We all know the history of Eugenics and the third reich, and how it was used to justify the sterilization and killing of jews to the Germans. The result is that today there is such a stigma to the subject that anyone wishing to discuss the nurture vs. nature subject is obliged to only account for developmental invfluence vs. possible genetic influence.
I believe part of the stigma attached is due also to the fact that eugenics, especially the way the Nazis understood it, exhibits a child-like understanding of genetics, at best.
**An example would be Alcoholism. Alcoholism shows patterns of being transmitted in the genes. But, there is a group of people who think that it is mainly an environmental question and that people will eventually pick it up from exposure to an alcoholic in the family, etc. **
Alcoholism is not a genetic defect. The fact that ones ancestors used different forms of intoxicants other than fermentation, and so never developed the capacity to metobolize alcolhol, is not a ‘defect’, unless you consider drinking to be healthy and the norm. In a certain sense, those who have the ability to metobolize alcohol are the modified/scewed ones.
I think the nurture vs. nature question is extremely important considering the projected advances in genetics in the short future.
Well, there is no versus. Its a combination, and thats been clear for some time. The old school book example: different types of corn grown in the same field will grow to different heights. Thats genetics. One strain of corn grown in different fields in different climates will also result in corn of different heights. Thats environment.
Obviously certain traits are restricted to certain races. Sicle cell is mainly a problem with blacks. Lactose intolerance is higher in Asians and lower in Northern Europeans. These sorts of things are only biological, but I think it would be agreed upon that these biological differences are from genetics.
Well all biological traits are genetic in origin. Im not sure how it would be possible for something to be biological but not genetic.
But Im not really sure what you mean by race. Common genetic traits accross large groups of people have far more to do with geography than anything else. By race do you mean peoples whos ancestors lived for the most part in certain geographic regions?
Or do you mean effectively random groupings based on shared ~visible~ traits such as skin color? One can break humans up into a large number of genetic groupings, depending on the criteria you wish to use. Many of these groupings cross skin color. Skin color is just a visible trait. Its not the only one.
People whos ancestors came from equatorial regions are more likely to develop sickle cell anemia. To be even more specific, people whos ancestors built up resistance to malaria through constant exposure are more likely to be susceptible to sickle cell. Those who are the most resistant to malaria are most susceptable to cickle cell. Those who are most susceptable to malaria are least likely to develop sickle cell.
Can we ever say with certainty that there is no possibility that behavioral problems are transmitted through genes?
No, we cant say that because there is overwhelming data that shows behavior is genetic in origin. There is no blank slate, and its been known for some time.
What about, as the Nazis believed, that criminal behavior is genetic? What if it were thought that dishonesty, etc. etc.
Well of course it is. Expending the least energy to derive the most benefit is a trait of all organic organisms, not just people. In that respect, much criminal behavior is genetic. Using violance to get what one wants is a trait not just of humans but of pretty much all animals.
I believe in the end that our genetic makeup defines who we are in the context of our environmental stimulus. Is it right to say that everything can only be attributed to environment.
No, its wrong to say that everything can only be attributed to environment in the context of individual human behavior. Anyone who says so is pretty much in the realm of religon. Any and all attempts to change human behavior by moral/social indoctrination to the very young on up have failed.
However, as in the case of alcoholism, the relationship between resistance to malaria and sickle cell, the decendants of those from regions where cows were domesticated being able to metabolize cows milk better than people whos ancestors didnt domesticate cows (usually because cows didnt exist in that region), and quite a few other things, the environment can and does affect our genetic makeup.
But, I think youre making some assumptions.
There is a difference between whats genetic and whats ‘inheritable’. Your eye color is genetic and it is also inheritable, meaning by looking at your parents eye color we can know what your eye color is going to be.
But very many if not most traits/attributes are not heritable; you cant determine by the parents makup how their children are going to come out. They dont ‘breed true’. We all carry within us the ability to sire excessively retarded children as well as excessively brilliant children. We all carry within us the ability to sire both saints and sinners.
So then we have to ask ourselves. If there is any degree that behavioral flaws can be attributed to genetics, and that I can’t change my genetics, that my flaws were predetermined. So a person with pre-determined flaws will be less valuable as someone without pre-determined flaws or fewer ones.
Well, youre assuming that because something is genetic, the person is no longer responsible for their actions. If all of us are born with the capacity to be dishonest (and we all are) we are also all born with the capacity to be honest. If we are all born with the desire to steal if necessary (and we all are), we are also all born with the desire to protect what we have from those who want to steal it.
If you are born without the ability to metabolize alcohol, you are born with the ability to control your arm, and so stop it when it reaches for a bottle.
