The individual should always do what is in their own best interest. Or should they?
What is the individual’s genetic responsibility towards their species? Should they be obliged to think about the evolutionary consequences of their actions? Should they consider how their individual actions might have a wider impact on humanity?
In Nature, evolution – a dynamic, progressive, developmental process – operates perfectly. By doing what is right for the individual, that individual will consequently and inevitably be doing what is right for their species.
If an individual follows good reproductive and parental practices, doing what they are instinctively programmed to do, this will be beneficial to their species, helping to secure its survival and enhance its prospects.
A couple of examples:
A female that mates with the strongest male – the one that comes across as being the most attractive – is more likely to have offspring that will go on to become leaders within their species.
A parent that teaches its offspring to better provide for itself means not only that the parent is more readily relieved of this responsibility but also that the offspring’s survival is more assured.
Similarly, Nature’s evolutionary process is designed to flush out and eliminate any genetic weaknesses. In Nature, disadvantageous genes do not survive. The carriers of such genes do not attract reproductive partners.
It’s a simple but effective operating system.
Humanity has then come along with its own take on evolutionary survival, the establishment and expansion of societal living. This changed the relationship between the individual and the species. Society brought new influences and motivations to bear.
It’s a similar shift to that which has happened to our diet and food consumption. We used to eat what was available. Our bodies would extract the nutrients they needed. Sometimes we would even eat something just because we fancied it. This was our body telling us that it would be good for us. We ate naturally; we ate healthily.
And then this changed.
The processing of food is the equivalent of the introduction of societal living. The waters have become muddied. Alluring packaging, promotional enticement, added sugar and salt, colourants and flavourings, loss of nutritional value mean that, quite often, we don’t know what we’re eating; we don’t know why we’re eating it; we don’t know what effect it will have on us.
It’s perhaps not surprising that we suffer from more cancer, more obesity, and more diet-related health issues.
Our consumption is now largely determined by factors outside our control. Food manufacturers now shape our food choices. The individual has, in many instances, lost control of what goes into their body. It has become very difficult to do the right thing for our bodies.
In a societal setting, in an environment where Nature’s ways of working have been interfered with, there is no longer necessarily a correlation between an individual’s pursuit of beneficial gains and the achievement of species enhancement.
In society, doing what feels right and good for the individual might not always, automatically, be right and good for the species. The two may not always be in lock-step.
This is because of a couple of reasons:
Firstly, there is a fundamental problem: society diverts us from our Genetic Priority – doing what is in the best interests of our genes. We might, for instance, be more focused on our careers than on our children, or we might consider the acquisition of possessions as an end in itself rather than a means to an end.
Society can make us more self-centred rather than genetically centred.
In these circumstances, our individual behaviours are not contributing to the genetic well-being of our species. We’re living for ourselves rather than for our genes.
And secondly, more specifically, genetic faults can survive if supported by society. An individual may carry a genetic flaw, weakness or disability, something that would not survive in Nature, something that might have a negative effect on subsequent generations. But with society as a support or protective buffer, those negative, detrimental genes can continue to survive.
This creates a moral dilemma for the individual.
In a societal structure, there is no overseeing control, no vetting of what is and what is not reproductively acceptable. In fact, quite the opposite. Society often helps those who are genetically disadvantaged survive. Society tends to emphasise the importance of the right to life, that all life has a value, and that everyone has a right to a certain quality of life.
Inevitably, the question has to be asked. Should society be doing this? Should society be helping to maintain – even supporting – the survival of undesirable genes?
By doing so, it not only burdens society with ongoing costs but could also undermine our development as a species. Individuals with disadvantageous genes that go on to reproduce those genes downgrade a species’ genetic stock. They may even jeopardise our survival as a species.
Society tends to brush aside such concerns. Full of self-confidence, society will always trust itself, believing it can stay ahead of Nature and that Nature is no longer a threat. With society as our proven evolutionary defence, we need not concern ourselves too much with the intricacies of our genetic future.
Society may also choose to avoid involvement in this area because it is well aware of how thorny an issue it is. Even if it wanted to, how can society legitimately stop individuals from reproducing? Where does it draw the line in defining what is and what is not a genetic fault?
So, if society is not going to step in and take some responsibility for our genetic development, is it up to the individual to fulfil this role? Should the individual be taking more responsibility for their actions? Should they be more genetically responsible?
For other interesting blogs on this subject area, check out Articles or the Article Index
Leave a Reply