Transhumanism, symbolized by H+, is the theory that science and technology can improve the human condition. Mental and physical characteristics can be enhanced with robotics, genetics, and other applications of human ingenuity.
Last year, I wrote a novel called "Napoleon in Shanghai" to illustrate some of the Transhumanist concepts. I'd be interested in your feedback on the book, and I have a limited number of promotional copies if you'd like to review it.
Here are some excerpts from "Redesigning Humans" written in 2002 by Gregory Stock, former director of UCLA’s Program on Medicine, Technology and Society:
Future parents … will be able to select their children’s [genetic] modules from an expanding common library of enhancements. (p. 192)
People’s genetics would become a manifestation of their parents’ values and predilections. (p. 191)
[There will be] a genetic bazaar where all parents can obtain equivalent talents and potentials for their children. (p. 190)
Rare, special attributes such as photographic memory or extraordinary athletic ability may become both more extreme and more commonplace. (p. 193)
Once we can fashion our children’s biological predispositions, many cultural and personal influences will feed directly into biology. (p. 194)
Future sources of parental dissatisfaction are easy to predict. Some parents will forego germinal choice technology and end up wishing they had used it. (p. 148)
If such interventions become commonplace, the result will be revolutionary, because it will be a major step toward equalizing life’s possibilities. (p. 190)
Provision of free universal access to … [germinal choice technology (GCT)] would align better with our ideals of equal opportunity for children and might be surprisingly affordable. (p. 186)
The gifted of today ultimately may not welcome such a leveling, because it would diminish the edge their children enjoy and make society very competitive, even for the best endowed. (p. 190)
Strong voices will oppose [germinal choice technology (GCT)], but most of the warnings … will come from people with the most to lose – the well-endowed elite. (p. 190)
Critics like Leon Kass … aren’t worried that this technology will fail, but that it will succeed, and succeed gloriously ... [and] tear the fabric of our society. (p. 12)
Policymakers sometimes mistakenly think that they have a choice about whether germinal technologies will come into being. They do not. (p. 172)
Prohibitions are easy political gestures. But once GCT arrives, enforcement will be nearly impossible. (p. 166)
Government abuse is what we must fear, not germinal choice technology (GCT). (p. 199)
Direct human germline manipulations may still be a decade or two away, but methods of choosing specific genes in an embryo are in use today to prevent disease. (p. 2)
Artificial chromosomes … might allow cheap enhancement for the many. (p. 186)
The arrival of safe, reliable germline technology will signal the beginning of human self-design. (p. 3)
William Saletan in Slate has bravely grappled with the racial achievement gap. Although everyone is morally equal despite their race, dramatic differences in NAEP test scores, SAT, GRE and other tests persist between the races. According to Saletan:
Research is constantly finding new gene-trait correlations and group differences. If your faith in equality depends on an ethnically or racially even distribution of all ability-influencing genes, you're in trouble ... People of your race may be on average faster, smarter, or more volatile than people of my race.
If this is true, it will be hard to argue that differences in achievement outcomes between the races are due to discrimination, since they're actually caused by genetic group differences.
Yet race is a poor proxy for genetic differences. It's too blunt an instrument. In the age of Obama, when a half-white man can proudly call himself black, Saletan asks whether race is still a meaningful concept:
Why categorize and measure students by race? Aren't there better ways to organize the data? … Does that category really help? And what message does it send to kids when headlines assert a persistent "racial gap"?
Then he answers his own question: “We're prone to tribalism”. We like to think of ourselves as part of a group. We identify with our race, because it's like our own extended family.
But self-identifying with race also has consequences. It invites stereotypes. According to Larry Elder,
[blacks are only 13 percent of the population, yet] account for 37.2 percent of all those arrested for violent crimes, 54.4 percent of all robbery arrestees, and are the known offenders in 51.3 percent of all murders
It's a short leap for someone reading that volatility may be genetic to erroneously conclude that all blacks are genetically more volatile, which accounts for their higher crime rate. And that's a big problem. Humans have an innate tendency toward prejudice.