This is a very slippery slope. We live in a humanistic society where people are considered equal. This country was founded upon those ideals. So, what would the effect of realizing that we are actually, even to a small degree, limited behaviourally by our genetics.
Im sorry, I just dont see the issue. Youre asking, ‘If we are all born equally at mercy of our genetic backgrounds, how can we all be born equally?’
But youre making another assumption. Say that someone is born with, oh, a predisposition to be musically oriented. They play Beethoven on the piano at 10. This doesnt in any way mean that other people are not capable of playing Beethoven.
Someone may be born physically more suited to running races than others; this does not mean others are physically incapable of reaching the finishing line.
We arer all born with equal potential to achieve whatever it is we want to achieve; we just are not all born being able to achieve it in an equal time frame. Genetic predispositions primarily relate to time spent learning something; grasping concepts faster or slower than others.
** If you wanted to give out a janitor job, would you want the guy who has stealing genes or the one that doesn’t? Could you be blamed?**
We ~all~ carry stealing genes. I would question the sanity of someone who would rather let his family starve than steal, for example.
We ~all~ carry the genetic drive to pursue our perceived self interest and that of our families. Where environment comes in is in what that perception is.
In a simplistic hypothetical situation for illustrative purposes, say there are two groups of people living in an area. One group outnumbers the other.
The larger group restricts the ability of the smaller group to trade, grow food, whatever, by passing legislation inhibiting the ability of members of the smaller group to do so.
Now, this is a ‘genetic’ trait; the larger group perceives there to be more effort and less payoff in competing freely with members of the smaller group than in just restricting the smaller group members freedom. Its less effort and more payoff to restrict them, by force if necessary, so that is what is done; consciously or not.
The smaller groups members, containing all the same genetic drives as the members of the larger, now perceive that they are having to expend more energy for the same or less payoff. As this situation continues, no matter how law abiding the smaller group members may have been in the past, they will start using illegal means to further increase their gains with the least amount of energy. This is perfectly natural, and there is nothing wrong with it. The same exact behavior would have been exhibited by members of the larger group if the situation had been revearsed.
The only way I see around this sort of thing is a new definition of what it means to be human. If we learn that these things are true, then the idea that we are all created equal would cease to exist. If you can scientifically disprove that, then what happens? Do the best, genetically become the masters of the genetically inferior?
No, because what is inferior or not (really what works and what doesnt) is determined by the evolutionary process over a large period of time; not ephemeral social mores and imperatives.
Its not as if we can say ‘Ok evolution, we’ll take over directing things now. You used to be the prime determinant of what worked and what didnt, but we dont like the choices you made so we’ll start making them’ and expect the species to survive.
Or would there be some sort of social understanding? Yes they are inferior, but they are humans too, so we superior humans need to bear the load? Should we show gratitude for our genetic misfortune and lend a hand to those less fortunate genetically.
~Inferior is only a matter of context. Its not an objective state of being~
There is no way any of us could say what is inferior or not genetically because we dont know the future and what traits will be necessary to the species in the future.
The assumption youre making is that the imperative of our biological makeup is our social system. As if the requirements of our social attitudes are the yardstick that genetics should be trying to match.
I see many downsides to this, personally. I like the idea of everyone being created equal. The reasons for this are obvious. That way we have no Hitlers and prejudices aren’t given creedence.
The best way to overcome prejudice and little Hitler-type people is to understand and learn even more about genetics because those things are not born out by modern genetic understanding.
My question is: if it is proven that we aren’t created equally, what will happen and will it necessarily be all bad?
It was proven long ago. What has happened?
WIll proof of inferiority lead to more charity and assistance for those in need because of their genetic disposition or will it mainly lead to bad things.
We all carry a predisposition to do bad things. We all carry the capacity and the predisposition to use violance to get what we want. Yes, we are all motivated by our biology/genes, but that motivation is filtered through the lens of our environment. We all follow our perceived self interest; if you perceive that self interest to be in robbing people, youll rob them. If you percieve that self interest to be in performing labor, youll perform labor.
You might have been born with a genetic predisposition of good eyesight; so you could either become a a sniper in the military or a mafia hit man, or a weather observer or whatever.
One might be born with a genetic predisposition towards spacial relationships, and so have good mechancial ability or be good at mathematics. So, one might equally be either a great engineer or a great booky/oddsmaker or a great safe-cracker or a great fighter pilot.
Which one you become is largely a matter of your perception/environment (and personality, which is also genetic though not heritable); the fact that you become good at it easily is primarily genetic.