Gone Gonzo Posts: 2906 Joined: 10 Apr 2008 | Of late, scientists have been researching the fact that genes can affect violent people - that a certain gene inherited at conception might influences how violent we might be. This is not an alien idea for me or, i dare say, most others, but as it is becomming more accepted, I think it'd be interesting to see what people think about it.
They are suggesting that genes might play a larger role in the people we grow up to be; that if we can identify people with violent genes early, then we could be able to curb violent tendancies through therapy.
One would imagine that other genes might control other things - for instance, in a more relevant example, our susceptability to the addictive aspects of video games. But I am wondering what you think: do genes affect how we grow up more, or do our influences - whether they be from parents, peer groups or the media - affect our eventual selves?
For my part I'll try to give my answer/opinion:
I think that our genes would give us a susceptability to developing different behavior patterns. However, I don't think a gene would decide who we would finally become. I think that our parents and our environments are more influential upon us - though I'm not saying that it was always like that.
In the past humans did not live in large communities - I think that when we lived in groups of, what, 10-50 individuals, our genes had a larger affect on our development. Individuals would have had to fit in to very clear cut, basic roles (i.e. a physically strong and tough hunter) as opposed to nowadays, when people might turn into athletes, workers, doctors, scientists, priests (or priest equivalents) etc.
I think that humanity has developed many new possible outcomes to our development. And I think that, rather like domesticated cattle, or domesticated wolves (dogs), humans have become domesticated - resulting in people who are less active and more suited to lifestyles of mental work as opposed to lifestyles of running/carrying.
I think that our genes do not control our development so much as soiety does. I think that social institutions, such as religion, the idea of nations, the ideas of 'braveness' as opposed to 'homelyness', have affected us. Our ancestors have now been fitting into social positions for many generations (seeing as China, at least, has been around for about 3000 years, and for most of that time there was a new generation every 20 years or so, a good 15,000 generations - and that's just in China. Humans have been around much, much longer than the Chinese culture; aboriginal cultures in Australia are said to be up to, what, 70,000 years old? Though one would have to recognize that while aboriginies are in no way lesser people, their cultures have - perhaps for the better - stayed away from alot of the social morays[sic] of northern cultures) and, since it is generally accepted that viruses and other deseases evolve over thousands of generations (resulting, in some cases, with their developing resistances to antibiotics) then it doesn't seem that we might inherit/evolve new sets of genes for different situations. Ever since civilization developed, some humans have had less active/more privaliged roles than others. I beleive that is a good example of my thoughts on human evolution/development.
I think that our tendencies towards violence (inherited from the days of hunting/being hunted/mating rituals in men) affected our earliest civilizations, and helped develop social institutions as a consequence - institutions that have influenced our present selves. Males generally tend to have a role in society more associated with being assertive/decisive and, very often, violent. These roles have perpetuated violence throughout the generations.
Our violent streaks have saved themselves. They gave birth to violent tendencies in societies, and violent tendencies in societies meant that those genes were retained to the present day. Violent tendencies have become self-perpetuating; religious wars, religion, simple wars, sports, farming, hunting, etc, keep our need to be violent/keep our production of violent genes going. I don't forsee these things going away.
In conclusion, I think that while genes might give us a chance to become more, or less, violent, they do not dictate these things, so much as our mass-conciousness, social beleifs affect our genes.
Just my thoughts :)
What're your thoughts? |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 3587 Joined: 6 Aug 2008 | How do we know that removing this gene will not affect other things?
So I say leave it alone. |
Pulitzer Laureate Posts: 722 Joined: 5 Jul 2008 | A and B are not mutually exclusive.
Everything tends to have an effect on something else, and while a person is shaped by their genes, they also are shaped by the people they are with. And when generations pass, the sucessful people continue through their kids. In that, their genes affect society, and the society shapes the general trend of genes. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2906 Joined: 10 Apr 2008 | Spleeni:
A and B are not mutually exclusive.
Everything tends to have an effect on something else, and while a person is shaped by their genes, they also are shaped by the people they are with. And when generations pass, the sucessful people continue through their kids. In that, their genes affect society, and the society shapes the general trend of genes.
Yeah; I realise A & B don't work because it's a cyclical thing - i just didn't think people'd care about that |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2814 Joined: 23 Dec 2007 | All things affect all other things. Anyone who makes a study of anything remotely linked to society (History, economics, Sociology) should understand something that basic. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 3617 Joined: 7 Aug 2008 | I think people are born with different genes, but the society removes and adds traits to their personality, which ultimately mold people into the individuals they are. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2487 Joined: 29 Nov 2007 | I dunno, I think agree with you. Isolating an individual gene from the millions interacting inside of a person is like picking up a book and taking out one sentence. To then claim that this one sentence or this one gene is causing all bad behavior and if we just delete everything will be solved seems short-sighted. They operate as whole, not by their individual elements.
