(Photo by Eugene Zhyvchik on Unsplash)
Why Humans May Be Evolving Into a ‘Superorganism’ Where Groups Matter More Than Individuals
In A Nutshell
- Researchers propose humans may be entering a new stage of evolution where culture shapes survival more than DNA.
- Cultural inheritance spreads faster and adapts more flexibly than genetic inheritance, from medicine to technology.
- Group membership (access to healthcare, education, and institutions) increasingly determines individual success.
- The theory is untested and incomplete, but it suggests human evolution may depend more on cultural systems than biology.
ORONO, Maine — Humans may be experiencing one of the most unusual evolutionary changes in our species’ history, and it may have little to do with DNA. A new study from the University of Maine suggests that culture has become such a powerful force that it may be overtaking biology as the main driver of human evolution. If true, this shift could eventually make cultural groups, not just individuals, the key players in shaping our future.
Published in BioScience, the research introduces the idea of an “evolutionary transition in inheritance and individuality,” or ETII. The theory proposes that humans may be moving toward a stage where cultural inheritance — the passing on of knowledge, technology, and institutions — becomes more important than genetic inheritance. Unlike past evolutionary changes that unfolded over millions of years, this cultural shift may be progressing at a pace fast enough to notice within historical timeframes, though the authors stress the process is still incomplete and largely theoretical.
How Culture Can Outpace Genetic Evolution
Researchers Timothy Waring and Zachary Wood argue that cultural evolution is faster and more flexible than genetic evolution in almost every measurable way. Cultural information can move instantly through conversation, teaching, or digital media, while genetic changes are stuck on the slow timetable of generations. People also actively choose which cultural traits to adopt, often from those who seem most successful, whereas genetic inheritance is random and passive.
Medicine shows this dynamic clearly. Procedures like Cesarean sections allow people with narrower pelvises to survive childbirth and pass on that trait. Glasses correct poor eyesight, which would once have been a disadvantage in survival. Surrogacy and assisted reproductive technologies allow people to reproduce where it would otherwise not be possible. Each cultural solution reduces the role of natural selection, leaving culture — not genes — as the stronger link to survival.
Cities and languages also illustrate the advantages of culture at scale. Larger populations tend to produce more patents and innovations per person. Languages with more speakers often evolve toward efficiency. When groups pool knowledge, they can solve problems faster than any individual could manage alone.
The Three Stages of Human–Culture Coevolution
The study outlines three broad stages in the relationship between genetic and cultural evolution:
Stage 1: Early cultural capacity. Human ancestors evolved bigger brains and longer lifespans, allowing us to store and transmit cultural information through language, tools, and cooperation.
Stage 2: Gene–culture balance. For a time, culture and genetics reinforced each other. A classic example is the rise of dairy farming alongside genetic changes that enabled lactose tolerance.
Stage 3: Cultural dominance. Today, cultural solutions often appear before genetic evolution can respond. Medical systems reduce natural selection pressures. Schools and institutions, rather than inherited traits, increasingly shape opportunities. Laws and norms influence reproductive decisions as much as biology does.
One puzzling trend the researchers discuss is the dramatic decline in fertility rates in advanced societies. They note that traditional evolutionary theory struggles to explain this pattern. One possibility is that cultural reproduction — passing on knowledge, skills, and group membership — is becoming more important than biological reproduction. Other theories, such as the transfer of wealth across generations and the widening of social networks, may also contribute. The decline likely results from a mix of these cultural dynamics.
Why Groups May Now Matter More Than Individuals
The study emphasizes that cultural groups increasingly shape individual survival and success. Most people today depend almost entirely on collective systems, such as hospitals for healthcare, supply chains for food, schools for education, and technologies for daily life.
Belonging to the right cultural group often matters more than inherited traits. Access to healthcare, quality education, or social networks can outweigh any genetic advantage. Even reproduction is influenced by cultural systems through fertility medicine, adoption policies, or child-rearing support.
Over time, the researchers suggest this trend could deepen. Societies may gain even greater influence over decisions once left to families or individuals. Group identity could become as significant as, or even more significant than, biological kinship. The decoupling of genes from culture, where group-level cultural systems determine individual outcomes more than genetic traits, is one of the clearest signs that the transition is already underway.
What the Shift Could Mean for the Future
Waring and Wood stress that their hypothesis is still just that: a theory. Genes remain vital to many aspects of human biology, and the transition they describe is incomplete. Measuring exactly how much culture versus genes shapes human traits is also a challenge.
Still, if culture does continue to outpace biology, the forces that once guided human evolution could give way to something new. Instead of random mutations driving change, cultural systems, including schools, governments, technologies, and economies, could steer humanity’s path.
Whether that benefits us will depend on how societies manage the transition. The same cultural systems that solve hunger and disease could also widen inequality or limit individual freedom.
The study ultimately argues that understanding human evolution today requires looking beyond DNA. If the theory holds true, the next chapter in our story may be written less by natural selection and more by the cultural groups we build, join, and sustain.
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only. It summarizes new scientific research but should not be taken as professional advice in biology, medicine, or social policy. The study discussed is theoretical and remains under debate among experts.
Paper Summary
Methodology
The researchers conducted a theoretical analysis building on existing evolutionary theory rather than an experimental study. Waring and Wood developed the “evolutionary transition in inheritance and individuality” hypothesis by synthesizing dual-inheritance theory with evolutionary transitions research. They examined gene-culture coevolution patterns throughout human history and compared genetic versus cultural inheritance systems using mathematical frameworks. The authors categorized human gene-culture coevolution examples into three evolutionary stages and developed metrics to measure the transition.
Results
The analysis indicates humans have entered a third evolutionary stage where cultural evolution preempts genetic evolution. Evidence includes “cultural preemption” examples like medical interventions allowing genetically disadvantageous traits to persist. Cultural inheritance systems show advantages over genetic inheritance in generation time, heritability, and selection processes. Human fitness increasingly depends on group-level cultural factors rather than individual genetic traits. Declining fertility rates in developed countries suggest cultural reproduction is becoming more important than biological reproduction.
Limitations
The ETII hypothesis remains largely theoretical and difficult to test empirically. Methods for comparing cultural and genetic contributions to human traits need development. Genetic components still strongly influence human characteristics, and the transition remains incomplete. Measuring cultural group selection presents ongoing challenges. The authors emphasize that evolutionary processes depend on environmental conditions, making nothing about human evolution inevitable.
Funding and Disclosures
Research was supported by the US National Science Foundation, USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, and the HERA Fund at the University of Maine. No conflicts of interest were disclosed.
Publication Information
“Cultural inheritance is driving a transition in human evolution,” by Timothy M. Waring and Zachary T. Wood was published in BioScience on September, 2025. Waring is affiliated with the University of Maine’s School of Economics and Mitchell Center for Sustainability Solutions.
Cultural change and evolution are two different things. Cultural change can serve the same function as evolution, but faster.
For example, after a major widespread extinction event you could have too many herbivores because the large carnivores were gone. Over millions of years, some of those herbivores might evolve into carnivores, beginning by supplementing their diets with insects, then small rodents, and finally, the cousin herbivores.
Similarly, in a human society of peaceful citizens a few may “culturally evolve” into social predators (such as muggers). Different subcultures in a very large society may come to play the role that multiple divergent species do in nature.