Human Nature Podcast 1
Albert A. Anderson
Copyright 2006
Podcast # 1: Evolution and Genetics
I. Human Nature: A Philosophical Perspective
Who am I? What am I? What is our nature as human beings? These questions have been asked ever since people became self-conscious. They have been posed and answered many ways by artists, theologians, psychologists, biologists, anthropologists, historians, and a host of others. They are also among the most puzzling questions in philosophy. What is philosophy?
Philosophy: the rational analysis and justification of fundamental concepts, principles, decisions, and actions.
I will focus on the fundamental concept of human nature.
II. Philosophy in the 20th Century
A. In Great Britain and America, Scientific/Analytic philosophy dominated.
B. Physics, biology, and computer science have had a profound impact on philosophy since the 17th century. In the 20th century this spawned an extreme form of scientific philosophy called logical positivism. The union of philosophy and science remains a strong force in the current intellectual scene, especially in the universities that educate scientists and philosophers.
C. One major problem with the kind of analytic philosophy that dominated the second half of the 20th century is that it became so narrow and specialized that it failed to account for the broad range of issues that are essential for a proper understanding of human existence. How can we account for human nature if we fail to incorporate all of the available evidence?
1. Physics, chemistry, biology, and mathematics provide considerable evidence that must be taken into account when we are trying to understand human nature. Space, time, and matter are surely important aspects of human existence.
2. But what about the human mind? Is it limited to the material of the human brain? Does mind exist in space and time? Even if we understand everything there is to know about our genetic code and its role in our evolution, is that enough to explain all of our decisions and actions? Is there a genuine place in human existence for the human spirit? Is the concept of the human soul a mere relic from an outmoded past? Where do the creative arts, religion, morality, and other such aspects of human culture fit into our understanding of what it means to be human?
3. Philosophy seeks to go beyond the individual arts and sciences and seek a rational account that incorporates all of the evidence, not only the part that we can see, hear, taste, touch, or smell. Mathematics and symbolic logic are helpful tools for manipulating and controlling our environment and even our own body, but what about other symbolic forms such as poetry, imaginative literature, music, painting, sculpture, architecture, dance, film, and the other creative arts? These are some of philosophical questions that we must answer if we are to deal adequately with the question of human nature.
4. I will focus my remarks on biology, computer science, and physics. In this podcast I will discuss some of the fruits of biology and what they tell us about human nature. I will also introduce some choices that we humans will face us in the near future.
III. Biology
A. Charles Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859.
B. Francis Crick and James Watson received the Nobel Prize for their discovery of DNA in 1962 (the seminal article presenting their findings was published in 1952).
C. The rough draft of the Human Genome Project was completed by the year 2000.
D. Philosophers such as Daniel Dennett and John Searle, biologist E.O. Wilson, the psychologist Steven Pinker, and writer Matt Ridley take this biological evidence and the worldview it spawns as the most important consideration in forming their concept of human nature. Searle insists that whatever we think about human nature must be consistent with the atomic theory of matter and the evolutionary theory of biology (see John Searle, The Rediscovery of the Mind, MIT Press, 1992, p. 86). He calls himself a “biological naturalist (p. 1).” Ridley, who earned a Ph.D. in zoology from Oxford University, puts it this way:
“I genuinely believe that we are living through the greatest intellectual moment in history. Bar none. Some may protest that the human being is more than his genes. I do not deny it. There is much, much more to each of us than a genetic code. But until now human genes were an almost complete mystery. We stand on the brink of great new answers but, even more, of great new questions” (Ridley, Genome, Harper Collins, 1999, p. 5).
Dennett has similar unrestrained praise for Darwin’s theory.
“If I were to give an award for the single best idea anyone has ever had, I’d give it to Darwin, ahead of Newton and Einstein and everyone else. In a single stroke, the idea of evolution by natural selection unifies the realm of life, meaning, and purpose with the realm of space and time, cause and effect, mechanism and physical law. But it is not just a wonderful scientific idea. It is a dangerous idea (Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life, Simon and Schuster, 1995, p. 21).
