Anybody hear of Epigenetics?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, all!

Yesterday, I stumbled on an interesting line of genetic science I had not heard of before. Did a little research today, haven't gone through everything I printed out yet. Seems this train of thought has been around since about 2001, and has developed a bit of a following in certain scientific circles (with at least one website and magazine devoted to it).

Seems the concept is rather like the "nurture" side of the nature vs. nuture debate, amped with steroids. Seems to me this opens a lot of moral questions unto itself, not least a rehash of the tired old Social Darwinism train of thought. Afterall, if you are not properly nourished, because of poverty or whatever, then you are substandard, compared with where you could have been had circumstances been different. Remarkably, many of these "influences" are hereditary without being genetic. That is, the genome is not the complete story of what "makes" us.

One thought that crossed my mind, as vindication for my position in a much earlier discussion, is that even if a "gay" gene does exist (which has yet to be proven), it is environmental circumstances ("nurture") that would trigger or suppress that gene. Even without a "gay gene," it would still be environmental influences that would promote or discourage such ... well ... behavior. And, presuming such could be transmitted to progeny (which illustrates my poor choice of example), the behavior and bodily characteristics would be transmitted to future generations, *without* modification to the genome itself.

Is anybody familiar with this enough to care to discuss it, particularly the ethical considerations?

 

[Snoopy]

Hi,

Well like I said on the other thread I'd not heard of it so....

I've printed off the stuff on it from good ole Wiki, took some wading through.

What ethical issues were you thinking of then?


s.

 

[seattlegal]

First of all, consider Sparta, where homosexuality was so culturally engrained that many young men saw heterosexual sex as something "icky," and the State had to step in and call it a "duty to the State," in order to produce children.

Second of all, consider that identical twins separated at birth will show an average 40% correlation of "unusual traits," such as homosexuality. While this is a much higher rate of correlation than between two randomly selected individuals, which would suggest a genetic component, there is the 60% rate of non-correlation between identical twins to consider, which shows that such trait is not genetically set in stone.

My conclusion:
Just because there may be pornography in the library, it doesn't mean you are compelled to read it. {Identical twins possessing the same genetic library do not alway "read the same books" contained in that library, so to speak, and will exhibit different traits an average of 60% of the time.}

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Snoopy!

Well like I said on the other thread I'd not heard of it so....

I've printed off the stuff on it from good ole Wiki, took some wading through.

What ethical issues were you thinking of then?

Yeah, I looked at Wiki too, but the stuff I printed was from various dedicated science sites. After I go through the stuff I'll post the links. I did read the Discover mag article though (was so intrigued, I had to buy it the next day, couldn't get the subject out of my mind).

Some of the considerations I had entail a refutation of "blame it on my genes." In other words, if there is merit to this line of research, and there seems to be initial promise; then we can no longer make excuse for behavior by blaming our genes. So what if there is a gay gene, a drunk gene, a philandering gene? We can *choose* to act out such behavior, or not. Once again, the onus and responsibility is on the individual (where it rightly belonged all along), our actions cannot be blamed away by excuse of genetics.

Other considerations focused on the "better or worse" aspect, which in theory can be carried forward socially and culturally, to become what some consider "racially." If, in theory, a particular culture placed some value on detrimental behavior (for example, smoking cigarettes) in lieu of more beneficial behavior, that culture / society / "race" could effectively curtail its development for generations. Ultimately, when one compares a culture with curtailed development against a culture without the curtailed development, it would be quite evident (or at least arguably evident, PC notwithstanding) that one culture was indeed "better" than the other. Now, the examples I used are arbitrary, and "good" is culturally subjective. Nevertheless, surely there are justifiable markers that could serve to indicate "good" as opposed to "curtailed." Perhaps strength, intelligence, endurance, fertility and / or quality of ageing without artificial means. Measured across a representative sample, of course.

I mean, so what if there is a gene that predisposes somebody to smoking cigarettes? Do they succumb and absently blame their genes for their behavior? Or, if they wish to overcome the health obstacles, do they will their behavior and actions away from the destructive habits, and create a new hereditary paradigm for their offspring? Blaming our genes does not liberate us to "enjoy" our destructive behaviors, it binds us to them. Realizing we are not slaves to our genes empowers us to overcome destructive habits.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Seattlegal!