So, like Saletan, I wish tests and surveys would stop tracking race. I wish society would drop the whole idea of race. Being more “volatile” is not a defining black characteristic. It’s probably caused by a set of genes that both blacks and whites share, perhaps in different frequencies on average. We should understand volatility and intelligence in terms of underlying genes, not race.
But tribalism is also part of human nature. Society will not easily forgo its racial distinctions. Perhaps we’ve reached the limit of where our innate categories of understanding will bend to reason, until we alter our nature itself. But genetic enhancement is still decades away. So the immediate future will be about expediency – full of its distasteful Missouri Compromises – not moral truth.
Interestingly, Saletan reaches the same conclusion that I do:
the convergence of meritocracy with genetics is leading us inexorably toward eugenics.
I don't like the term eugenics, with its implication of government-sponsored tyranny. But I do believe in personal reproductive choice, including genetic enhancement of one's children. This won't happen without a fight, however, as society's genetic elites (perhaps with good intentions) attempt to limit access to genetic testing, ban reproductive choice, and ultimately maintain their genetic advantage. Fewer than 30% of adults has a college degree, because the genes for traits like persistence, tenacity, and ability to defer gratification are rare today.
Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, was recently sent a (flawed) open letter requesting greater oversight of genetic tests:
At the core of personalized medicine is advanced [genetic] diagnostic testing that improves a physician's ability to assess whether an individual patient is or is not likely to benefit from treatments for his or her disease or condition. Advanced diagnostic testing is becoming the standard of care for many diseases.
Accurate, reliable, and timely advanced diagnostics offer enormous promise, but poor quality testing can harm patients and waste scarce resources. Therefore, it is critical that regulatory oversight of these innovations (and innovators) strike the right balance between assuring patient safety and embracing policies that encourage the incorporation of rapidly advancing scientific methods and knowledge.
Sounds reasonable. We all want "accurate, reliable, and timely advanced diagnostics" for disease. So what's the problem?
The problem is that the letter makes several wrong assumptions about what these genetic tests are all about. Here are my issues:
It's the claim about the gene function that the letter writers are trying to control, under the guise of regulating genetic tests. The government is being urged to regulate all claims on gene function. Yet we have over 20,000 genes. Is the government going to control information on all of these? Again, most genetic diversity is not disease-related.
Why not allow anyone to make claims on what our genes do, in a great marketplace of ideas? We're smart enough to consider the source, and make our own decisions. We don't need the government intervening to block the free flow of information about ourselves.
There's also the question of fairness. Some genetic variants give you greater energy-level, intelligence, charisma, and resilience, often leading to higher pay and social status. Since most doctors already have these innate qualities, they're simply trying to keep their talents rare (and salary high), by having the government block access to genetic information by the rest of us.
David Brooks, writing in the New York Times, tries his best to summarize the latest research on genius:
The key factor separating geniuses from the merely accomplished is not a divine spark. It’s not I.Q. ... Instead, it’s deliberate practice ...
Public discussion is smitten by genetics and what we’re “hard-wired” to do. And it’s true that genes place a leash on our capacities. But the brain is also phenomenally plastic. We construct ourselves through behavior.
In Brooks' view, you can take anyone off the street and turn them into a genius. All you have to do is "create a sense of affinity" and infuse them with a "desperate need for success" and arm them with "ambition". Once you've instilled this passion, they will be driven to practice, practice, practice. And with practice comes talent.
Even if you ignore contradictory research (also in the Times) that genius brains are physically different from average brains (and that "the ability to focus for long periods of time" is probably also innate), Brooks' argument is fundamentally flawed. First, how do you get someone interested or motivated in something? It has to resonate with their innate desires and traits. You can't just arm someone with ambition. It has to come from within. Genes place a leash on our capacities, because they determine what things interest us enough to practice them.
