Genetic Philosophy

As I mentioned in a previous blog, “A New Paradigm?,” philosophy in general rarely seems to go anywhere or solve any problems because there is no well-defined starting place from which philosophy begins nor do we know where it is supposed to end. It is often asked, “How should I (or we) live?” which seeks a moral foundation for living while completely ignoring both the beginning and ending points of our nature.

While we might say that we do philosophy for the sake of examining our own lives, pursuing the truth (whatever that means, nevermind what the truth is alleged to do for us), or inoculating ourselves against bad ideas, whatever reason any of us have for doing philosophy is ancillary to our very existence. So, might it be a good idea to at least begin philosophy from the question “How did I (or we) get here?” and end it by answering the question, “Where am I (or we) going?” At first glance, it may seem a bit arbitrary to pick these as starting and ending points for philosophy, but I do not think there are better points to begin working from, for doing philosophy from these points is at least based upon something concrete; our existence. [Or at least one’s own existence since we cannot prove others exist. But I digress…]

To once again paraphrase Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene, our genes use us, not the other way around. In the old Nature vs. Nurture debate (which shapes our lives more?), being nurtured is secondary to our Nature, our existence, so I don’t see how Nurture could shape our lives more than our Nature. Even the most rational person, nurtured to believe in logic and nothing else, is prone to bouts of irrationality. How could this be? Because we do not have conscious control over the entire world, much less ourselves, and this is due to the expression of our genes: Emotions are chemically driven and underwritten by the very way we are built. Realizing the power our genes have over us in attempting to get themselves into the next generation presents great explanatory power over otherwise seemingly irrational behavior. People who declare themselves rational constantly bicker over ideas because of the lack of a philosophical starting point and finishing line, but by agreeing with Dawkins about the goal of our genes gives philosophy a place to start from and finish. (And, of course, all rational people – or at least rational atheists – agree with Dawkins.)

Take, for example, how problematic devising an ethical system is. There is no flawless ethical system because there is no starting or ending point for ethical conundrums. In cases where those points are defined, such points betray what the person arguing for any given idea favors, revealing how they think the world should operate because it suits them. If an ethical system is, say, devised such that our actions should not cause physical harm to others, what is often revealed is that this is simply the preference of the person advocating such a position who, when pressed, can’t really express why they have taken such a position. What’s revealed is that the advocate’s position is actually rooted in their emotions and not so much in reason, with emotions being rooted in our biology to a greater degree than our capacity to be rational. Meta-ethics has failed to answer where ethics arise from because most meta-ethical hypotheses place ethical origins in some mythical, ethereal, or mental world and not in our own bodies. Meta-ethics has failed because it has failed to focus on the question “Why be ethical?” from the point of view of our genes’ survival (Evolutionary Psychology notwithstanding). Why ought we not physically harm others if it helps advance our genes or the best genes of our species into the next generation? [By ‘best,’ I mean two things: Genes that manifest the most favorable traits in a given environment and gives us the genetic variety necessary to withstand a disease that would otherwise wipe out the species.] Of course, maybe the belief that we shouldn’t physically harm others helps stabilize communities (read: tribes) which in turn gives us access to more mates and resources that aid survival.

These points considered, it is perhaps best to start philosophy from the point of “I (or we) exist” (having previously countered counters to Descartes’ initially false assertion). For now, since there are more pressing questions, we’ll have to regulate to the background how our parents genes got us where we are in order to focus on the question of how we’re going to live given that our genes are going to express themselves over the course of our lives. How will they make us behave? What problems will we encounter simply because we exist and how will we attempt to fix those problems?

Although not meant to be an exhaustive list, I have (as have others) identified several key obstacles regarding an individual’s existence. They are:

One is trying to overcome death (the most basic biological imperative).

One is trying not to be hungry (so as to overcome death and be fit for mating).

One is trying to avoid illness (so as to overcome death and be fit for mating).

One is trying to overcome fear (so they can take risks necessary to find food, mates, etc.).

One is trying to live without being controlled (so they can take risks necessary to find food, mates, etc.). 

One is trying to reproduce (or may have sexual urges based on a biological imperative…which is meant to overcome death through the passing on of genes.)

