Kindest Regards, Jaiket!
jaiket said:
Well, it certainly wouldn't be the first time I've (unintentionally) mischaracterised a member's post (or even the first time I've done it to yourself - given that I appear to have erred so twice in one thread ). I have a tendency to interpret too quickly and stumble on for a while before it's pointed out I'm battering a strawman, or worse - thin air.
I asked the question because I thought that you offered Dr Collins' statements as a form of rebuttal to what I had said in the other thread. In honesty I'm not clear in my mind what you were saying. I suppose asking what you meant would have been a better start.
Fair enough, and certainly you are not the only person to jump to conclusions, goodness knows I do my fair share. But I find that when I am aware of it, I do a little better at catching it.
Originally Posted by jaiket
(I don't think a morality gene is likely to be found. Genes that program/influence human minds to percieve cheating, killing tribe members, etc as 'bad' may have been selected for, in the same sense that genes that encourage staying put while predators abound would be selected against. Something relatively simple like that strikes me as likely.)
Originally Posted by jaiket
I am almost certain in my belief that a significant part of what we call morals are genetic based.
I have long thought there is an inordinate emphasis placed on genetics, nature at the expense of nurture, and I think this is the underlying argument by Dr. Collins. In that sense, I
was offering Dr. Collins' statement as a form of rebuttal. But it is a rebuttal that is easily taken out of context, hence my comment about implications.
There is a longstanding train of thought, about 25 years or so I would say, that wishes to assign all behaviors to genetic components. The philosophical backlash underlying such a train of thought (which seems to me evident in the comment about all animal behavior being genetically based, paraphrased) is a ready alibi to excuse any anti-social behavior. Yet, I must also consider, that "anti-social" is relative, considering which particular society is being considered. It is difficult at best, if not almost impossible, to create a blanket definition of "anti-social" because there are so many cultural exceptions. In a sense, we are trying to develop an all encompassing statement based on one (or very few) examples, and it is too easy to see where the statement is not applicable beyond a certain range.
So we are stuck with, to use the previous example of predisposition to drunkeness, trying to discern whether or not drunkeness is actually anti-social. In many societies it is, and is discouraged, via morality, law, stigma, etc. In many other societies drunkeness is encouraged, as a form of social bonding and hospitality. What role does genetics play, if this "prevalence" gene actually existed (which point I neglected, the discussion quoted pointed out that the "drunkeness gene" to which was referred was manufactured for the sake of that discussion) across human populations, why is drunkeness stigmatic in some cultures and not in others? Is the gene "more" prevalent in some cultures than in others? If the gene is more prevalent, then there are a few considerations. One is whether or not, if this gene is exceptionally prevalent in a focused population, whether that would demarcate a sub-species (as it does according to some biologists concerning animal populations)? Another would be, if we humans are actually "one species" despite the rhetoric, why this gene is largely confined to a distinct population (which begs the question of application by biology to animals, particularly if humans are considered, "biologically speaking," to be just another form of animal). In other words, if a big nose is all it takes to demarcate a sub-species, then there are multiple sub-species of the human animal. So we enter a new wrinkle to the discussion...politics, and how politics plays with scientific observation.
Now, again if this prevalence gene exists, why are some individuals having this gene absolute tea-totallers, having never touched a drop in their lives and have no desire or want to taste alcohol? Is there some secondary gene that undermines the effect of the initial gene? Or is it training, education, environment, "nurture?" Dominant and recessive genetics is a tricky business, Mendel seems to have oversimplified in the effort to explain. To simply state that brown eyes are dominant and blue eyes are recessive is an oversimplification. Blue eyes occasionally seem to crop up "out of nowhere" in predominantly brown eyed populations, assuming that there is some influx of blue eyes somewhere in that population's history. And human history is full of cross- and inter-breeding. Conquerer and conquered. Active and passive intermingling. So there are really very few "pure" human gene strains available to measure by. I have seen reference to 3: Ainu, Bushmen, and Lapplanders. The population of Iceland has been being used as a modern control group in the field of genetics because of their isolation, relative stability and small population size, they are descendant from Nordic Vikings and have been genetically stable for over 500 years. I have also read that the "true" Jewish lineage of Cohen is also genetically isolated, and can be shown to be so.
But by and large the typical human populations we would consider, in the West especially, are interbred. We have a genetic hodge-podge from diverse sources. So an imaginary gene predisposing someone to drunkeness could conceivably show up in "anybody." A point brought out in the referenced discussion is that human prejudices being what they can be, if word were to "get out" that a given population had a predisposition to said gene, that the remaining society would judgementally ostracize that segment of the population. Certainly this is historically accurate. The trouble is, the potential for that gene to show up randomly is there. Thank goodness, having said gene is *not* an incommutable sentence, as demonstrated by the tea-totallers. So, despite the "fact" that such a gene might predispose somebody to a want for drink, it really is that person's choice(s), based on the nurture aspect of their lives and environment, that determine whether or not that person actually "succombs" to the potential effects of that gene. In other words, there is factually a gene predisposing a person to diabetes: a person can deal with it and live a healthy and productive life, or they can succomb to it and die a miserable premature death. The choice belongs to the individual, on how to act on their genetic predisposition. Genetics is no excuse; legally, rhetorically, socially, philosophically, or morally. Yet, I have heard genetics used to defend the indefensible in every one of these categories.
Then we have the gender issue. More politics, rhetoric and deliberate re-writing of the science in an effort to bolster one's philosophical outlook. Are men with this gene more disposed to give in to its influence, or are women "equal?" Or are women somehow better able physiologically / psychologically / spiritually to rise above the influence of this gene? Are there cultural influences that set different standards for the sexes, or is that specific society encouraging "equality" despite the apparent physiological and psychological differences? What of gender abiguity and hermaphrodites? Where does homosexuality play into this? I have heard a lot of differing
opinions regarding these things, usually culturally based, and none all-encompassing, and quite deliberately twisting the science surrounding the matter. That's rhetoric for ya! A person hears what they want to and disregards the rest.
