Genes Do Not End At The Neck

Remove all ads!

How do you think society will handle knowledge of behavior-effecting genes?

 

Well I doubt that any goverment will make any effort to try to remove these genes from the gene pool, at least in the near future.

 

I can see it being used for detecting possible suspects when it comes to law enforcement if one is able to determine if a person has these genes via a blood or swab test.

 

There was a good article in the New Yorker that pointed out that personality traits like paranoia, shyness, cautiousness, etc. evolved in us for a reason. The caveman who lacked those traits and strolled right into the dark, scary cave probably got eaten by a bear, losing the chance to pass his genes on.

 

Being as society should already realise that someones genes effect their behaviour to some extent (Nature vs Nurture) I assume you are asking how society (or rather the government) will handle the belief that scientists can tamper with genes to alter peoples behaviour.

Probably a knee jerk reaction banning scientists from doing so.

Personally I believe the interactions between nature and nurture are complex enough, nevermind deciphering how many and which genes go into determining a particular kind of behaviour. It would be a very brave and foolish scientist that claimed he could predict someones behaviour under any circumstances from their genes, nevermind going about altering them.
The best use (theoretically speaking) that I can see of being able to predict someones behaviour is being able to recommend a course of nurture during the childs development. However, I would predict that giving a child love and attention, whilst teaching them discipline, respect for others and the value of life would be the best practical nurture any parent could provide. Shame it's not practiced enough.

 

Blaming 'genes' is just another way to avoid personal responsibility for ones actions.

 

Bingo, Cuchulainn.

I can't wait to see this as a defence in a murder or rape case. Just kill me now.

 

/me shoots T2Bruno

My genes made me do it.

 

I'm with Cuchulainn on this one also. I believe that mankind can use intelligence (nurture) to overule nature and to blame behavior on people's genes is ridiculous.

 

One can put a lovely veneer on a child through nurture, but nothing more...that child's genes will dictate what he is and what he becomes almost exclusively. Research in the coming decades will show this to be true.

As for using this knowledge as a defense in criminal cases? Yes, it will happen. And when it does I hope the argument is put down fervently and repeatedly by any jury unfortunate enough to have to listen to that tripe...the court can convict the criminal and send him and his faulty genes to jail.

I think the eventual upshot of the knowledge will be humanity once again making an effort to be master of it's own domain. We will try to edit people from conception instead of trying to correct problem behavior later. Of course, this sounds great in theory, but I think we will be in over our heads trying to steer anything as convoluted as behavior. Some people might call it evolution if we were to take matters into our own hands to create superior humans...honestly though, I don't see us ever having the wisdom to know what exactly it is that evolution has intended for us.

 

Well, evolution having intentions is nonsensical---it's up to us...and some fat chances as well.

The positive benefits are just so compelling---the end of vice as we know it, for example---that it seems absurd to not expect us to start rooting around in the (currently) black box.

It just seems a bit scary is all...

I think the beginning stages of this future social revolution are vital. I'm not so sure this is something which capitalism will handle well. But then, at the same time, I do not think the vast majority of people will allow their offspring to be 'optimized'.

But then again, the benefits will be plain, and more and more influence will be exerted by the new elite.

If we think religious terrorism is the bane of the advanced world now, just wait until the targets are a people seen as those whom have not only stolen His land, but also His seat!

 

Nunsbane,

Really? Research proves something that we already know to be true, well, there's a treat. Those foolish researchers could spend there time better then, couldn't they. How about researching something we don't know yet?

Carcaroth' remarks are a closer representation of what I believe research has proven so far.

 

I think it would be too early to say whether genes control behaviour. There is so much about the human brain that we do not yet understand. Cognitive science has only existed for +- 50 years and has been very already controversial (moreso than cloning).

The book I am reading now (Godel, Escher, Bach) dives into formal systems and tries with these to explain the working of the brain (basically what the entire Artificial Intelligence field is doing.)
In other words, the goal of the book is to explore the idea that thought (and behaviour) follow predefined patterns and logical rules. (It isn't an idiotic idea, some thoughtpatterns were already mapped by Aristotle himself).

