The case against genetic reductionism

[FreezBee]

Warning: this post does defend the theory of evolution, so if that is not agreeable to you, please do not read any further


By "genetic reductionism" is referred to the theory that human behavior is largely, or even exclusively, determined by genes. Sociology is thereby reduced to genetics.

Genetic reductionism owes its origin to Herbet Spencer's "social Darwinism", wherefrom we have the phrase "survival of the fittest".

As for this phrase, it carries no information; of course the fittest survive, because those who survive must clearly be the fittest.

This is not the main problem that I see though. Rather it is that genetic reductionism denies the very simple fact that no matter our genes we are all born into an already existing society, we are brought up under the conditions of that society.

For the genetic reductionist, being a social misfit implies nothing more than that you are genetically unfit, and in general that the position you obtain in society is due to your genes.

Even such a factor as whether you become a genetic reductionist or, say, a creationist is due to your genes! Therefore genetic reductionism is not intersubjective (only people with the proper genes will become genetic reductionists) and therefore not scientific - a scientific statement cannot rely on secret knowledge such as revealed by a god, your genes, or the spirit of your dead grandmother (excuses to any spiritists).

My refusal of genetic reductionism is mainly from a scociological point of view, but indeed we can look at the issue from a Christian point of view.

Jesus, while on earth, associated with the social misfits of his time, those who were "unclean" in the eyes of the established religious authorities.

Now, genetic reductionism is not identical to evolution. It is possible to fully accept human biology to be the the result of evolution and still claim that biological evolution does not explain human behavior or human thought.

Often when Christians hear the word "evolution" they translate it into "genetic reductionism", and evolutionists are not always to sensitive to the distinction either, they may use the phrase "survival of the fittest" without knowing what is behind it (nothing!).

This is my reason for making this post. Any thoughts?


Some links about genetic reductionism can be reached from this:

http://www.meta-library.net/ghc-redu/parti-body.html


- FreezBee

 

[philadiddle]

This is my reason for making this post. Any thoughts?

um, what was your point? some interesting thoughts but i didn't get where you're going with it.

 

[david_x]

Sounds like another behavior exscuse. "It's not my fault i killed that dude! It's in my genes."

 

[billwald]

"By "genetic reductionism" is referred to the theory that human behavior is largely, or even exclusively, determined by genes. Sociology is thereby reduced to genetics."

Obviously not correct. Since the elimination of the old social restrictions it is obvious that culture is becomming the greatest predictor of academic and economic success in this century.

 

[philadiddle]

Sounds like another behavior exscuse. "It's not my fault i killed that dude! It's in my genes."

the very idea contradicts itself. if ppl could use that as an excuse, they would do more bad stuff, and blame genetics, but they actually did it cause they new they could blame genetics which is a result of society.

 

[david_x]

i was trying to contridict.

 

[FreezBee]

"By "genetic reductionism" is referred to the theory that human behavior is largely, or even exclusively, determined by genes. Sociology is thereby reduced to genetics."

Obviously not correct. Since the elimination of the old social restrictions it is obvious that culture is becomming the greatest predictor of academic and economic success in this century.

Not sure if you are being serious

I consider culture to be part of society, and therefore that the study of culture is part of sociology.

Certainly some kind of culture is neede to have academic and economic success, think e.g. of Amway (for the economic success, that is), but that's because society values academic and particulary economic success. If you aren't rich or at least have a fine academic title, you are next to nothing!

But, as indicated, I might have misunderstood your post.

um, what was your point? some interesting thoughts but i didn't get where you're going with it.

Ok, the background for my post was that I have noted that many creationists are against the theory of evolution, because they equate it with "survival of the fittest" among humans, and therefore that the theory of evolution teaches us "bad behavior".

What I was trying to say is that this only applies to the genetic reductionist variant of the theory of evolution, because that does not take into consideration that our genes sort of do not determine what society we happen to be born into, or for that matter which subculture we happen to belong to.

I am an evolutionist, but I have descended from a long line of creationists!

Sounds like another behavior exscuse. "It's not my fault i killed that dude! It's in my genes."

Well, it actually works the other way around. It's supposed to be used for eugenics - to elimit criminals by eliminating criminal genes so to speak. And that's in my mind rather the problem. Government can say that it need not handle social problems, because poor people simply have poor genes, if you see my point.

Anyway, for the morality issue, the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, who as a Stoic believed that human actions were fully determined, once punished a slave by beating him. The slave defended himself by saying that he had been determined to commit the offense, to which the emperor responded that he had been determined to beat the slave. No, if you are the offending part, your excuses by reference to any kind of determinism, including your genes, will not be accepted. Society does not work that way


Thank you all for your responses


- FreezBee

 

[david_x]

Well, it actually works the other way around. It's supposed to be used for eugenics - to elimit criminals by eliminating criminal genes so to speak. And that's in my mind rather the problem. Government can say that it need not handle social problems, because poor people simply have poor genes, if you see my point.

Crazy thought from me but there was someone elso who had a theory like that.

Hitler

 

[FreezBee]

Crazy thought from me but there was someone elso who had a theory like that.

Hitler

Exactly! And that's what worries me.


- FreezBee

 

[david_x]

wait, i thought you were with the flow on this one. ?????????