Now let’s attempt to ask a simple question – “How should I (or we) live?” – and see if Genetic Philosophy can give us a less complex answer and less hoops than traditional philosophy. Rationally, we know we cannot overcome death; our genes are programmed to die at some point. We have few options in overcoming death: either ensure that our name goes down in history (a short term solution, but potentially long if you’re a Greek philosopher or insane dictator), get our genes into the next generation through reproduction (potentially a long term solution so long as our offspring keep reproducing), or both. [Let’s rule out some mad scientist being able to manipulate our biology and make us live forever since none of us can outlive the universe. Would we even want to? Is immortality worth it? Ah, so many questions…]

Among our choices, trying to get your name to go down in history is fraught with difficulties; in fact, almost all of the most famous people in history weren’t even attempting to be famous and are instead famous because of others’ fascination with whatever they did. Moreover, assuming one rises to prominence does not mean they are going to enjoy their fame after they have died. I might also add that becoming a historical figure will only last as long as the species or the Earth is around. The only practical solution to overcoming death then is to get our genes into the next generation, and hope that our decedents pass the genes on, so on and so forth. This becomes our starting point in answering the question, “How should I (or we) live?” [Assuming one doesn’t want to have children, one can still examine the question from the ‘genetic’ point of view since our biology commands us in other ways.]

If it seems like the next logical thing to say once we’ve accepted the desire to get our genes into the next generation is that we should do whatever it takes to accomplish that goal, one is oversimplifying the situation. [While we are trying to have Genetic Philosophy give us simple answers, we mustn’t oversimplify.] If we thought clubbing a woman over the head and dragging her back to our home was the best way to get our genes into the next generation, we have to accept all the risks that go along with such behavior. The biggest problem is that we’d have to accept that violence may be done to us in competing for a mate which goes against our primary instincts to survive. Second, our offspring would be locked in a never-ending battle over resources which would reduce their chances of getting their genes (and ours) passed on. Collectively, we do not want that and how (Western) societies are set up reflects this.

Western society, as it has evolved (so to speak) appears to have unconsciously adopted genetic philosophy and created societies geared towards equality for all because that appears to offer everyone the best chance of accomplishing the goal of producing offspring. Certainly racial tensions and a tribal mindset still exist, but such base desires are really a manifestation of resource competitions. If recognized for what they are, racism and tribalism can become something of a vestigial appendix of the human mind. (I hope, anyway.) The problem entering the equation comes in when we do not consciously considered how our biology inclines us to act. Naturally, ancient Scandinavians and ancient Polynesians are going to differ wildly in their behaviors and values as the environment each evolved in has had a dramatic effect on their biology, and hence, also each one’s behavior and values.

So, when asking a question such as “How should I (or we) live?” should be answered every step of the way in accordance with our biological needs and desires. Or, supposing we don’t want a child for some reason undoubtedly based upon our biology, how our biology affects us. For example, I know that if I allow the slow driver in front of me to anger me, that raises the levels of cortisol (the stress hormone) in my bloodstream and elevated levels of cortisol in my bloodstream is damaging to my body over time. Being aware of my biology helps me become aware of my situation and allows me to take a moment to analyze the situation. That sure sounds deceptively simple but it is not: If I know the biological cost of anger, I might be inclined to find ways of managing my emotions so as to avoid anger.

Any good philosopher should have or be thinking of objections to my so-called Genetic Philosophy by now. For example, one might ask: Could Genetic Philosophy be used to enslave people, say, women? My answer would be, it shouldn’t, for two reasons. First, as a species we should seek genetic variety because this helps prevent a species from being wiped out by a single disease. Second, at least in part, genetic variety leads to a differing of cultures which may be a potential source of alternate or competing ideas when trying to problem-solve. Having different genders and cultures allows for different ideas, and a diversity of ideas is necessary for long-term survival. As you can see, a simple question with a simple answer (that I may have oversimplified).

I believe that Genetic Philosophy, as I like to call it, has the potential to solve ages old debates such as whether abortion or capital punishment should be permissible, how should I (or we) live, what the meaning of life is, and – due to the nature of doing philosophy from a genetic point of view – whether or not it is okay to be irrational. My hopes for Genetic Philosophy may be misplaced as I have yet to thorough test a single issue just mentioned using this new paradigm. But, I will get around to it as soon as my genes will allow.

The Case for Human Extinction

If there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s humanity’s hubris. Collectively, human beings think of themselves as the most evolved species on the planet which in turn seems to cause people to believe they occupy some special place in the animal kingdom. Worse, people think that if we are in fact evolving, that we’re ever evolving into something better than we already are. Such a belief is demonstrably untrue. I submit as evidence (as if there weren’t already a ton of evidence to the contrary) the “handsome criminal,” an apparently attractive man and criminal whose mugshot recently went viral, presumably because he is handsome.

Obviously, the news agencies have nothing better to do than to help such schlock go viral; after all, they’re just trying to keep people entertained so that they don’t spend any time examining exactly how worthless their lives really are. To that end, I don’t really blame the media. But I have yet to say exactly what the problem here is. It’s this: The viral mugshot has the potential effect of further glorifying criminals, a problem you can’t say America doesn’t have. It clearly shows that human beings are no more evolved than any other animal, approving of the worst among us based on looks alone. Worse, women are now acting like men in a situation where they had the opportunity to take the high road instead of behaving in just the way they have criticized for years.