E. What we are vs. what we might become
· Is human nature fixed or is it evolving? Is there a human essence? If so, what is it?
· If human nature is evolving, does that take place by determined laws, or is it shaped by human freedom?
· If human freedom plays a role in shaping our nature, what should that nature be?
· This is not a new question. A version of it was posed by Plato in The Republic: [Book 5, Track 12]
Socrates: Glaucon, you are the legislator responsible for selecting the men, so now you should give them women who have the same nature. They will live in common houses and meet at common meals, so there is no need for private property. They will be educated together, exercise together, and generally share a common life. By natural necessity they will be led to mingle with each other. Do you think necessity is the right word?
Glaucon: Yes, if you mean erotic necessity rather than logical necessity. I think this force is more likely to convince and coerce most people.
Socrates: That’s true. These affairs, like all the rest, must proceed in an orderly way appropriate to a happy republic. The leaders will not allow profane and indiscriminate intercourse.
Glaucon: It would be wrong to allow any such thing.
Socrates: Then don’t you think that marriage should be sacred, and the most beneficial marriages will be the most sacred ones?
Glaucon: I fully agree. [459]
Socrates: Now, Glaucon, how can marriages be made most beneficial? I put this question to you, because I have seen more than a few well-bred gamecocks and hunting dogs at your house. Tell me, do you ever pay attention to their mating and their breeding?
Glaucon: What do you mean?
Socrates: I mean that even though they are all first-rate, are some better than others?
Glaucon: Of course.
Socrates: And do you mate them indiscriminately, or do you make sure to breed only the best?
Glaucon: Only the best.
Socrates: Do you select the oldest, the youngest, or those in their prime?
Glaucon: I choose only those who are in their prime.
Socrates: If you did not take care in breeding them, I suppose your dogs and birds would soon deteriorate.
Glaucon: Certainly.
Socrates: Does the same hold for horses and for all animals in general?
Glaucon: It does.
Socrates: Good heavens, my friend! Imagine the kind of skill rulers will need if the same principle also holds for the human species.
Glaucon: Of course the same principle holds, but why is that so remarkable?
F. Was Plato proposing this idea for adoption, or was he putting it out to members of his Academy for discussion and analysis? Joseph Uemura’s book Reflections on the Mind of Plato presents strong arguments for the view that Plato’s Republic is designed to discourage rather than encourage such utopian fantasies. I agree with Uemura’s interpretation, but many others, including Sir Karl Popper, take Plato to be an early proponent of social engineering in general and eugenics in particular. Regardless of how we interpret Plato, it is easy to find proponents of that kind of social engineering late in the 19th century. Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, coined the term eugenics and was an unabashed proponent of the practice of breeding human beings to create the best possible offspring. In addition to trying to breed the best with the best, this movement also tried to prevent reproduction by the worst. Such practices during the Nazi era in Germany are well known, but the United States had taken the lead in that field long before the Nazis came to power. President Theodore Roosevelt supported eugenics as an “enlightened” view (Jeremy Rifkin, The Biotech Century, Penguin Putnam, Inc., 1998, p. 117). In 1914 William McDougall who was then chairman of the Harvard University psychology department, feared that among human beings, the “lower breeds” were outnumbering “the best stock.” McDowell advocated “a caste system for America, based on biological differences, in which political rights would depend on one’s caste” (cf. Rifkin, p. 120). By 1917 fifteen states had passed laws allowing the sterilization of people who were considered to be “mentally unfit (Ridley, p. 290).” Following a 1927 U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the practice, in 1931 thirty states had passed sterilization laws. Oliver Wendell Holmes, in his opinion on the court case, said: “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind . . . three generations of imbeciles are enough” (Jeremy Rifkin, The Biotech Century, p. 123).
