sanctuary

Showing posts with label genopolitics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label genopolitics. Show all posts

Monday, October 17, 2016

Who runs the tribe

The current clown scare is a result of two rising forces in the U.S: social media, and a fear of otherness, whether it arrives in a white Mercedes or a refugee boat.
(Robert Bartholomew, sociologist, Botany College, New Zealand)

I was about to write something on capitalism and “geocide” but a colleague emailed me an interesting article and survey on climate change, not about the science of global warming but about how we “think” about it—or not. Then I came across a video, both disturbing and depressing, but tied indirectly to climate change.

The political spectacle

Reporters for the NYT followed Donald Trump for a year at his various presidential rallies throughout the United States. While this video is about the 2016 election, it could be a rally of a particular kind you might attend in far to many countries today. In fact, it conjures up scenes from the early 1930s in Europe.

Making America Really, Really Not So Great Again



Climate and beliefs

The survey shows that (1) overall opinions about climate are split along (not surprisingly to many) partisan lines and have hardly changed at all, (2) scientific knowledge does not change the opinions of climate deniers, (3) the increase of scientific “literacy” appears to change the views of Democrats but not Republicans, (4) climate beliefs are more about “tribal” beliefs, (5) most people have no organized ideology and firm opinion on issues, (6) elite views are the most important operator on public opinion, (7) tribal attachment is the most important influence not issue attachment and (8) BUT, regardless of where one falls on the political spectrum, everyone likes renewable energy such as wind and solar. Go to Climate Survey to read the details.

Nature, nurture and genopolitics

Two to three years ago the word Genopolitics appeared with increasing frequency. Did genes influence political behavior? Could genetics tell us whether or not we would be on the Left or Right politically? Would it be easier to gauge if we were inclined to be Liberal or Conservative?

There was some interesting scientific research going on. Neuroscience had made some remarkable breakthrough in the last ten years or so and several tantalizing ideas spread beyond brain research. Certainly some political scientists thought they could be nearing the point where predictable patterns of behavior might be understood in light of what neuro-science had uncovered.

We know a good deal, for example, about how hormones and neurotransmitters in our bodies influence behavior. The levels of serotonin in our system might affect our self confidence and sense of worth and intensity of aggression. Some researchers believe that the release of oxytocin, the “cuddle hormone,” might have something to do with increases in generosity and trust.

The problem is that human behavior is complicated and not easy to describe on a flow chart. Some people have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism but never become alcoholics because of environmental factors. A psychiatrist and well respected authority on serial killers, in the course of his research, discovered he himself had the genetic makeup of a sociopath but it was the environmental factor (home life, family) that triggered a full blown monster. At some point there is a good chance we will get beyond merely uncovering “interesting” connections in human behavior and be able to identify cause and effect and replicate it over and over again.

Nevertheless, understanding human behavior, it seems to me, cannot be merely left to brain researchers and various policy wonks but all of us … if we want to succeed. If as this particular climate survey indicates, the one thing we all seem to agree upon is the value of renewable energy. Then what ought we to be doing, if fifty percent of us believe climate change is an existential threat to all of us? Who is thwarting the effort?

While Clinton's emails and Trumps' behavior may be the current American distraction (along with scary clowns), on November 9, 2016, we will be back to dealing with human behavior, which needs some serious hormonal alteration and rewiring.














Monday, March 17, 2014

Nasty, brutish and short--or not

The sky gods know

Will there be titanium-skinned creatures with oversized heads and bulging eyes running planet Earth in 500 years? Only Steven Spielberg knows for certain. I think the “leash” over the approximately next 50 to 100 years will be climate, religion and economics. What we do or don't do in these areas simultaneously will have a bearing on who or what will be our progeny.

Climate scientists, using such methods as geological analysis, ice cores, fossil remains and historical records, have determined that CO2 levels in the atmosphere remained between 180 and 300 parts per million (ppm) for some half-a-million years, but in recent centuries (the start of the Industrial Revolution in the late 18th century) CO2 levels rose to at least 380 ppm. The greenhouse effect is not an obscure hypothesis recently put forward.

