I have frequently heard it argued that human evolution has slowed to a crawl, or even stopped entirely.

The most commonly cited defense of this idea is that our society makes so much effort to keep alive the weaker members of our species, therefore robbing evolution of its traditional primary driving force: natural selection. There's a number of glaring flaws with this argument. First of all, it vastly overstates the extent to which healthcare is readily available to most of the human race. The richest country on the planet still has one of the weakest healthcare systems in the developed world. It ignores the billion or so people who consistently go hungry, let alone have access to any substantial degree of health care. Secondly, it fails to realize that natural selection is not the only driving force of evolution. The process known as 'gene flow' drives evolution via migration in or out of a population and is arguably stronger than ever among humans. Finally, and most importantly, it confuses natural selection with the idea of 'the survival of the fittest', which is a popular but extremely inaccurate interpretation of the process. Natural selection depends on biological traits becoming either more or less common based on the reproductive success of the bearer. There are numerous examples of factors that can influence reproductive success without necessarily affecting survival. An injury or a disease might render a person unable to reproduce even if modern medicine keeps them alive. Certain traits might increase or decrease attraction to the opposite sex regardless of any bearing on survival. That last line is primarily what got me thinking about how evolution is driven in modern society. Access to and usage of technology may actually be the primary driving force of our evolution, rather than a hindrance. Several decades ago, Richard Dawkins posited that evolution operates on the level of the gene, rather than the level of the individual. He further developed his arguments by introducing the idea of the 'extended phenotype', arguing against the idea that the influence of a gene extends only to the body of its bearing individual. The gene's reach operates through various mechanisms and chemical reactions; there is no particular reason to think that these mechanisms cease outside of the body. The idea of our bodies being separate entities from the world around us is a perception we have, but it carries no meaning down to the level of the gene, which has no interest in anything other than its reproduction. Examples of extended phenotypes may be different kinds of birds' nests, beaver dams, hermit crab shells, etc. A bird may have a gene for a particular kind of nest. We are eliminating a step; it's not a gene for a behaviour that produces a particular kind of nest, but simply a gene for that kind of nest, just like we might have a gene, or several genes, that determine our hair colour. What if modern technology is an extended phenotype? Think about smart phones. I grew up just early enough that I was able to experience most of my pre-adult life without a cellphone, let alone a smart phone. Once I got my first cellphone, life changed substantially. Now that I have a smart phone, it's difficult to imagine life otherwise. I feel uncomfortable leaving the house for more than a few minutes without it. Having unhindered access to friends, to information, to work email, etc. alters how I spend my time, how I interact with others, and how I think. Consider that kids being born within the last few years may not even recognize a traditional telephone ringer. They will grow up with smart phones, having access to games and information and friends at all times, and never knowing any different. How will this influence their development? Furthermore, as our lives become further intertwined with social networking and other aspects of the information age, what parts of our personality, our physiology, will help determine our success? Much like a bird with genes that build a better nest may reproduce more effectively than one without, could a person with who is more adeptly able to navigate the landscape of our information also be at an advantage compared to someone who is not? Our smart phones are almost an extension of our bodies at this point. Intel argued that it may only be a few decades until they are implants. At this level, not only is our usage of technology a driving force behind our evolution, but the technology itself is an extended phenotype- an expression of our genetics.