Narrating Human Evolution in the Age of AI

Years after Darwin first introduced the idea of evolution, Orator F. Cook coined the term speciation. Speciation is a word that is used to describe a process by which a new species comes into being. To understand this, we must understand what evolutionary biologists describe as a species. A population of the same species have a lot in common, but more importantly they must be able to produce fertile offspring. It is at this point that you may wonder that you are definitely reading a wrong essay, but speciation is one of the best proofs we have for evolution, the focal word of this essay. For species to no longer be of the same kind, they can no longer reproduce. There are many ways that a species can stray from its original lineage of a species, it could be that they are separated geographically, as they have in Valedictorian, this type of speciation is called allopatric speciation, wherein, a virtual separation essentially results in different evolutionary pressures, causing species on either end to evolve differently. Another type of speciation is due to behavioral differences, an ecological kind, due to being in different environments or habitats, environments, such as that of 1984, that results in species acting differently, as a means of survival. All kinds of speciations result in an entirely different line of species that is different enough from the father species to that they no longer can coexist within the same environment. This is how evolution can be drastic enough that we marvel at it. However, much to the dismay of linguistic gods and their inventions of "de" to negate, devolution doesn't have the contextual breadth for us to label these two stories with. Plus, even if we know that something has evolved we can only know if it was for good or not in hindsight. The evolution in Valedictorian, if we understand its motif between Zinhle and Lemuel is for "the good of humanity", meanwhile from O'Brien's motif, we glimpse a more sinister motif.

N.K. Jemisin's Valedictorian deals with a lot of interesting themes about power, society and the dynamics within it, but it is hard to understand what the post-human society represents the evolution for good of the human species, until the very end of the story. We know that the outliers at each end are taken beyond the firewall, where they, like Lemuel, will become a "post-human" , an 'evolved' species of human that is separated by a virtual firewall. A firewall is often thought of as a means to protect you from the malicious, by preventing entry. It is hinted throughout the story that the posthumans are the evolved kind, or at least they see themselves as such, this "Whatever was wrong with him before, it's gone now." quote is from when Zinhle first meets Lemuel. The apparent thesis of Lemuel is that he is trying to convince Zinhle that he is human, just like her. When really this is Lemuel's premise for a much larger argument, once she and we, as readers, start to accept him as essentially human, or at least a kind of human, he starts to gently tug at us about evolving, all while telling us a backstory of war. It is possible that the backstory of war is a nod to the difficulties of evolving, but regardless, this type of evolution, this adaptation, is inevitable. Inevitable, because the posthumans outside the firewall will annually come, but also because adaptation is a necessary means of survival, it is either that or "kill, or die, or be imprisoned forever". This is what Zinhle picks up on, slowly, as she realizes that her home is just 'a tiny part of the greater world.' The motif of the posthumans does not become clear though, not until the end, where we understand that the true evolution that Lemuel speaks of is not in his ability to change bodies or travel really fast, it is to be ethically part of a system, a community of species. As he sneers in disgust, he explains how they were first abandoned by her ancestors. Then he slowly shows her that they continue to do this even now, to her and her peers. The criterion for evolution to the posthumans is to fight for your fellow human, to value the lives of all, regardless of where they may fall on a spectrum of normalcy. "When they start to fight for you, we'll know they're ready to be let out. To catch up to the rest of the human race." This criterion alone, creates a type of speciation wherein evolution is for the better,by being for the good of many. Because of its cooperative nature that ensures the survival of everybody within the same community, it is undoubtedly an evolution towards the good of the human species.

The environment in 1984 is a looming force throughout the story, besides the constant looming threat of war, there is constant surveillance and control. One of the most interesting and yet oppressive characters in the story is O'Brien, here is a character that has gone up the ranks in a government that is incredibly obscure. The big brother's regime is certainly not transparent and it is most of all not a trusting institutional body. For a character like O'brien to make it as high as he did, it takes a lot more than simply being obedient, which all of the population has to do by force anyway. We see glimpses of O'Brien's intelligent nature when he starts to torture Winston, when he holds up four fingers to Winston, not only is he aware that he isn't holding up four fingers, he also advices Winston to wise-up. "Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane." This and the tenderness he displays towards Winston, regardless of the torture, not only demonstrates that he sees himself in Winston, but also that he wants to somewhat take Winston under his wing. Be more like me he says, there is no use being a martyr, for we will not let you be that kind of hero, "in this place there are no martyrdoms". O'Brien also tells Winston about his heroes in the Brotherhood resistance who begged for death. There is no other way out as it seems, unless one wises up like O'Brien. O'Brien also nods to the pain of becoming sane, of evolving, which in this case is also inevitable as he sees it. Either you go back to the rest of society or you are killed in an unheroic way, or you evolve, like I have. However, the criteria that essentially 'speciates' you from the rest of your community of human species is deception. A behavioral speciation that allows for evolution to a person with more control and power. O'Brien is urging Winston to deceive himself, the government and everybody else, well enough to regain some control. Deception of this kind is characteristically not for the good of anybody but yourself, and even then it is arguable. This type of evolution is not only not for the good of anyone, it is very likely not for the good of yourself either. That much is clear in the ending, "He had won the victory over himself. He loved big brother."

The answer to broad questions such as evil and good have historically been a difficult kind to answer, particularly when interpreting human motifs and behavior. However, when looking at the narration of history, G.R Elton remarked the following:"'What distinguishes the historian from the collector of historical facts is generalization'. In many analyses this generalization and extended metaphors have had to be deployed. It is still difficult to surmise that if something is not "good", in this case "good of the many" can necessarily mean that it is "evil", but to align yourself as O'Brien has, even if it comes from a place of powerlessness and being fed up, with an oppressive government where individuals are atomised is certainly not "for the good of the many". If we were to make a generalization such as; good is the good of the many, because human life has value, then deviations from this can easily be seen as "not good" if not "evil. Taking this generalization back to the painfully extended metaphor of evolution, we know that humans have evolved to be in communities and that they have evolved to be cooperative, and by that logic, not only is it not the type of evolution that is NOT for the good of the many, it is a devolution. Meanwhile, to evolve, according to Lemuel, is to value human life, this is certainly not devolution.