The Roman philosopher Seneca said that, “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.” Artifacts of one kind or another at burial sites go back to at least 70,000 years ago. It hardly seems a mystery as to why we have religion. Among other things, religion binds groups, helps take the fear of death away, sanctions the killing of other groups and provides the “answers.” Today there are some 10,000 different religions all possessing the Truth. Religion at this point in time is a genuine obstacle to confronting a potential planetary disaster.

Last but not least is the economic system that entwines the entire planet. It's little more than a perpetual ponzi scheme, regardless of the “wonders” it may have helped produce—for some—in the past. Most important, it's unsustainable. It deserves to be tossed into the ashcan of history along with mercantilism and the “divine right” of kings.

Immortality and the Kurzwellian phantasmagoria

Superheroes are popular and ubiquitous across the globe and not just among children. Immortality, master-of-the-universe, infinite choices, exceptionalism, privilege, entitlement and certainly narcissism all beckon to even the most rational among us. Ca plus changes, ca plus la meme chose.

Ray Kurzwell, inventor and “technical” futurist, who now works for Google, believes that by 2045 machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence in all aspects, which he refers to as the “singularity.” For Kurzwell, human immortality is only a few blocks away.

Well, 2045 seems a bit optimistic, or pessimistic, depending on your point of view. Would Aunt and Uncle Sahelanthropus, whom we haven't seen in some 7 million years, still love us? Of course, many of these superhero dreams violate the known laws of physics. Gravity can be inconvenient, mass increases faster than the fundamental strength of our bones and we can't walk through walls even though the atom is mostly empty space. But … technology springs eternal, and Ray Kurzwell thinks he'll become immortal; after all, he demands to become a system.

Believing what we believe

Why do we do what we do? One of the most interesting new subject areas at the present time and yes, it's controversial, is the field of Genopolitics. Political beliefs may have a genetic component. Feelings about contraception, gay marriage, capital punishment, animal rights, climate change, etc are personality traits that could be ancient and way older than humans.

If the evolution of the human brain was driven by a need for more complex social cognition, then might the understanding of human biology in a “sociopolitical” context be of paramount importance, perhaps for our very survival?

The amygdala in our very old limbic brain is connected to the cingulate cortex, an area critical to self awareness. It is the cingulate cortex that “thinks” about the responses of the amygdala—threat, not a threat, your imagination and so forth.

What do we think we know now? Some research has shown that people with larger emotional responses to threats are more likely to have right-wing opinions. Oxytocin is released in sex and orgasm and believed by many neuroscientists to smother the amygdala responses, which may lead to increased generosity, trust, etc. Lower serotonin levels in the brain have been associated with criminality and anxiety. People with a less active MAO allele “tend” to be more impulsive and aggressive. No, there are no specific genes for criminality, but personality traits are heritable.

In a 1980s sexual preference study conducted by David Buss, professor of psychology at the University of Texas, it was determined that the top two qualities in a male for both sexes were kindness and intelligence, outweighing such things as money and physical appearance. Geoffrey Miller of the University of New Mexico has suggested that our ancestors who were more intelligent and kinder attracted a higher quality mate thus creating our success.

Regardless of what Genopolitics ultimately uncovers, a better understanding of human behavior and how we make decisions is, it seems to me, not merely nice to know but absolutely critical if we want to get beyond the “reptilian” mindset and consider a future beyond something like the unrelenting nightmare of Cormac McCarthy's The Road.

Back to a future

Every part of the planet has warmed except for Antarctica and at this point in time it may have more to do with circulating winds and the hole in the ozone layer. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts a minimum temperature rise of 1.8 degrees Centigrade by 2100. Some 120,000 years ago when it was 1 to 2 degrees warmer, sea levels were 5 to 8 meters higher. Three million years ago when the temperature was 2 to 3 degrees C higher, the sea levels were 25 meters higher.

It's called the tipping point and is a term that has been used in reference to climate change. Is there a point where the change is irreversible? Climate scientists have spoken about such things as a global temperature rise of 2 degrees C and CO2 levels going over 400 ppm. We have now reached CO2 levels of 400 ppm. IPCC estimates have been revised, perhaps because of the sudden collapse of ice sheets and a better understanding of “feedback loops,” which can speed up the process. Several decades of global warming are already in the pipeline. Time, where is it when we need it?