There's also the difficult problem of accepting that a natural (or un-natural) disaster could occur and make existence on the planet suddenly very difficult. If we've all tweaked our genes to maximize living in this society or environment, then we're going to be up s*** creek if anything goes wrong. Better to maintain diversity so we at least know the human species will keep chugging along. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2906 Joined: 10 Apr 2008 | Fondant:
All things affect all other things. Anyone who makes a study of anything remotely linked to society (History, economics, Sociology) should understand something that basic.
that's a bit obvious, that's not the point of this post - i wrote this with that thought strongly in my mind...
Try suspending disbelief for the good or an argument, maybe...
That's like someone ending an argument by saying "well we all know you can never actually prove anything so life could be a dream..."
Anyone who has had thoughts about these things themselves should understand something that basic |
BANNED Posts: 4378 Joined: 21 Aug 2008 | |
Pulitzer Laureate Posts: 765 Joined: 9 Apr 2008 | In one of my classes my prof explained the nature vs. nurture debate as "Trying to ask if it was Jimi Hendrix or the guitar that made the music." The final product is a clear fusion of the two. |
Beat Writer Posts: 193 Joined: 23 Jan 2008 | Everyone always seems to forget about choice and freewill in these situations. You can say all day long that genes or society makes you predisposed to certain choices but at the end of the day, it's still your choice and your choice alone. People need to stop using these things as an excuse for their bad behavior and take responsibility for their actions. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1170 Joined: 1 May 2008 | i could go full into this discussion and elaborate on every point and more, but i honestly can't be bothered to explain it when people won't read what i write anyway. i am currently doing sociological research on how a mind works, and how societies/groups of people develop a "shared" intelligence; and how some people breach this intelligence by individualism.
genes are not the final step in the conflict, and i wouldn't personally try to put them as opposites, because they aren't. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2478 Joined: 12 Jul 2008 | Genes and society both have a large impact on human development. If your life sucked then you will probably grow up to be an asshole, but then again, you might have just been born an asshole. |
Of late, scientists have been researching the fact that genes can affect violent people - that a certain gene inherited at conception might influences how violent we might be. This is not an alien idea for me or, i dare say, most others, but as it is becomming more accepted, I think it'd be interesting to see what people think about it.
They are suggesting that genes might play a larger role in the people we grow up to be; that if we can identify people with violent genes early, then we could be able to curb violent tendancies through therapy.
One would imagine that other genes might control other things - for instance, in a more relevant example, our susceptability to the addictive aspects of video games. But I am wondering what you think: do genes affect how we grow up more, or do our influences - whether they be from parents, peer groups or the media - affect our eventual selves?
For my part I'll try to give my answer/opinion:
I think that our genes would give us a susceptability to developing different behavior patterns. However, I don't think a gene would decide who we would finally become. I think that our parents and our environments are more influential upon us - though I'm not saying that it was always like that.
In the past humans did not live in large communities - I think that when we lived in groups of, what, 10-50 individuals, our genes had a larger affect on our development. Individuals would have had to fit in to very clear cut, basic roles (i.e. a physically strong and tough hunter) as opposed to nowadays, when people might turn into athletes, workers, doctors, scientists, priests (or priest equivalents) etc.
I think that humanity has developed many new possible outcomes to our development. And I think that, rather like domesticated cattle, or domesticated wolves (dogs), humans have become domesticated - resulting in people who are less active and more suited to lifestyles of mental work as opposed to lifestyles of running/carrying.
I think that our genes do not control our development so much as soiety does. I think that social institutions, such as religion, the idea of nations, the ideas of 'braveness' as opposed to 'homelyness', have affected us. Our ancestors have now been fitting into social positions for many generations (seeing as China, at least, has been around for about 3000 years, and for most of that time there was a new generation every 20 years or so, a good 15,000 generations - and that's just in China. Humans have been around much, much longer than the Chinese culture; aboriginal cultures in Australia are said to be up to, what, 70,000 years old? Though one would have to recognize that while aboriginies are in no way lesser people, their cultures have - perhaps for the better - stayed away from alot of the social morays[sic] of northern cultures) and, since it is generally accepted that viruses and other deseases evolve over thousands of generations (resulting, in some cases, with their developing resistances to antibiotics) then it doesn't seem that we might inherit/evolve new sets of genes for different situations. Ever since civilization developed, some humans have had less active/more privaliged roles than others. I beleive that is a good example of my thoughts on human evolution/development.
I think that our tendencies towards violence (inherited from the days of hunting/being hunted/mating rituals in men) affected our earliest civilizations, and helped develop social institutions as a consequence - institutions that have influenced our present selves. Males generally tend to have a role in society more associated with being assertive/decisive and, very often, violent. These roles have perpetuated violence throughout the generations.
Our violent streaks have saved themselves. They gave birth to violent tendencies in societies, and violent tendencies in societies meant that those genes were retained to the present day. Violent tendencies have become self-perpetuating; religious wars, religion, simple wars, sports, farming, hunting, etc, keep our need to be violent/keep our production of violent genes going. I don't forsee these things going away.
In conclusion, I think that while genes might give us a chance to become more, or less, violent, they do not dictate these things, so much as our mass-conciousness, social beleifs affect our genes.
Just my thoughts :)
What're your thoughts?