First of all, consider Sparta, where homosexuality was so culturally engrained that many young men saw heterosexual sex as something "icky," and the State had to step in and call it a "duty to the State," in order to produce children.

Second of all, consider that identical twins separated at birth will show an average 40% correlation of "unusual traits," such as homosexuality. While this is a much higher rate of correlation than between two randomly selected individuals, which would suggest a genetic component, there is the 60% rate of non-correlation between identical twins to consider, which shows that such trait is not genetically set in stone.

My conclusion:
Just because there may be pornography in the library, it doesn't mean you are compelled to read it. {Identical twins possessing the same genetic library do not alway "read the same books" contained in that library, so to speak, and will exhibit different traits an average of 60% of the time.}

Thank you for this. Something tells me you have a bit of experience in this subject?

 

[Snoopy]

Hi Juan,

Addictions, dependence and craving are common to us all, whether for alcohol, cigarettes, shopping, wealth, status, love…I can’t think that there will be anything in our DNA/RNA or cell structures specific to these. Dependence can be physiological or psychological or both. Where does a normative enjoyment of shopping shade into an addiction? Root causes may be biological and /or social, like the nature / nurture debate I think it’s actually a meaningless debate: we are given our “nature” but we exist in a world of “nurture.” As genetic similarity increases so does environmental similarity (as a gross generalisation) which is why all sorts of identical twin studies and adoption studies have been carried out. The results have often been criticised on various (methodological) grounds.

I agree with your general point about personal responsibility; this seems to be all too easily abrogated to something external (make up your own examples!).

s.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Snoopy!

Oh darn! What conversation if we agree? I was hoping to hear "bunkum!"

 

[seattlegal]

Shall I try to invite in a hardcore skeptic?

 

[Snoopy]

Kindest Regards, Snoopy!

Oh darn! What conversation if we agree? I was hoping to hear "bunkum!"

Hi juan,

Have I managed to be appallingly inconsistent in my views here when compared with Social "Bunkum" Darwinism? If you think I have then maybe we can get a conversation out of that!? Otherwise I fear all is lost and we are at an end here!

s.

 

[Snoopy]

Shall I try to invite in a hardcore skeptic?

Hi sg,

Feel free (famous last words). You foolishly told me about this site! (not saying I'm a hardcore sceptic you understand; am I?! ). It's not the hardcore, it's not the scepticism, it was the abusive language!

s.

 

[seattlegal]

A specific environmental factor identified!

 

[Snoopy]

I think I must be going through thick phase...

s.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Snoopy!

Have I managed to be appallingly inconsistent in my views here when compared with Social "Bunkum" Darwinism? If you think I have then maybe we can get a conversation out of that!? Otherwise I fear all is lost and we are at an end here!

Appallingly? No, I don't think so. Inconsistency is another human trait, one that seldom has any obvious cause yet presents a continual frustration that simply has to be accounted for. It is an extremely rare person in my experience who fully and completely at each and every opportunity lives up to the creedo they espouse. Even an atheist can find G-d in a foxhole.

Perhaps exploring the inconsistency would make an interesting start to conversation, if you wouldn't mind...

Addictions, dependence and craving are common to us all, whether for alcohol, cigarettes, shopping, wealth, status, love…I can’t think that there will be anything in our DNA/RNA or cell structures specific to these. Dependence can be physiological or psychological or both.

True, yet I would think, in a simplistic way, that physiological "dependence" would manifest in the genome or some other biological coding, whereas psychological "dependence" would arguably be a learned or environmental response.

Come to think of it...the DNA consists of something like 3 billion base pairs, of which "only" less than 30 thousand compose the genome. The rest is considered "junk." From the moment I first heard this, I couldn't help but contest the notion. Because we cannot decipher this "junk" yet, does not mean it has no place or value. What if, hypothetically, this "junk" somehow serves as a genomic memory store of some kind? Would go a long way to support Jung's claim of a "collective conscious" and the notion of cellular memory.