G. Eugenics
1. During the past decade the lure of eugenics became even more attractive and its implementation has become more likely because of the remarkable advances in mapping the human genome. Once we not only understand but learn how to manage genes, we not only can we avoid unwanted phenomena such as Down syndrome and cystic fibrosis, we can also choose the positive qualities we would like to see in our children.
a. One popular image of what will be possible in the near future appears in the science fiction film GATTACA (written and directed by Andrew Niccol in 1997). Immediately after Vincent is born, genetic analysis reveals that he is defective and doomed to an early death. Before having their next child, his parents visit their local geneticist and select an improved model — his brother Anton. Given the way genetic science and medical practice are advancing, creating such “designer babies” could easily become common practice “in the not to distant future.”
b. But should that be allowed? How does such practice differ from the eugenics laws enacted a century ago in the U.S. and the selective breeding by the Nazis during the 1930s and 1940s??
2. Before we too quickly condemn all such practices, consider the following example:
People of Ashkenazi Jewish descent have been found to have a mutation on their 13th chromosome. In the United States the Committee for the Prevention of Jewish Genetic Disease organizes the testing of schoolchildren’s blood. When people from this group later considering are considering marriage, they can call a hotline and quote the two anonymous numbers they were each assigned when they were tested. If they are both carriers of the same mutation for Tay—Sachs disease (cystic fibrosis), they are advised not to marry. In 1993 The New York Times editorial criticized this practice as being eugenic. However, largely as a result of this practices, cystic fibrosis has been virtually eliminated from the Jewish population in the United Stated” (Ridley, p. 191; cf. Rifkin, 135-136).
H. The Human Genome
1. The mapping of the human genome during the past decade has added an immense body of knowledge about our biological nature. Our 23 chromosomes and the genes they contain are the chapters and stories that make up the book we call the human genome. But is it proper to use such a metaphor to talk about physical reality — about our body? Matt Ridley puts it this way:
“The idea of the genome as a book is not, strictly speaking, even a metaphor. It is literally true. A book is a piece of digital information, written in linear, one-dimensional and one-directional form and defined by a code that translates a small alphabet of signs into a large lexicon of meanings through the order of their groupings. So is a genome. … Whereas English books are written in words of variable length using twenty-six letters, genomes are written entirely in three-letter words, using only four letters: A, C, G, and T. ... And instead of being written on flat pages, they are written on long chains of sugar and phosphate called DNA molecules. ... Each chromosome is one pair of (very) long DNA molecules” (Ridley, p. 7).
The idea that a physical phenomenon such as the human body is best described as “digital information” is provocative. I will return to this concept in a later podcast.
2. The Harvard sociobiologist E. O. Wilson, in his book On Human Nature clearly states what is possible in light of the advances in genetics:
“Human genetics is now growing quickly along with all other branches of science. In time, much knowledge concerning the genetic foundation of social behavior will accumulate, and techniques may become available for altering gene complexes by molecular engineering and rapid selection through cloning. At the very least, slow evolutionary change will be feasible through conventional eugenics. The human species can change its own nature. What will it choose? Will it remain the same, teetering on a jerrybuilt foundation of partly obsolete Ice-Age adaptations? Or will it press on toward still higher intelligence and creativity (E. O. Wilson, On Human Nature, Harvard, 1978, p. 208)?
3. But are we as free to choose as Wilson says we are? If we are the product of evolution, and evolution is determined by the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, then it would seem that free choice in such matters is an illusion.
IV. Summary
Questions about human nature are intricately bound up with questions such as how we should evaluate practices such as eugenics, genetic manipulation, and medical treatment at the cellular and molecular level. Contemporary biology has opened a Brave New World in which we may or may not choose to dwell. But in addition to biology and biotechnology, we are also seeing spectacular advances in the computer science and in the applied technology related to cybernetics. I will talk about some of the connections between cybernetics and human nature in my next podcast.
