Politics in the Age of Genetics

In America, Democrats (liberals) believe that everyone has the potential to become anything they choose, given access to a the right government programs (education, medical benefits, social security). Any mental disability can be overcome with treatment. Anyone can become the CEO of a large company, or President of the United States with the right opportunity and education.

Republicans, on the other hand, believe that there's a natural hierarchy in society, which is God's design (in other words, don't ask questions). Some people are just naturally subservient, dumb or unmotivated -- yet anyone with the inborn desire and talent can rise up and become a leader, as long as government does not stand in their way.

I believe the Republicans are correct in one respect - published studies certainly show that we are unequal in our innate talents.

The Democrats are right that we can pursue anything we choose. But we are not free in what we choose, because our choices emanate from our innate feelings and desires. Speaking for myself, I don't choose to become President -- because I don't crave power and I don't enjoy the limelight; it makes me uncomfortable. No one taught me to feel uncomfortable, it's just who I am, and that obviously differs from who other people are. We are free to follow our chosen path (after we make a choice), but we are not free in our desires.

I believe the Democrats are wrong to assume that many people would chose to become a CEO or the President if only social obstacles were removed. Bill Clinton is one example of someone who was raised with modest means (by an abusive step-father and a mother who gambled) and became President. His natural intellect helped him win the attention of mentors. He didn't need a state-run mentoring program. His natural political talents helped him build a base of support. He faced enormous barriers, yet was motivated (from within) to overcome them.

Being poor is not an obstacle to success. Some people rise up every generation, so they show it can be done. Those people attribute their success to hard work, and would be insulted by any implication that it's simply inborn motivation. But it's true nonetheless. A rat will press a lever day and night until it dies of exhaustion, if the "pleasure zone" in its brain is artificially stimulated with each press. Similarly, those with innate motivation will work tirelessly for their goals. It doesn't mean they will reach their goals, but motivated people can be extremely resourceful and relentless in their quest.

You can't teach desire and motivation. It comes from within. It determines the choices you want to make. It makes the other choices seem undesireable. Programs like Head Start have been shown to have limited affect beyond the first couple of years. Because Head Start can't motivate you, and it can't motivate your potential mentors. They are people, too. Mentors look for the best and brightest, someone who makes them feel good and furthers their agenda.

The best case that the Democrats can make is that they help the sick, unmotivated, poor, and uninspired, retain their human dignity. Some people do get better with therapy or treatment. We are all morally equal, even as we are not equal in innate talent, so this policy is gracious and kind-hearted. And most voters probably fall into this category.

Politically, it is suicide, however. As soon as the genes are discovered that explain the differences in motivation and desire across society, we as individuals and society will tirelessly find a way around our natural limits.   We will want a new party to protect our choices over our genes, and  our ability to select our children's genes.

Comments

[Forms of Life]

I just found this website while surfing for adoption of different attitudes towards heritability from different political viewpoints. Yours is an excellent example of conservative and individualistic policies adopting genetic determinism with regards behaviour and cognition. Your pages make lots of scientific sounding claims like 'the brain creates desire', but provide very little solid reasoning or scientific evidence to back this up. Given that what you say is certainly an interesting and valid viewpoint, it's a shame you don't provide any decent philosophical or empirical evidence. The claims you make regarding heritability of intelligence, talent and desires are not just politically or morally controversial, they are also far from scientific fact, as a cursory glance at the literature would reveal.

[bill]

We need to think of ourselves as morally equal for several reasons. First, some people are more genetically predisposed to be leaders, or to be smart, or whatever, in some environments, but different people may be so disposed in different environments. Thus, if the environment were to change, even modestly, different people might rise to the top. Second, if we are not all equal one it is necessary to engage in a very difficult grading process to rank people. Grading and ranking papers is hard enough for a college professor, how would one rank people? And how would one do it accurately even if the characteristics for which "points" were to be awarded could be identified? Third, ranking people in terms of their moral worth, as opposed, for example, to their economic or intellectual worth, or their physical prowess, would create great social strife and stress

[Topher]

I've been interested in the genetic fallout on the so-called "equality" question for some time now and find your points correct. However I would go a step further, from a philosophical perspective, and argue that even morally we are not equal, if we cannot find equality in nature how then can we map this into the realm of the "moral?" Morality may just be pushed aside as research in genetics slowly dissolves the idea of free will. Philosophically speaking the genetic research is slowly showing that the free will that moral philosophers (and theologians) love to have is nothing more but mere illusion.