Where does a normative enjoyment of shopping shade into an addiction?

Well, then we get into a rather subjective discussion...where to draw the line, who gets to make that decision and who gets to enforce it? Are there not cultures to which the notion of shopping is completely alien? What physiological or psychological benefit is there to even a modest amount of shopping? Could it not be rationally argued that shopping, in any amount, is an unnatural and therefore abnormal act?

Or do we find a way to equate shopping somehow (by a fertile stretch of imagination) with "gathering?" That "shopping" is somehow mandatory and necessary for existence? This way, shopping zealots can shop til they drop without guilt, self-justified that their activities serve the greater good of humanity.

Root causes may be biological and /or social, like the nature / nurture debate I think it’s actually a meaningless debate: we are given our “nature” but we exist in a world of “nurture.”

I think I basically agree.

As genetic similarity increases so does environmental similarity (as a gross generalisation) which is why all sorts of identical twin studies and adoption studies have been carried out. The results have often been criticised on various (methodological) grounds.

Well, ummm, this gets tricky and skirts the line of PC. If by "genetic similarity" you mean what is commonly called "race," then historically I would have to agree, even though there is a modern groundswell in certain parts of the world that are upsetting this. Now, the trick is that it does not equate in reverse...that is, two races may exist in the same (general) environment, just as one race may exist in multiple environments.

Now, we could get really picky about it, that "genetic similarity" does not mean "genetic identicality," and that no two individuals (race notwithstanding) can experience identical environments. So, as with anthropology as a whole, we have to speak in generalizations and representative samples.

I agree with your general point about personal responsibility; this seems to be all too easily abrogated to something external (make up your own examples!).

I thank you for this. I have simply not ever been comfortable with the "blame it on my genes" argument. It just seems unsubstantiated, and a cop out.

I hope this will add to the discussion, that I haven't run you off somehow.

 

[Snoopy]

Hi,

Physiological dependence through the genome? Is this where epigenetics comes in?

My objection to SD is the purloining of a scientific theory (at least in the name) to provide credence to a political theory.

Yes, the shopping example is a subjective thing. Anything beyond food, water and shelter is a luxury in some parts of the world, but in others this by itself would seem like abject poverty. Western shopping to me is about people having been convinced that consumerism is the path to happiness.

By genetic similarity I meant it at face value, as in identical twins so yes, a lot of stuff will be generalisations and tendencies.

And no, I haven't worked out how to do multi-quoting.

s.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Snoopy!

Physiological dependence through the genome? Is this where epigenetics comes in?

Well...yeah, I mean, that should show how ingrained the concept if "genome rules" is. Even I can be suspect. Although, as I recall, I actually did leave a little wiggle room; "True, yet I would think, in a simplistic way, that physiological "dependence" would manifest in the genome or some other biological coding, whereas psychological "dependence" would arguably be a learned or environmental response."

How long have we been taught: our eye color, our hair color (dyes notwithstanding), our height, intelligence, etc., etc., etc....are due to our genome. So it is (was) comforting to be able to "lay blame" as it were for our behaviors as well on our genetic makeup. Even thinking in terms of physiological (bodily systems) as opposed to psychological (the mind), it just seems natural if not altogether true that the genome would be directly behind the physiological / bodily systems. Of course, I suppose an argument could be made using this reasoning that the mind is but one more bodily system, so that ultimately our thoughts are genetically steered. So, if epigenetics undoes a lot of this thinking, what are the consequences? Where do we draw the line? What can we use genetics to excuse, and what is merely wishful thinking? It's pretty obvious we cannot will our eye color to change...

My objection to SD is the purloining of a scientific theory (at least in the name) to provide credence to a political theory.

Perhaps, and I have heard similar "complaints" from others. It is a valid complaint. Yet, what of the "evolution" of something like a computer? Is that a correct use of the "purloined" term? How about the purloined use of the term "evolution" regarding society in anthropology?

Is it only the purloining of the term that you have issues with? Just wondering if there is anything within the concept generally that you might even agree with?