Now most people get a kneejerk reaction reading that, since these predefined patterns fly in the face of something we cherish: free will.
That is exactly the source of the controversy. If we accept that there are such things as patterns laid out for our thought and behaviour to follow, then can the court be able to convict anybody?

Why is it that the blond hair gene is passed on, but the behavioral genes are not?

@Cúchulainn

And blaming nurture is not?
Geeze, I can't wait until people bring "I was abused by my dad too" to court when they go to trial for beating their children.
"I was locked in a closet until I was eight, and kicked everyday by my parents, so that is why I am aggresive to other people." Boohoo. Give me a break, I can't wait until that floodgate opens.
[/sarcasm]

That people can exploit it, doesn't mean it is bollocks!! Lots of the replies in this threat say that nuture > nature, and people use that as defence too! (See my sarcastic paragraph ^)

 

I disagree from my own personal experience. I have found, and most of my longer serving friends would agree with me, that my personality and traits are extremely similar to one or both of my adoptive parents. Whilst it is not beyond the realms of possibility that my birth parents were very similar to my adoptive ones, the chances are rather remote. Whilst I will not dispute that genes play a role, to claim they are almost exclusive is nonsensical from existing evidence.

Wiki has a reasonable description of current thinking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

 

Hmm...I'm not entirely sure about the whole moment of 'choice' issue...isn't that a philosophical debate that has been going for millennia?

Rather, I am fairly certain that our choices are made upon an internal canvas; and though it is painted upon by our own choices, and that of our parents, friends, and the entire world around us, I think the canvas itself has a bit of a shape, and is not completely blank or malleable. That is the domain of genetics.

I mean, if animals can be bred to emphasize certain behavioral characteristics, why not humans as well?

 

Darkthrone,

What exactly are you getting at? What is it that you know for sure about the nature vs. nurture debate?

The extent to which nature or nurture defines a person is unknown, that is what researchers should look into.

Carcaroth does indeed express the current thinking from the nurture side of the debate, I just happen to disagree. I believe what you are is defined almost exclusively by nature and that nurture only provides superficial characteristics.

 

If nature (our genes) dictate who and what we are I see a potentially scary future.

Forget love and romance or even just plain lust all procreation will be arranged by the scientists.

Forget free-will and the right to make decisions for ourselves.

Nation A will decide that aggressive behavior should be eliminated.

Nation B decides that aggressive behavior should be reinforced along with willingness to obey the orders of superiors who have also been carefully developed by the state.

Guess which nation will be that one that survives unless the citizens kill each other off.

Who is to decide what is the best for humanity?

 

Environmental factors + genetic coding = behaviour.

Identical twins can have completely different personalites if brought up separately. Selective breeding is just going to lead to bottlenecking and genetic stagnancy.

 

Nunsbane, that's not my point at all. I was just impressed by your definitive statement "research will show this to be true". Since the extent to which nature or nurture defines a person is unknown (sic!), I just thought it a bold remark to behave as if it was plain truth that the first is the determinative factor.

Nakia, why is free will depending on nurture? Acknowledging that one person is more aggressive than another one because of his genes doesn't mean that he's robot, does it. The idea of breeding more aggressive species isn't new, just ask your friendly Doberman Breeding Association. Human kind, however comes equipped with some special features, I think.

Free will is not the issue of either nature or nurture. It's a bonus - and consequently anyone has to account for his actions. Genes or upbringing may have an impact on any judgement passed, but it doesn't touch the question of what is a crime and what isn't.

 

How can will be free when the subject is already biased to some actions?
It's like saying that a country has free speech, but you're no allowed to talk about fluffy bunnies: when it has the smallest miniscule limitation then it is simply not free.

Likewise to the mind, when a person is already biased into some direction, how can he be able to chose otherwise?

[ August 20, 2006, 16:30: Message edited by: Morgoth ]