On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Michael Dawson wrote:
> If I may: Is selfish wired into the human situation? That was the original
> question. Note the word "situation." Who can doubt that a drive toward
> taking care of oneself is wired into the human being? Who can doubt that,
> whatever its creotor's erroneous side-theories, the Freudian dilemma --
> initial, infantile solipsism -- is real? Who can doubt that there will
> always be lots of people whose socialization and experiences make them
> selfish -- i.e., troublingly anti-social? Human capacities are too varied,
> human experiences and environments are too complex. There will never be a
> non-political Nirvana-on-Earth. The goal is simply to get ourselves as
> close as possible to that unattainable ideal. Luckily and dangerously, we
> have PLENTY of room for progress in that direction.
>
> If Lewontin says all biological inheritances can be "treated" to the extent
> that they don't matter, he's wrong. I extremely doubt that's his thesis,
> however.
You're missing the point. The degree to which anything is "hard-wired" into the human condition is irrelevant to the question "can it be changed by human intervention?" It is simply a medical fact that infants with PKU who have diets high in phenylalanine will develop mental retardation; PKU infants who have diets low in phenylalanine will develop normally. There are many examples like this. Does it apply to all biological inheritances? Who knows? It's an empirical question that needs to be assessed for each particular genetic predisposition with each specific social intervention.
I think Luke and Michael's confusion here stems from a flawed, common sense understanding of biology and genetics: cultural and social factors are a kind of veneer laid atop the unchanging, immutable biological substrate. Thus the claim that something is "biological" is conflated with the claim that something is difficult to change.
Miles