When I was a lad growing up in New York City, I refused to swear allegiance to the flag. Of course, I was sent to the principal's office. Then the principal asked me, "Why wouldn't you take an oath of allegiance? Everyone does." I explained that everything America has, benefits from other cultures and nations, so I'd rather take an oath of allegiance to the planet and all its inhabitants . Needless to say, it didn't take long before I left school completely.
Then I set up a lab in my bedroom. I started to learn about science and nature there.
Then I realized that the universe is governed by laws and that human beings, along with society itself, cannot exist outside these laws.
Then came the economic crash of 1929. It kicked off what we now call the "Great Depression." I can't understand why millions of people are out of work, homeless and starving when all the factories are empty and the resources haven't changed. Since then I have learned that the rules of the economic game are inherently unreliable.
Not long after, World War II broke out, in which countries took turns to systematically destroy each other. I later calculated that all the resources that were destroyed and wasted in that war combined could easily satisfy all of the human needs on Earth.
Since then, I've watched humanity set the stage for self-destruction. I watched as precious and limited resources were constantly wasted and destroyed in the name of profit and free markets. I watched society's group values degenerate into a vulgar fabrication of materialism and mindless consumption. I also watched the power of money govern the political structure of what is considered a free society.
I'm 94 now (2010), but I'm afraid I still have the same attitude as I was 75 years ago: fuck this shit.
Section 1: Human Nature
As a scientist, at some stage you will always be fed the inescapable debate of "inheritance vs nurture". This is at least the equivalent of "Coca-Cola vs. Pepsi" or "Greece vs. Troy".
Congenital vs. acquired environment, which now seems to be an oversimplified view, discusses the source of influence—from what affects a cell to cope with energy shortages, to what makes us our most individual-level personality.
And you get this utterly black-and-white argument: at its core, innate inheritance determines everything at the very root of causation; life is DNA, the core code and holy grail that drives everything; At the extreme, a more social-scientific view is that we are "social organisms," and biology only applies to slime molds; humans have nothing to do with biology.
But obviously both views are bullshit.
In reality, it is almost impossible to understand biological principles outside the context of the environment. One of the most absurd yet widespread and dangerous statements is, "Oh, that behavior is hereditary." What does that mean? If you pay attention to modern biology, there are all kinds of subtle implications.
For most, however, a conclusive implication is: a biological and genetic determinism of life; genes are equivalent to the immutable; so you don't have to waste resources trying to tinker, and you don't have to invest in society The energy to try to improve, because that is inevitable and cannot be changed.
And that's complete bullshit.
disease
Many people think that some diseases, like ADHD, are genetically predetermined, as is schizophrenia. The truth is just the opposite, nothing is determined by the genetic code. Only a very small number of diseases, that is, a small part of the population that is rarely manifested, are truly genetically determined.
Most complex symptoms may have a genetically influenced predisposition, but the predisposition is different from predetermination. The whole attempt to find the source of disease from the genome is doomed before anyone realizes it, because most diseases are not determined by genetic preselection.
Heart disease, cancer, stroke, rheumatoid disease, autoimmune diseases in general, mental health problems, addictions… none of them are genetically determined. Take breast cancer, for example: only 7 out of 100 affected women carry the breast cancer gene, and 93 do not; and out of every 100 women with the breast cancer gene, not all of them will get breast cancer.
behavior
Genes don't make us behave in a particular way regardless of environmental factors. Genes give us different ways of responding to the environment. In fact, it seems that certain childhood influences and parenting styles can affect the expression of genes, turning different genes on or off, putting you on different developmental trajectories to adapt you to the kind of world you have to face.
For example, a study of suicide victims completed in Montreal, which examined brain autopsy reports, found that if a suicidal person—usually a young person—was abused in childhood, the abuse actually Causes a genetic change in the brain that isn't found in people who haven't been abused.
This is an epigenetic effect. "Epi" means "on basis," so epigenetic factors refer to specific genes that are activated or deactivated by the environment.
In New Zealand, a study was done in a small town called "Dunedin" in which thousands of individuals were studied, from birth to their 20s. They found that a genetic mutation, an abnormal gene that did have some relationship to violent tendencies, could be identified, but only if the individual had been severely abused in childhood. In other words, children with this abnormal gene were not more prone to violence than the general population. In fact, they were less likely to commit violence than genetically normal people, as long as they were not abused in childhood.
A good extra example of how genes are not "everything". A sophisticated technique allows you to remove a specific gene from a mouse so that the mouse and its offspring will not have the gene. Yes, you knocked out this gene. This gene encodes a protein involved in learning and memory. With this excellent demonstration, knock out that gene, and you get a mouse that's not very good at learning. What has been underappreciated in this landmark study, which has been swept up in the media, is that when the genetically defective mice were raised in a more stimulating environment than the average lab rat cage, they completely overcame the flaw. .
So, when someone says "Oh, this behavior is genetic" according to the contemporary concept - let's count that as an acceptable wording - what you're really saying is: the way organisms respond to their environment is inherited Components; Genes can affect the state of an organism in response to specific environmental challenges.
But that's not the version most people have in mind, and, not to be alarmist, the stereotypical version of "It's genetic!" is almost identical to the eugenics of history. It is a widely spread and quite potentially risky misconception.
The reason why this hypothesis of explaining violence in terms of biology is potentially dangerous—not just misleading, but actually causing harm—is that if you believe these arguments, you can easily say:
"There is nothing we can do to change people's tendencies to violence; if someone becomes violent, all we can do is punish, imprison or execute them without bothering to change the social circumstances and social preconditions that make people violent, Because those are irrelevant."
This genetic argument gives us an excuse to ignore historical and social factors, past and present. It's all in the genes: a rhetoric that explains the status quo without threatening it. How can anyone feel unhappy and engage in anti-social behavior in the most free and prosperous country on earth? It can't be a system issue. Definitely something wrong with the nerves. "It's a good point that the genetic argument is just an excuse that allows us to ignore the social, economic and political factors that underlie a lot of problem behavior.
View more about Zeitgeist: Moving Forward reviews