Some of us might recall friends and acquaintances “dropping acid” (LSD) some years ago and having spiritual experiences and “being one” with the universe. We know now there are hormonal and biochemical factors at work in the brain during many of those religious moments, resulting in such things as increases in dopamine levels and serotonin being released. “Spiritual” experiences can change brain activity. A book worth reading on this subject is by D.F. Swaab, a physician and neurobiologist, entitled We Are Our Brains: A Neurobiography of the Brain, From the Womb to Alzheimer's

To believe that some supernatural entity gave us the planet and dominion over all life on it is both irrational and narcissistic to the extreme, but also more understandable today. We're also learning that extreme religiosity may be associated with such illnesses as schizophrenia, dementia and obsessive-compulsive behavior.

Difficult as it might be, we have to move beyond the supernatural and magic. Even more important is finally realizing this planet is all we have--but--real spirituality is all around us. Turn off your I-Pad and move your head. You can even “friend” biodiversity.

Adams Smith, often cited as the father of modern capitalism, once said of the capitalists, “It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public...” What is striking today among the governments of the world is the apparent obtuseness, be they the corrupt autocrats in Beijing and Moscow, the feckless and uninformed politicians in Washington or many among the rising developing nations who claim it's “everyone else” who bears the responsibility. Our ancient short-term thinking is alive and well … and dangerous.

Mounting scarcities, growing ecological disequilibrium, expanding population, economic stagnation, increasing disparities between rich and poor, individual selfishness (including nation selfishness), human redundancy, unproven economic myths like the market's “invisible hand” are more than likely to lead to greater forms of coercion across the globe, and the amount of coercion can be an approximate measure of the system's validity. Once the system is deemed illegitimate, another tipping point has begun, this time rippling across the planet.

It is very much a matter of enlarging the global tribe and accepting the idea unequivocally of reciprocal obligation.

Summary

Gerald Crabtree, a Stanford University geneticist, believes our intelligence may have peaked some 2,000 years ago. It's been pretty much downhill ever since. Really?

Will the last remaining clan of Homo sapiens end up in a cave on Gibraltar squinting at the shadows of their cousins the Neandertals? Does it matter? After all, it's estimated that about 100,000 species are going extinct each year. What's one more, especially the most destructive predator the planet has known. Down deep, we know we're here “by the luck of the draw.”






Tuesday, October 15, 2013

More than a mere science discussion

The American citizen thus lives in a world where fantasy is more real than reality, where the image has more dignity than the original.
(Daniel Boorstin, American historian)

Blissfully ignorant

Watching the United States commit its self-inflicted unraveling (budget and debt ceiling nonsense being merely two of many reasons), ought not to give any real comfort to those outside the U.S. Waiting in the wings to “take over” is nothing to make one gleefully optimistic.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recently issued its 2-year study, which included 23 countries and thousands of adults. The study tested for skills in literacy, basic math and technology. We Americans—along with the British--didn't do so well, especially in technology and math. See blow for the actual results.

One of the many things the study concluded is that poor educational opportunities in school as children continues on through adulthood. Inequality of access to good education is “harmful” to adults, and the increasing inequality in America is only making things, overall, much worse. While a lot of information that is in the study may appear to be obvious and the correlations striking, it clearly has not translated into any wide scale public policy changes. If anything, we're going in the opposite direction in the United States.

The DNA thing

Shortly after the OECD study came out an interesting article appeared in the NYT entitled, Are OurPolitical Beliefs Encoded in Our DNA? The article was about the new field of genopolitics, which this blog has written about previously. Did my genes make me do it or was it all my mother's fault? I will be surprised if we don't see more articles about this subject, outside of scientific journals.

The science however, as the article points out, is only in the earliest stages and disagreements abound. To say the least, it's complicated. Political scientists have now joined the field along with evolutionary biologists and molecular geneticists. Will we have to understand human biology in a “sociopolitical context.” Did the human brain develop to solve social problems—which are political? But as Thomas Edsall, the author of this article points out, “If genopolitical analysis holds up under continued scrutiny, its explanatory potential is enormous.”

Edsall is right. A better understanding of all sorts of conflicts in the U.S. and across the globe is absolutely essential if we humans have any real chance of succeeding as a species. The “chickens” are coming probably sooner than we think.