Albert A. Anderson
Copyright 2006
Podcast # 1: Evolution and Genetics
I. Human Nature: A Philosophical Perspective
Who am I? What am I? What is our nature as human beings? These questions have been asked ever since people became self-conscious. They have been posed and answered many ways by artists, theologians, psychologists, biologists, anthropologists, historians, and a host of others. They are also among the most puzzling questions in philosophy. What is philosophy?
Philosophy: the rational analysis and justification of fundamental concepts, principles, decisions, and actions.
I will focus on the fundamental concept of human nature.
II. Philosophy in the 20th Century
A. In Great Britain and America, Scientific/Analytic philosophy dominated.
B. Physics, biology, and computer science have had a profound impact on philosophy since the 17th century. In the 20th century this spawned an extreme form of scientific philosophy called logical positivism. The union of philosophy and science remains a strong force in the current intellectual scene, especially in the universities that educate scientists and philosophers.
C. One major problem with the kind of analytic philosophy that dominated the second half of the 20th century is that it became so narrow and specialized that it failed to account for the broad range of issues that are essential for a proper understanding of human existence. How can we account for human nature if we fail to incorporate all of the available evidence?
1. Physics, chemistry, biology, and mathematics provide considerable evidence that must be taken into account when we are trying to understand human nature. Space, time, and matter are surely important aspects of human existence.
2. But what about the human mind? Is it limited to the material of the human brain? Does mind exist in space and time? Even if we understand everything there is to know about our genetic code and its role in our evolution, is that enough to explain all of our decisions and actions? Is there a genuine place in human existence for the human spirit? Is the concept of the human soul a mere relic from an outmoded past? Where do the creative arts, religion, morality, and other such aspects of human culture fit into our understanding of what it means to be human?
3. Philosophy seeks to go beyond the individual arts and sciences and seek a rational account that incorporates all of the evidence, not only the part that we can see, hear, taste, touch, or smell. Mathematics and symbolic logic are helpful tools for manipulating and controlling our environment and even our own body, but what about other symbolic forms such as poetry, imaginative literature, music, painting, sculpture, architecture, dance, film, and the other creative arts? These are some of philosophical questions that we must answer if we are to deal adequately with the question of human nature.
4. I will focus my remarks on biology, computer science, and physics. In this podcast I will discuss some of the fruits of biology and what they tell us about human nature. I will also introduce some choices that we humans will face us in the near future.
III. Biology
A. Charles Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859.
B. Francis Crick and James Watson received the Nobel Prize for their discovery of DNA in 1962 (the seminal article presenting their findings was published in 1952).
C. The rough draft of the Human Genome Project was completed by the year 2000.
D. Philosophers such as Daniel Dennett and John Searle, biologist E.O. Wilson, the psychologist Steven Pinker, and writer Matt Ridley take this biological evidence and the worldview it spawns as the most important consideration in forming their concept of human nature. Searle insists that whatever we think about human nature must be consistent with the atomic theory of matter and the evolutionary theory of biology (see John Searle, The Rediscovery of the Mind, MIT Press, 1992, p. 86). He calls himself a “biological naturalist (p. 1).” Ridley, who earned a Ph.D. in zoology from Oxford University, puts it this way:
“I genuinely believe that we are living through the greatest intellectual moment in history. Bar none. Some may protest that the human being is more than his genes. I do not deny it. There is much, much more to each of us than a genetic code. But until now human genes were an almost complete mystery. We stand on the brink of great new answers but, even more, of great new questions” (Ridley, Genome, Harper Collins, 1999, p. 5).
Dennett has similar unrestrained praise for Darwin’s theory.
“If I were to give an award for the single best idea anyone has ever had, I’d give it to Darwin, ahead of Newton and Einstein and everyone else. In a single stroke, the idea of evolution by natural selection unifies the realm of life, meaning, and purpose with the realm of space and time, cause and effect, mechanism and physical law. But it is not just a wonderful scientific idea. It is a dangerous idea (Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life, Simon and Schuster, 1995, p. 21).
