We are confronted with the
fierce urgency of now.
(Martin Luther King, April
4, 1967)
The Earth will end when
God declares it to be over.
(John Shimkus, Republican
congressman, Illinois, chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment
and the Economy))
For the sake of our
planet, we need to start eating lower down on the food chain and we
need to do it fairly soon.
(David George Gordon,
science writer)
A story in need of an ending
In case you haven't heard
and most likely many haven't, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere of
planet Earth has now risen to 400 parts per million. It's been
something like 3 million years since so much carbon dioxide has been
hanging over the planet.
The “little-bit” of good
news is that 400 ppm is part of a scientific model, a very complex
model with a lot of complex parts and poorly understood by most
people, which is comforting news to many politicians across the
globe. Models of course can be changed, modified or discarded. Unlike
the politicians, the scientists could be wrong about a lot or a
little and, as some people know, science tries hard to be proven
wrong.
The actual “good” news
is that we have some idea how to mitigate many of the effects of
climate change. For example, in terms of things like deforestation,
feed production and animal waste, the
livestock industry produces
between 18-51 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. The industry
as well uses a lot of fossil fuels and water.
Could you imagine eating a
little less meat? What if you could be persuaded that the future of
future generations would quite probably be bleak, unless significant
changes were made starting right now? For that matter, the present is
feeling a little less certain; we may not need vivid imaginations.
For more on this subject see “Additional Reading.”
Genes made me do it—or not
Genetics has come a long way
since Gregor Mendel, in the 19th century, showed how the
inheritance of certain traits in pea plants followed particular
patterns. Today, with the mapping of the human genome and the ever
increasing power of supercomputers, we have arrived at a new
scientific Frontier-land. What we do with it is a story searching for
a good ending.
I once worked with someone a
number of years ago that believed humankind was “d-evolving,” as
though the expanding universe showed signs of slowing down and
reversing itself. Interestingly, Gerald Crabtree, Professor of
Pathology and Developmental Biology at Stamford University, has a
fairly controversial view on human intelligence. It's declining,
according to Crabtree.
He has said that, “A
hunter-gatherer who did not correctly conceive a solution to
providing food and shelter probably died, along with his or her
progeny, whereas a modern Wall Street executive that made a similar
conceptual mistake would receive a substantial bonus and be a more
attractive mate.”
Crabtree has suggested that
the approximately 5,000 genes, which he believes are the basis for
human intelligence, have mutated over the years and modern man is not
as intelligent as his ancestors. The professor thinks we may have
peaked about 7,000 years ago! At the same time, Crabtree has said
that science and technology have allowed us to rise above the
“dumbing down.”
Regardless of Professor's
Crabtree's thought-provoking ideas, what we know about genes at the
present time is quite remarkable. It's not an either or—genetics or
environment—it's more like a blending, a mixing and sometimes one
is more influential than the other. The answer is frequently that …
it depends.
When we're young,
environment has a tendency to be more important but when we get older
and more independent, genes seem to play a larger role. Certain
behaviors, such as criminality, are heritable but only as side
effects of genes that affect personality traits. You don't for
example have genes for addiction, but you do have genes for
impetuosity and risk taking which, under the right environmental
circumstances, might lead to addiction.
Neurobiologists have found
out that there is a structure in our limbic brain called the
amygdala, which causes the feeling of unease. Research has shown that
people with larger emotional responses to threats are more likely to
have right-wing opinions. There is now a field called Genopolitics,
which accepts that political views most likely have a genetic
component.
Finally, a little bit of
good news to consider. Yes, sex and organisms are healthy, because
they release oxytocin, sometimes called the “cuddle hormone.”
This particular hormone has the ability to lower amygdala response,
which can then increase such traits as generosity and trust. David
Buss, a professor of psychology, conducted a “sexual preference
study a number of years ago.” He learned that the top two qualities
in a mate for both men and women were kindness and intelligence,
outweighing things such as money and physical appearance.
Thinking good thought
In summary, how we think,
make decisions and frame discussions needs to be understood a lot
better. We know now that there is both a genetic and environmental
component in decision making, and our survival as a species probably
depends on how effectively we can increase the size of who we think
belongs in our group. The “clan” is bigger than we think.
Additional Reading:
what to consider
worth reading
political hack with a degree
in biology