Yes, the shopping example is a subjective thing. Anything beyond food, water and shelter is a luxury in some parts of the world, but in others this by itself would seem like abject poverty.

Yet, I would think this speaks more to cultural bias. Indeed, such a people who can create these things "in the wild" without assistance hold a wealth of knowledge that is greatly overlooked. Overlooked because it cannot be used outright to generate a paycheck to pay for such things (created by others and their manufacturing processes), and the all important "taxes."

Yet, take a civilized "modern" from anywhere in the western world and drop them on an island, alone with no tools, and come back in three months...see if they are still alive. I would lay money that in excess of 90 percent would be dead, and the remaining 10 percent (generously) would most likely have had military or survival training of one kind or other prior. (So much for survival of the fittest)

Western shopping to me is about people having been convinced that consumerism is the path to happiness.

Oh, agreed. Yet, if this is so well known and understood, why do we actively continue? Not only that, but others who have not had this "indoctrination" are lining up willingly to learn! And they are avid learners! The West will have created its own monster.

By genetic similarity I meant it at face value, as in identical twins so yes, a lot of stuff will be generalisations and tendencies.

Very well, my misunderstanding.

And no, I haven't worked out how to do multi-quoting.

It was the first time I used it. Brian gave the tip on the update thead. I just hit the multi-quote icon on the one post and the regular quote on the second post...worked great for me.

 

[Snoopy]

Hi Juan,

How long have we been taught: our eye color, our hair color (dyes notwithstanding), our height, intelligence, etc., etc., etc....are due to our genome. So it is (was) comforting to be able to "lay blame" as it were for our behaviors as well on our genetic makeup. Even thinking in terms of physiological (bodily systems) as opposed to psychological (the mind), it just seems natural if not altogether true that the genome would be directly behind the physiological / bodily systems. Of course, I suppose an argument could be made using this reasoning that the mind is but one more bodily system, so that ultimately our thoughts are genetically steered. So, if epigenetics undoes a lot of this thinking, what are the consequences? Where do we draw the line? What can we use genetics to excuse, and what is merely wishful thinking? It's pretty obvious we cannot will our eye color to change...

I'm not sure intelligence is wholly an inherited trait. (and it begs the question what do we mean by intelligence? Is there such a thing as just intelligence as opposed to perhaps several distinct "intelligences")

It may be that the mind is a function of bodily systems but I don't think (!) we're at the stage where that means one concludes our thoughts are therefore "genetically steered." Or maybe that thought was genetically bound to come up!

Perhaps, and I have heard similar "complaints" from others. It is a valid complaint. Yet, what of the "evolution" of something like a computer? Is that a correct use of the "purloined" term? How about the purloined use of the term "evolution" regarding society in anthropology?

Is it only the purloining of the term that you have issues with? Just wondering if there is anything within the concept generally that you might even agree with?

I think no-one has a monopoly on a word like "evolution", just another one out of the dictionary. So it's not purloined. The purloining is the taking of Darwin's own name and applying it to a political theory that Darwin himself distanced himself from.

I find SD too easy a means to wash hands of social issues so there's a definite issue I have.

Yet, take a civilized "modern" from anywhere in the western world and drop them on an island, alone with no tools, and come back in three months...see if they are still alive. I would lay money that in excess of 90 percent would be dead, and the remaining 10 percent (generously) would most likely have had military or survival training of one kind or other prior. (So much for survival of the fittest)

I think I'd last about 2 days!!!

Oh, agreed. Yet, if this is so well known and understood, why do we actively continue? Not only that, but others who have not had this "indoctrination" are lining up willingly to learn! And they are avid learners! The West will have created its own monster.

Yes, Bhutan is trying, as a country, to keep the monster from the door somewhat. But it has recently allowed western TV to be broadcast and subsequently previously unheard of crimes are beginning to proliferate.

It was the first time I used it. Brian gave the tip on the update thead. I just hit the multi-quote icon on the one post and the regular quote on the second post...worked great for me.

Well that only took me about an hour to get right!!!

s.