E. What we are vs. what we might become
· Is human nature fixed or is it evolving? Is there a human essence? If so, what is it?
· If human nature is evolving, does that take place by determined laws, or is it shaped by human freedom?
· If human freedom plays a role in shaping our nature, what should that nature be?
· This is not a new question. A version of it was posed by Plato in The Republic: [Book 5, Track 12]
Socrates: Glaucon, you are the legislator responsible for selecting the men, so now you should give them women who have the same nature. They will live in common houses and meet at common meals, so there is no need for private property. They will be educated together, exercise together, and generally share a common life. By natural necessity they will be led to mingle with each other. Do you think necessity is the right word?
Glaucon: Yes, if you mean erotic necessity rather than logical necessity. I think this force is more likely to convince and coerce most people.
Socrates: That’s true. These affairs, like all the rest, must proceed in an orderly way appropriate to a happy republic. The leaders will not allow profane and indiscriminate intercourse.
Glaucon: It would be wrong to allow any such thing.
Socrates: Then don’t you think that marriage should be sacred, and the most beneficial marriages will be the most sacred ones?
Glaucon: I fully agree. [459]
Socrates: Now, Glaucon, how can marriages be made most beneficial? I put this question to you, because I have seen more than a few well-bred gamecocks and hunting dogs at your house. Tell me, do you ever pay attention to their mating and their breeding?
Glaucon: What do you mean?
Socrates: I mean that even though they are all first-rate, are some better than others?
Glaucon: Of course.
Socrates: And do you mate them indiscriminately, or do you make sure to breed only the best?
Glaucon: Only the best.
Socrates: Do you select the oldest, the youngest, or those in their prime?
Glaucon: I choose only those who are in their prime.
Socrates: If you did not take care in breeding them, I suppose your dogs and birds would soon deteriorate.
Glaucon: Certainly.
Socrates: Does the same hold for horses and for all animals in general?
Glaucon: It does.
Socrates: Good heavens, my friend! Imagine the kind of skill rulers will need if the same principle also holds for the human species.
Glaucon: Of course the same principle holds, but why is that so remarkable?
F. Was Plato proposing this idea for adoption, or was he putting it out to members of his Academy for discussion and analysis? Joseph Uemura’s book Reflections on the Mind of Plato presents strong arguments for the view that Plato’s Republic is designed to discourage rather than encourage such utopian fantasies. I agree with Uemura’s interpretation, but many others, including Sir Karl Popper, take Plato to be an early proponent of social engineering in general and eugenics in particular. Regardless of how we interpret Plato, it is easy to find proponents of that kind of social engineering late in the 19th century. Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, coined the term eugenics and was an unabashed proponent of the practice of breeding human beings to create the best possible offspring. In addition to trying to breed the best with the best, this movement also tried to prevent reproduction by the worst. Such practices during the Nazi era in Germany are well known, but the United States had taken the lead in that field long before the Nazis came to power. President Theodore Roosevelt supported eugenics as an “enlightened” view (Jeremy Rifkin, The Biotech Century, Penguin Putnam, Inc., 1998, p. 117). In 1914 William McDougall who was then chairman of the Harvard University psychology department, feared that among human beings, the “lower breeds” were outnumbering “the best stock.” McDowell advocated “a caste system for America, based on biological differences, in which political rights would depend on one’s caste” (cf. Rifkin, p. 120). By 1917 fifteen states had passed laws allowing the sterilization of people who were considered to be “mentally unfit (Ridley, p. 290).” Following a 1927 U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the practice, in 1931 thirty states had passed sterilization laws. Oliver Wendell Holmes, in his opinion on the court case, said: “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind . . . three generations of imbeciles are enough” (Jeremy Rifkin, The Biotech Century, p. 123).