Additional Reading:








Friday, September 20, 2013

My Amygdala Made Me Do It


The conditions that sustain humanity are not natural and never have been.
(Erle C. Ellis, associate professor of geography and environmental systems, University of Maryland)


An Anthropocentric world

Professor Ellis, quoted above, appears to be an outspoken optimist regarding humanity's future. Earth's environment is going to be pretty much what Homo sapiens decide to do with it. Ellis' point is that from the very beginnings of human existence, we have “used,” various technologies and engineered ecosystems to sustain ourselves well beyond what the “natural” world could have done.

According to Professor Ellis, Earth's carrying capacity, at best, is probably no more than a few billion people living at a subsistence level. Today of course we're on our way to reach some 9 billion by 2050. Stewart Brand, editor of the Whole Earth Catalog and founder of several environmental related organization, said some forty years ago that, “We are as gods and might as well get good at it.” Hm-m. So is this what being a god is like? See Ellis' article in the NYT entitled Overpopulation Is Notthe Problem.

The limbic brain and Genopolitics

Professor Ellis at the end of his article in the New York Times states that only our imaginations and our social systems will prevent us from reaching that “proud” future. Imaginations and social systems, however, might be large caveats.

Possibly some of the most fascinating work in science today is being done in biology, specifically in neuroscience, epigenetics (how genes are both agents of nature and nurture) and synthetic biology, which utilizes engineering principles to life science. In simple terms it means breaking down nature into spare parts so we can rebuild it however we please. We will likely have to make some very serious choices in the not too distant future, choices that will impact our “imaginations and social systems.”

Neuroscience has come up with five classes of personality traits: (1) openness, (2) conscientiousness, (3) extroversion, (4) agreeableness and (5) neuroticism. About 50 percent of these traits are genetic and about fifty percent, on average, are environmental. Interestingly, when we're young, environment tends to have a greater impact on how we behave, but as we get older and more independent our genes play a larger role.

The response to threats is a structure in our limbic brain called the amygdala. The amygdala is what causes those all too familiar feelings of unease most of us get at one time or another. The amygdala is connected to the cingulate cortex, an area absolutely critical to self-awareness. While, for example, the amygdala may be perceiving something as a threat, the cingulate cortex analyzes the amygdala's response and decides if it's a real threat or not.

Needless to say it begins to get complicated when we start talking about neurotransmitters, serotonin and dopamine being two, and the connection to the cingulate cortex, but suffice it to say that the release of hormones like oxytocin, cortisol or testosterone—and their levels—affect behavior and how we react to a great many thing. This has led to a relatively new field called Genopolitics.

Neurobiologists have discovered that the amygdala acts in different ways in liberals and conservatives. Yes, it appears that political views have a genetic component. Research has shown that people with larger emotional responses to threats are more likely to have more conservative opinions. Brain scans have shown that when stressed the cortex and the amygdala light up differently and depending on a number of factors, the connection between these two areas may be strong or weak. For example, oxytocin, the “cuddle hormone,” which is released in sex and organism, is thought to be the hormone smothering the amygdala, thus increasing generosity, trust, etc. Conversely, when the amygdala response is lowered, a threat from real danger may not be perceived.

The brave new world

Yes, it is possible we may be able to imagine a totally new future along with the development of improved social systems. On the other hand we humans could discover we are as “godlike” as the rock at our feet.

Geo-engineering might be able to reverse the negative effects of climate change. The assumption here of course is that the majority of the inhabitants on the planet will have a basic understanding what climate change is. It's also possible that synthetic biology will eliminate human shortsightedness and predation. Possibly the growing middle class in China will come to realize that bringing the elephant to extinction because they must have the “bling” of ivory is not the action of a “higher” species.

Some demographers believe that the planet could maintain a population of 13 billion humans. Of course, significant changes would have to be made. Who's willing to never eat meat again? How high could we build our vertical structures?

A short while ago I saw a photograph of four hunters from somewhere in the southern United States. They were standing proudly beside a dead crocodile suspended in the air by chains, said to be one of the largest ever killed. The picture elicited in me revulsion and disgust … directed at the four humans. For what reason was this animal killed? For the briefest of moments I imagined myself standing beside four hunters suspended on meat hooks. I must raise my serotonin levels in order to meet the future with optimism.

Additional Reading: