological evolution, presume you know that outside of humans, we have done this for millennia, albeit randomly. While we are learning how to do this more precisely with other species, novelty amplifying aligned with maximizing evolvability will come into play eventually.
While unconsciously we have been unconsciously directing human evolution (e.g., public health and medicine), precision editing, beyond specific detrimental abnormalities, is fraught with practical, ethically, socially, and culturally difficulties. While many individuals will take advantage of physiological and cognitive enhancements, the history of large-scale efforts always evokes a backlash.
Consequently, application of directed human evolution will fall to the political system. This is extremely unfortunate because the prevailing political systems are medieval institution that are ill-designed for such issues and themselves need to evolve.
Consequently, you are spot on in suggesting a Cambrian explosion in machines. However, the same issue of amplifying novelty aligned with maximizing the evolvability of larger nested evolving ecosystem is critical here. Said differently, amplifying the wrong type of novelty could easily be an existential threat to humanity.
On my Medium publication, A Passion to Evolve, there are numerous articles on these topics. My best overview article related to all the issues you raise is called, Macroscopic Evolutionary Paradigm. A shorter, recent article is called, A Message From the Bow of Civilization
FYI, this is my professional and avocational interest — B.A. focused on communication policy, M.A. in alternative futures research, Ph.D. in how nested systems evolve. Also, given your professional position, you might find interest in my patent (here).
Doc Huston