G. Eugenics
1. During the past decade the lure of eugenics became even more attractive and its implementation has become more likely because of the remarkable advances in mapping the human genome. Once we not only understand but learn how to manage genes, we not only can we avoid unwanted phenomena such as Down syndrome and cystic fibrosis, we can also choose the positive qualities we would like to see in our children.
a. One popular image of what will be possible in the near future appears in the science fiction film GATTACA (written and directed by Andrew Niccol in 1997). Immediately after Vincent is born, genetic analysis reveals that he is defective and doomed to an early death. Before having their next child, his parents visit their local geneticist and select an improved model — his brother Anton. Given the way genetic science and medical practice are advancing, creating such “designer babies” could easily become common practice “in the not to distant future.”
b. But should that be allowed? How does such practice differ from the eugenics laws enacted a century ago in the U.S. and the selective breeding by the Nazis during the 1930s and 1940s??
2. Before we too quickly condemn all such practices, consider the following example:
People of Ashkenazi Jewish descent have been found to have a mutation on their 13th chromosome. In the United States the Committee for the Prevention of Jewish Genetic Disease organizes the testing of schoolchildren’s blood. When people from this group later considering are considering marriage, they can call a hotline and quote the two anonymous numbers they were each assigned when they were tested. If they are both carriers of the same mutation for Tay—Sachs disease (cystic fibrosis), they are advised not to marry. In 1993 The New York Times editorial criticized this practice as being eugenic. However, largely as a result of this practices, cystic fibrosis has been virtually eliminated from the Jewish population in the United Stated” (Ridley, p. 191; cf. Rifkin, 135-136).
H. The Human Genome
1. The mapping of the human genome during the past decade has added an immense body of knowledge about our biological nature. Our 23 chromosomes and the genes they contain are the chapters and stories that make up the book we call the human genome. But is it proper to use such a metaphor to talk about physical reality — about our body? Matt Ridley puts it this way:
“The idea of the genome as a book is not, strictly speaking, even a metaphor. It is literally true. A book is a piece of digital information, written in linear, one-dimensional and one-directional form and defined by a code that translates a small alphabet of signs into a large lexicon of meanings through the order of their groupings. So is a genome. … Whereas English books are written in words of variable length using twenty-six letters, genomes are written entirely in three-letter words, using only four letters: A, C, G, and T. ... And instead of being written on flat pages, they are written on long chains of sugar and phosphate called DNA molecules. ... Each chromosome is one pair of (very) long DNA molecules” (Ridley, p. 7).
The idea that a physical phenomenon such as the human body is best described as “digital information” is provocative. I will return to this concept in a later podcast.
2. The Harvard sociobiologist E. O. Wilson, in his book On Human Nature clearly states what is possible in light of the advances in genetics:
“Human genetics is now growing quickly along with all other branches of science. In time, much knowledge concerning the genetic foundation of social behavior will accumulate, and techniques may become available for altering gene complexes by molecular engineering and rapid selection through cloning. At the very least, slow evolutionary change will be feasible through conventional eugenics. The human species can change its own nature. What will it choose? Will it remain the same, teetering on a jerrybuilt foundation of partly obsolete Ice-Age adaptations? Or will it press on toward still higher intelligence and creativity (E. O. Wilson, On Human Nature, Harvard, 1978, p. 208)?
3. But are we as free to choose as Wilson says we are? If we are the product of evolution, and evolution is determined by the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, then it would seem that free choice in such matters is an illusion.
IV. Summary
Questions about human nature are intricately bound up with questions such as how we should evaluate practices such as eugenics, genetic manipulation, and medical treatment at the cellular and molecular level. Contemporary biology has opened a Brave New World in which we may or may not choose to dwell. But in addition to biology and biotechnology, we are also seeing spectacular advances in the computer science and in the applied technology related to cybernetics. I will talk about some of the connections between cybernetics and human nature in my next podcast.