If someone gives you a pat on the back and words of encouragement, chances are you'll practice for a while just to please them. But unless you're self-motivated and innately self-confident, you'll stop practicing as soon as it gets lonely to do so. Yet a true genius doesn't need approval. He or she is a force of nature, and practices day and night without approbation.
What Brooks doesn't understand is that our genes (and the body and brain they develop) are designed to be triggered by environmental cues. Since we all differ genetically, we have different interests and motivations and passions. Motivation is innate, it's not something you can instill. It's a rare quality, which is why leaders are so highly paid for their rare gene variants. This obviously makes the case for greater redistribution of wealth even as it undermines the basic philosophical foundations of both major political parties.
I'm pleased to announce the publication of my new book, "Leadership is Innate". Here's a quick description:
Top CEOs will tell you that leadership traits come as "part of the package" and "can't really be taught". Scientists have recently begun to discover how genetic differences contribute to key leadership skills.
Even Donald Trump says "I don’t think anybody changes, actually. They come out a certain way, and for the most part that’s what you get."
This stands in proud opposition to the feel-good-but-false assertions made by "experts" such as Warren Bennis (Leaders, 1986):
[M]ajor capacities and competencies of leadership can be learned, and we are all educable, at least if the basic desire to learn is there and we do not suffer from learning disorders. Furthermore, whatever natural endowments we bring to the role of leadership, they can be enhanced; nurture is far more important than nature in determining who becomes a successful leader.
The key word here is "desire". If you don't desire leadership, if you don't want it and crave it, if it doesn't motivate you, if it doesn't resonate with your feelings, then you can't be a leader. Desire and motivation are what's genetic!
There's a media frenzy (see the Today Show and ABC News) and pent-up demand for designer babies, and fertility clinics now have the tools to design them.
A recent survey conducted by the New York University School of Medicine found that:
A majority [of people seeking genetic counseling] said they supported prenatal genetic tests for the elimination of certain serious diseases ... 56% supported using them to counter blindness and 75% for mental retardation. More provocatively, about 10% of respondents said they would want genetic testing for athletic ability, while another 10% voted for improved height. Nearly 13% backed the approach to select for superior intelligence. (Wall Street Journal)
William Kearns, a medical geneticist and director of the Shady Grove Center for Preimplantation Genetics in Rockville, Md., ... described how he had managed to amplify the DNA available from a single embryonic cell to identify complex diseases and also certain physical traits.
According to Dr. Steinberg, the head of Fertility Institutes, "We intend to offer [trait selection services] soon."
Here are excerpts from "DNA: The Secret of Life" written in 2003 by James Watson, the co-discoverer of the DNA double helix:
In a society built on an egalitarian ideal, the notion that all men are not born equal is an anathema to many people. (p. 373) The prevailing orthodoxy holds that the best way we can help our fellow citizens is by addressing problems with their nurture. [Yet] children will get left behind if we continue to insist that each one has the same potential for learning. (p. 398) The tabula rasa remains the paradigm of choice among the politically entrenched defenders of some increasingly untenable views of human development. (p. 374) This tendency to prefer explanations grounded in “nurture” over ones rooted in “nature” has served a useful social purpose in redressing generations of bigotry. Unfortunately, we have now cultivated too much of a good thing. (p. 398) In a land of equal opportunity, where we are each free to advance as far as our wits will carry us, intelligence is a trait with profound socioeconomic implications. Smart parents not only pass on smart genes; they also tend to rear their children in ways that foster intellectual growth. (p. 379) Many of the most important genes governing behavior will indeed turn out to be those involved in constructing … the human brain. (p. 393) Any woman reading these words should realize that one of the most important things she can do as a potential or actual parent is to gather information on the genetic dangers facing her unborn children. (p. 402) When discussing our genes, we seem ready to commit what philosophers call the “naturalistic fallacy,” assuming that the way nature intended is best. By centrally heating our homes and taking antibiotics when we have an infection, we carefully steer clear of the fallacy in our daily lives, but mentions of genetic improvement have us rushing to run the “nature knows best” flag up the mast. (p. 399) Science may indeed uncover unpleasant truths, but the critical thing is that they are truths. Any effort, whether wicked or well-meaning, to conceal truth or impede its disclosure is destructive. (p. 372) Knowledge, even that which may unsettle us, is surely to be preferred to ignorance, however blissful in the short term the latter may be. All too often, however, political anxiousness favors ignorance and its apparent safety. (p. 364)
Violence … can [also] be viewed through the lens of genetics. Some people are more violent than others. That’s a fact. And violent behavior may be governed by a single gene interacting with environmental factors. (p. 391)
Does DNA knowledge make a genetic caste system inevitable? A world of congenital haves and have-nots? (p. 397)
My view is that, despite the risks, we should give serious consideration to germ-line therapy [where new genes are introduced at conception, and can be passed along to offspring]. I only hope that the many biologists who share my opinion will stand tall in the debates to come and not be intimidated by the inevitable criticism. (p. 401)
The link between crime and genetics is so well-documented these days that even an undergraduate can write a term paper on it and cite scientific references. See Caitlin's paper, for example.
So I won't try to duplicate those efforts. But I just want to correct the misconception that "both genes and environment play a role in the criminality of the individual". It's not always true.
First, what is the environment? Your parents share your genes, so being raised in a violent family situation can't really be considered "environment". Why? Because the way your parents nurture you depends on how you ask to be raised. If you have a genetic condition like Conduct Disorder or Oppositional Defiance Disorder, it will put stress on your parents. Since they share your genes (or more specifically, your gene flavors), chances are greater that they'll also have a short temper and lack of impulse control, and so may respond with uncontrolled violence. So the shared genes a child has with his parents are responsible for both the incessant provocation, and the violent response. Family environment is thus genetic.
Second, psychologists often say things like "Families with poor communication and weak family bonds have been shown to have a correlation with children's development of aggressive/criminal behavior". Or "children are at a fifty percent greater risk of engaging in criminal acts, if they were neglected or abused". But what's the real cause? If you're born with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), that later develops into Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD), of course you're going to be a bad parent -- remote and distant and uncaring. Since the parent shares the same genes as the child, poor parental nurturing can't really be considered "environment" at all; it's genes reacting to genes.
So why can't we intervene, and teach a child how to control his aggressive behaviors? Why is it so certain that genes will deterministically lead to the effect? It's the same reason that you can predict with 100% certainty that a loaded mousetrap in a room full of mice will get sprung. The world is full of chances to respond, but it only takes one time, and you can't completely control the environment. If you have a high genetic tendency to react aggressively, even the most peaceful environment will set you off once in a while, and you'll kill someone or impulsively steal their belongings.
I'm always interested in what a successful leader like Jack Welch has to say about innate human qualities. He's not an expert on genetics, but he's certainly an expert on human nature.
Welch says there are exceptions where a "reserved, shy, or awkward individual who has risen through the ranks to run something big". But that's a rare exception.
An introvert recently wrote Welch asking for advice on how to be more extroverted.
Welch replied:
This is a variant of the "if you want to be confident, first be confident" adage, as if confidence is simply a choice, a mask you can simply wear at will.
The reason Welch rose to become CEO is his ability to wear masks, or choose his attitude at will. (That's one of the rare genetic traits for which he's so highly paid.) He knows how to motivate people, and push their buttons. Some people are motivated by being yelled at. Some are motivated by guilt. Some are motivated by money or power. A good leader knows that, and can choose his own mask for the situation.
What leaders seem to ignore is that others simply can't choose to be this way. Our brains are not wired to allow us to smile at will. My favorite example is selective mutism, whereby someone cannot choose to speak in public, no matter how hard they try. Because leaders don't have this gene, they don't see how others differ from themselves. They figure everyone else can chose their mask, just like they do.
