/sci/ - Science & Math

Society in general, but people towards the left end of the social values spectrum in particular, generally feel uneasy with the thought of genes substantially influencing human behavioral traits. Such research was taboo until the past few decades, and even now, IMO, the degree to which you lean left will predict the degree to which you try to downplay biological factors.

I assume that this is because these people view biological determinism as fatalistic. "If your genes say you were dealt a bad hand, there's nothing you can do." By contrast, this line of thinking goes, we can attempt social intervention, i.e. to attempt to boost outcomes by altering the environmental component.

However, for the most part, wide scale social interventions haven't been particularly successful. This begs the question of whether it's actually possible to boost outcomes through altering the environment.

By contrast, through emerging gene editing techniques, it certainly will become possible to boost favorable outcomes. I would propose that by ignoring such techniques, such environmental interventionists are actually doing society and the less fortunate a disservice. If they actually want to create favorable intervention, they must be pragmatic, and empirical evidence suggests that they may instead have better success going the biological route.

Obviously, this brings up issues related to fairness. If ethically such techniques are normalized and the wealthy have greater access to the techniques, we risk ending up in a two-tiered society with genetically augmented haves and have-nots. Regardless, I would submit that in the interest it is short sighted to let such considerations outweigh pursuing this line of inquiry.

Discuss.