I am not saying it is wrong or criminal to look at a picture, and not knowing anything about the person, pass judgment on their attractiveness. I’m not even saying it’s wrong or criminal to look at a picture of a criminal who is physically attractive and say they’re physically attractive. But I will say it is not only wrong to look at a picture of a criminal who is physically attractive and not only say the criminal is physically attractive but is MORE attractive precisely because they are a criminal, but that such behavior is downright fucked up. Keep in mind we’re not dealing with a criminal who was incarcerated or branded a criminal based on some noble fight against unjust laws or fight for human or civil rights. No, Jeremy Meeks was a gangbanger. It may be the case that since being incarcerated for grand theft auto that Meeks is a reformed man, but then how does a reformed man wind up getting caught up in a sting operation to get guns off the streets? Just asking.

Meeks is not a person a civil society should be lifting up. Sure, I suppose this means we are not a civil society or that the collective vision of American society is or wants to be something else. But if this is how criminals are going to be treated, as celebrities, then don’t be surprised when the next school shooting occurs. (Interestingly, celebrities that act like criminals i.e. Justin Bieber, Linsay Lohan, Amanda Bynes, Chris Brown, etc. are all the more popular for their antics.) All of this is certainly not evolved behavior if we’re going to hold the word ‘evolved’ to its popular usage.

I’m baffled most by the role women have played in the mugshot going viral. Evolutionary

psychologist have long hypothesized that women adore risk-taking behavior in men – this is why they go for the bad boy, supposedly – but if this were true, why isn’t a picture of Marine Cpl. Kyle Carpenter, a soldier who threw himself on a grenade to save another man, going viral? Oh, that’s right, his face became a little disfigured in the process. That in mind, women have long been embittered by men objectifying women. Only, given the opportunity, they’re going to do the same goddamn thing? Or worse? Apparently, a commenter on one news agency’s website asked, “Is this the picture of a rapist? If so, please send him to Chile, Santiago.” Women had the opportunity to take the high road here. They took the low road. Women, if you can’t think of a reason why men rule the world now, you never will.

All the attention heaped upon Meeks once again places a spotlight on just how misguided America’s values are. We pay models, athletes, and CEO’s far beyond their worth while the people who do actual work and even sacrifice themselves for others are denigrated. Is humanity’s existential angst so great or self-esteem so low that people will pay any price to be distracted from it? Arguably so. But is there a fix? Yes; extinction. If that answer seems harsh, well, what else should be expected for a species that doesn’t bother to ask if it deserves its place in the world even though it can? Surely, humans think they are the only ones who CAN ask if they deserve their place in the world. You guessed it; I’m not of the opinion that arrogance is an evolved trait.

What I've Learned From 80s Music

I often lament that Hawaii (where I live) is perpetually stuck in the 70’s. I think that might be changing, and Hawaii is finally entering the Me Decade. With this in mind and my wife playing 80’s music even though she’s not even drinking, I’m taking a moment to reflect on the music that changed my life, teaching me valuable lessons as a grew from a boy into the taller boy I am today. So what have I learned?

1)    Don’t stop believing. You gotta have faith-a-faith-a-faith.

2)    If a dude looks like a lady, it’s because of those Bette Davis eyes.

3)    According to war correspondent Huey Lewis and the News, love is a battlefield.

4)    Cruel summers are made all the worse when you are hot for teacher.

5)    You might be my lucky star but I a-am the warrior.

6)    Relax, don’t do it, and you’ll be like a virgin.

7)    There’s only one cure for a love song.

8)    If you want a new drug, you should spent one night in Bangkok.

9)    Every Yankee rose has its thorn.

10)  When the phone rings and I wonder, “Who can it be now?” it’s usually London calling.

11)  Even when I wear my sunglasses at night, your true colors come shining through.

12)  When I’m hungry like the wolf, I want candy.

13)  There are several transportation options: Walk this way, walk like an Egyptian, jump, bust a move, or push it, push it real good.

14)  I go right into the danger zone when I’m dancing with myself.

15)  One thing leads to another, but only in my dreams.

16)  I need a vacation. It’s urgent.

17)  She works hard for the money, usually from 9 to 5.

18)  You can make love out of nothing at all. It’s magic.

19)  S-s-s. A-a-a. F-f-f. E-e-e. T-t-t. Y-y-y. Spells “safety.”

20)  If you still haven’t found what you’re looking for it’s because you’re where the streets have no names.

21)  It hurts so good when you hit me with your best shot.

22)  Girls just want to have fun. Particularly Mickey; she blows my mind.

23)  I’m never gonna give you up because you’re my obsession.

24)  I’ve got Jenny’s number but it’s Gloria who won’t pick up the phone.

25)  Beware of careless whispers. Voices carry.

Have fun coming up with your own. A little nostalgia goes a long way.