We each receive a copy of the ACTN3 gene from our parents. It's one of the 21,500 genes we all share. Yet the ACTN3 gene comes in different variants, or flavors. You may get the R variant from your father, and the X variant from your mother (RX), or some other combination like RR and XX..
Yet according to the New York Times, having the R variant of the ACTN3 gene enhances your so-called "fast-twitch" muscles, to make them more "capable of the forceful, quick contractions necessary in speed and power sports". If you inherit the X variant, you won't have that same capability.
A study "looked at 429 elite white athletes, including 50 Olympians, and found that 50 percent of the 107 sprint athletes had two copies of the R variant. Even more telling, no female elite sprinter had two copies of the X variant. All male Olympians in power sports had at least one copy of the R variant."
Of course, to make it to the Olympics, you must train and practice. But if you don't have the R variant of the ACTN3 gene, all the training in the world won't get you there.
In reality, you need two sets of genes to become an Olympic athlete. First, you must possess the "ACTN3 variant R" gene for "fast-twitch" muscles. Then you also need the "brain genes" for the drive and motivation to sustain you through the long, arduous, thankless years of training. Drive and motivation are also innate.
Since the time of Descartes, scientists have struggled to carve a niche for themselves where they can work undisturbed by cultural, political, and religious wars. For example, Descartes devised the so-called mind/brain distinction, whereby scientists agreed to limit their inquiries strictly to the physical world (e.g. the brain and body), and cede dominion of the "mind" and spiritual world to God and the all-powerful Church.
Today, two researchers, Bernard Crespi and Christopher Badcock, are attempting a similar segregation of turf. Since it’s not politically correct to speak of a genetic basis for human behaviors (nor innate differences among people), they’ve reframed the discussion in terms of mental diseases, which are less threatening to cultural warriors. Scientists are now free to explore the genetic basis of mental diseases, while they cede discussions of “normal” behavior to the current orthodoxy of cultural enforcers.
So what's their new theory? According to the New York Times, Crespi and Badcock theorize that:
An evolutionary tug of war between genes from the father’s sperm and the mother’s egg can, in effect, tip brain development in one of two ways. A strong bias toward the father pushes a developing brain along the autistic spectrum, toward a fascination with objects, patterns, mechanical systems, at the expense of social development. A bias toward the mother moves the growing brain along what the researchers call the psychotic spectrum, toward hypersensitivity to mood, their own and others’. This, according to the theory, increases a child’s risk of developing schizophrenia later on, as well as mood problems like bipolar disorder and depression.
In short: autism and schizophrenia represent opposite ends of a spectrum that includes most, if not all, psychiatric and developmental brain disorders. The theory has no use for psychiatry’s many separate categories for disorders, and it would give genetic findings an entirely new dimension.
In other words, there’s a “psychotic spectrum” of genetically influenced human traits (from autism to schizophrenia), with us “normal people” somewhere in the middle. At the outer reaches of the spectrum are mental diseases, which scientists are free to study to determine their underlying genetic basis. Within the broad middle of the spectrum, where genetic variation among humans presumably also leads to different personality traits, the implication will be left to cultural warriors (i.e the "Modern Inquisition") to explore. (Why do some people have a “fascination with objects” and lack a “sensitivity to the moods of others”? It must be the way they were raised, they'll say!) Meanwhile, scientists will slowly work their way to the middle of the spectrum, and finally overcome the PC resistance with definitive proof of the genetic basis of human behavior, perhaps a few years down the road.
Gene Expression measures which of your 20,500 genes are currently active in your body. Genetic Variation describes the subtle differences between your 20,500 genes and your neighbor’s genes, which come in different flavors from your own. (Both gene expression and genetic variation can be measured using "gene chips").
Measuring gene expression can be misleading, becomes sometimes the effect of a gene comes long after it is switched off. Genes act as blueprints for miniature "protein factories" in our bodily cells. That’s what gene expression is. The resulting proteins ultimately build structures in the body, like organs and skin and muscles and brain tissue. But once the structures are built, the genes involved can then switch off (or go into occasional “maintenance mode”).
For example, the genes responsible for the eye’s development can mostly switch off after we're born, so many of the “eye development” genes are no longer expressed in adults, although the development of the eye is clearly genetic.
If you’re genetically pre-disposed to macular degeneration (an eye condition), you probably have different flavors of the eye development genes from your neighbor (who doesn’t suffer from the condition). That's gene variation. Whether the eye condition is caused by variants of your “development genes” which long ceased their activity or by “maintenance genes” is an open question. But if the former, you can treat the condition but never cure it.
So why aren’t all our genes dormant after we’ve reached adulthood? Aside from maintenance genes (if you cut your finger, you’d better hope these are still active, to repair the skin!), why do some of our genes still actively express their proteins?
First of all, genes don’t just act as blueprints for bodily structure. They build an elaborate signaling system in the body. For example, during pregnancy, hormones are used to signal the need for bodily changes. Hormones can also induce mood changes. So the genes that produce hormones must be able to switch on when needed, to produce more “signal”. (Neurotransmitters are another type of signaling mechanism in the brain.)
Hormones and neurotransmitters would have no effect unless “receptors” were placed strategically around the body and brain, to detect their signal and trigger a response. Hormone receptors are constructed and strategically positioned by the genes, although they are more permanent than the transient hormonal signal. Like soldiers on a battlefield awaiting the general’s order or command, the release of hormones into the bloodstream act as a signal, to activate the battle plans of the trained and ready army.
The brain has hormone receptors as well. So special modules in the brain remain ready, listening and vigilant. Once they detect the signal, they trigger a pre-established human behavior, e.g. maternal instinct. Pre-established human behaviors are really "brain modules" built by the genes (when we were young) to enact certain specific behaviors. Although those genes left behind brain modules that they constructed, are no longer active (i.e. no longer "expressed").
Much of your current gene expression is related to maintenance activities and fostering the body and brain’s elaborate signaling system. But neither your development (body and brain) nor your signaling system works the same as your neighbor’s, because you have gene variants. Your DNA differs from your neighbor’s by 1%, which doesn’t sound like a lot. But two keys that are 1% different still open different locks.
The New York Times wrote recently about "that gene that makes presidents want to be president".
The article includes a quote from Ted Sorensen, the former counselor to President John F. Kennedy: “You have to not only have a sense of confidence but a pretty big ego — you have to almost be a fanatic.” Other qualities mentioned include "ambition and drive" and "believing you have special gifts” and being attracted to the "elixir of adulation" and the "opportunity for immortality".
Furthermore, “the nature of the relationship between leaders and the people around them is very important."
So where do all these qualities come from? What is it that makes a leader differ from a follower? Why doesn't everyone have a pretty big ego and self-confidence and ambition and drive? Why are those traits so rare? Can we all exhibit those traits, and simply choose not to? Why do most people feel comfortable as a follower?
Clearly, the brain is built by our genes. We have an innate brain module that senses crowds. Variations in our genes (from our neighbor's genes) cause us to react differently when this situation is detected. Some feel stress, and some feel excitement. You can't choose to have a big ego or not. It's part of who you are. You can't train someone to be motivated by power.
Depending on the gene variants (or flavors) you were born with, you choose (of seemingly free will!) to be one way or the other. From conception, your gene variants act as blueprints for unique proteins that construct your brain in various configurations. (After the development and configuration of your brain, those genes are then switched off). So once you're a few years old, your basic personality is established.
It may take many years until you experience a crowd for the first time, and realize how it excites you (or not). That's when leaders have their "aha!" moment. But most people are simply not born with "that gene [variant] that makes presidents want to be president". That is why leaders are so rare.
According to Cambridge University's Michael Bate, scientists who study the brain understand (to some degree) how individual neurons are created (a process called "neurogenesis"). They also understand how neurons move to their proper place ("axon guidance"), and form connections (called "synapses") with other neurons in the brain.
Yet, scientists still don't know how the "assembly of individual neurons in the brain" adds up to the development of human behavior. Bate asks: "What can developmental genetics and neuroscience tell us about the transition from growth and patterning to the onset of function in a network and the emergence of behavior?"
What, it's been decades and you still don't know? Why do neuroscientists have such a hard time studying this? Are their human pre-conceptions and biases getting in the way? I can think of a few principles that may guide their approach:
First, neurons are experience. A neuron's physical shape and configuration is a manifestation of evolutionary experience. They are not physical objects. Neuroscientists should think less about neurons as objects, and more as manifestations of evolution.
Second, the neuroscientist who believes in "free will" or "nature vs nurture" is lost. You can't study the mind or human intuition using intuition, the same way you can't study sub-atomic particles with measurement devices made of those same particles.
Third, there is no separation between the environment and the neuron's activity. The neuron is designed to operate in the environment in which it evolved. Neurons react to specific environmental inputs (situations) with a response that assists our survival (not necessarily a "rational" response). Like an elevator that recognizes finger presses on its buttons and reacts with a response that is manifest in its design, there is no separation of "nature" (the elevator's design) from its "nurture" (presses on its buttons). Its whole design anticipates that very specific experience. Neurons are algorithms, with inputs and outputs, but the programming was built over millions of years in close association with the environment.
Fourth, humans are specialized actors. We each differ by 1% of our DNA. These "gene variables" in our DNA programming code act as master switches that differentiate us from our neighbor. Some are motivated to lead, and some are motivated to follow. This must be reflected in differential DNA and brain development some way.
Finally, scientists are loath to make discoveries that the public finds abhorrent. And the public will not want to hear that most human preferences and motivations have a genetic basis (i.e. implying that their genes may be "flawed" in some way). This fear will slow the progression of neuroscience, as scientists self-censor themselves in a search of public acclaim over the search for truth.
It's human nature to believe you're responsible for your own success. So successful people resist any sort of government action that appears to resemble "redistribution of wealth" in the form of imposing higher taxes on the wealthy and providing subsidies and social programs for the poor.
Our brain is built by our genes. And since no two people have exactly the same genes, it follows that no two people have the same brain structure. (Even identical twins have so-called "epigenetic" differences.)
Where do our choices come from?
I’d tell you, but you’d probably disagree. Most people are not hardwired to understand themselves. Although we’re really genetic beings reacting to other genetic beings, we don’t see it that way. We think of ourselves as rational actors, acting in response to other rational actors.
Most people think we have freedom of choice, to do anything we want. The problem is, we don’t (and can’t) chose our “wants” themselves. They are part of who we are, as genetic beings. Our genes are not something we have. They are something we are.
Many people are lucky to be born with innate motivations that coincide with their parents' (and society’s) wishes. So they often attribute their success to parents and mentors. Yet it's easy to find counterexamples. Whenever you hear someone say "my parents made me who I am", you can respond with equal validity that their parents also gave them their genes, and genes come in many different flavors.
As with quantum physics, it seems impossible to step outside the system to observe ourselves objectively. In quantum physics, the observed and the observer are one. The process of observation causes the observed to exist. There are no privileged perspectives. We humans can’t seem to step outside of ourselves either, in our interactions with each other.
We react to each other, without trying to understand those who differ from us. It's been shown, for example, that political preferences are probably innate. (Soon, there could be a simple genetic test to determine who prefers Fox News over CBS!) As an extreme example, we don’t identify with serial killers or psychopaths either, even as their motivations are innate. We simply want to punish and incarcerate them, and forget about them, not understand them. Although we all share 99% of the same DNA, it's also true that two keys may be 99% identical, yet start different cars.
What does it mean to say motivations are genetic? It’s shorthand for saying “genes create our body infrastructure, including the brain’s circuitry, and design the development process to be self-tuning (via expected experience from our evolutionary history)”. Genes, which evolved over billions of years, in close association with the environment, are really encapsulated experience from that ancient time, brought forth to the present. Genes now develop our brain circuitry to recognize expected situations in the environment, and to react to them in standard ways. And genetic diversity means that no two people are motivated by the same things. Some people prefer rock climbing, and others prefer studying history.
At some level, we are "designed" by our genes to respond to certain environments. As an analogy, think of a simple example of a human-designed entity. An elevator is designed to respond to very specific environments (i.e. button presses). When the 3rd floor button is pressed, it “chooses” to travel to the 3rd floor, of its own free will. That is who it is. It’s part of the elevator’s design. The possible environments (for which it can react) are constrained by the elevator’s design. Yet it feels unconstrained, and free to act. Its response seems rational, only because the design had a specific purpose.
Genes are like formulas in a spreadsheet. Genes are algorithmic. Yet we don’t all have the same formulas, so the behavioral outcomes differ. But those outcomes are constrained by the formulas. We don’t have “free will” to change them, nor do we want to, because they are who we are.
Humans are not elevators or spreadsheets, of course. We have hundreds (or perhaps thousands) of innate formulas in our brains, designed by our genes. The formulas themselves invoke Bayesian and nonlinear algorithms and fuzzy logic, and so are nearly impossible to simulate. We humans seem unpredictable, only because we have no prediction machine.
The main point is that no two people have the same “formulas” in their brains, due to genetic diversity. Some people are motivated to seek power, and others are motivated by following power. Some people take more risk, and are more resilient. Some people enjoy killing. Some people are selfless and brave in the face of danger.
How would you teach someone to be motivated by power? You can’t do it. You can motivate someone (using their existing motivations), but you can’t give them new ones (since the development of the brain begins within a short time of conception, in utero). Yet a CEO makes millions of dollars because he has rare genes. Leadership is innate. That doesn't make it fair.
Finally, is genetics too complex to understand and predict? No, because genes reduce complex situations to simple signals. For example, a powerful general who commands an army of well-trained troops needs only issue a single command (“Attack!”), to begin a war. You could try to understand the war in terms of the political history, the social context, the history of weaponry, and the personal histories of all involved. Or you could understand the war in terms of a single signal.
In the same way, humans may have a single “master” gene for certain high-level traits, that can trigger a cascade of activity in thousands of other genes. (Heck, even a simple drug can turn you into a compulsive gambler!) My guess is that we’ll find single “master genes” for many human traits and motivations. (Scientists have already discovered social behavior genes.) In the future, your DNA can be tested for these gene variants, to determine if you have rare leadership qualities, or what consumer preferences you may have.
If motivation is genetic, then our theories of rational agents, free choice, and homogeniety in society are sorely outdated.
At their recent spit party in Manhattan, "personalized genetics" company 23andMe wowed the stars, and invited them to have their DNA tested. Just spit in a cup, and have your sample analyzed for $399, a pretty good deal.
Better act fast though. The FDA is currently cracking down on companies like 23andMe, in an apparent attempt to limit a citizen's right to self-knowledge. Fortunately, some people are now fighting back against the regulators (see, for example, Wired Magazine's "Top 10 Reasons that Regulators should not hinder Genetic testing")
David Duchovny recently entered rehab for an addiction. Or perhaps it should be called a compulsion? In any case, according to the New York Times:
Sex addiction is not listed as a disorder in the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the bible of psychiatric disorders, but it is being considered ... for inclusion in the next edition, the DSM-V due in 2012.
So Duchovny's lack of willpower in 2008 (for which he is responsible) will become a treatable disease in 2012 (for which he is not responsible). An act of free will is transformed -- magically! -- into an affliction, by the American Psychiatric Association, publisher of the DSM. I smell conspiracy, Mulder!
In an age where certain drugs can trigger complex behaviors (like gambling), it's not to hard to see how our genes can cause "addictions" as well. Duchuvny has free will to do whatever he wants, but he can't choose his wants themselves, since they're genetic. Your genes are not something you have, they are something you are.
