INTRODUCTION
─────────────────────────────────
My first job after college was at the U.S. Naval
Research Laboratory, where I worked as a radio astronomer specializing in
Jupiter's radiation belts. Freed of time‑consuming college coursework, I was
able to broaden my reading. A few years earlier, the double‑helix structure of
DNA had been discovered. Perhaps stimulated by this, or maybe from the sheer
momentum of a childhood fascination with the way genes influence behavior, I
stumbled upon a thought which I now believe is the second‑most profound one of
the 20th Century: “outlaw genes.”
1963 Identification of Outlaw Genes
Figure I.01 An X‑Y matrix of "genetic
survival value" and "individual survival value" with
hypothetical markings of the locus of individual genes (as conceived in 1962).
In theory, any gene could be "placed"
in such a diagram (I hadn't encountered the concept of polygenes or pleiotropy
at that time, to be discussed in a later chapter). I imagined genes for this
and that, and placed them in the diagram. I recall thinking that there had to
be more dots in the upper‑right quadrant, corresponding to PGSV/PISV.
I realized that there shouldn't be many dots in
the opposite corner since NGSV/NISV mutations should quickly disappear.
Likewise, there shouldn't be many dots in the upper‑left NGSV/PISV quadrant, though
wouldn't it be nice if genes flourished when they promoted individual happiness
regardless of the cost to themselves. But it was the lower‑right corner that
awaited me with a surprise! Gene mutations of this type would "by
definition" flourish while "punishing" the individual carrying
them! And nothing could be done about it, short of replacing the forces of
natural selection with artificially created ones. This gene category has fascinated
me ever since!
Why hadn't I read about such genes? Surely
others knew about the inherent conflict between the individual and some of the
genes within! I looked forward to someday reading about these "outlaw
genes," and the philosophical dilemmas they posed. I stashed these
original diagrams and writings on the matter in a file, which remained closed
for decades. Nevertheless, I did not forget about these genes and during the
past four decades I have written about the subject in my spare time.
Coincidences
In the Fall of 1963 I enrolled at the
Although coincidences can shape lives, more
often they don't. While I was at
In this same year, 1963, William D. Hamilton
prepared manuscripts describing "inclusive fitness" (
I sometimes wonder how my life's path might have
differed if I had met Williams at
Overlooked Idea
Even now, four decades later, no one has written
clearly about the mischievous genes (to my knowledge). The Selfish Gene, by
Richard Dawkins (1976), comes close; but it never explicitly states that genes
"enslave" the individual for their selfish advancement while harming
the enslaved individual. Mean Genes (Burnham and Phelan,
2000) comes even closer, but its emphasis is on practical steps for resisting
self‑defeating behaviors rather than the theoretical origins of the genes
responsible for those behavioral predispositions.
Why is there such a paucity of discussion about
the philosophical implications of such a profound flaw in our origins and
present nature? Why have the professional anthropologists, philosophers and
others been so slow to address a subject that captured my unwavering attention
40 years ago, when I was fresh out of college and struggling to establish a
career in an unrelated field? Sociobiologists have written about conflicts
between competing gene alleles carried by individuals of various relatedness (
If
my idea has merit then sociobiologists have
simply overlooked an obvious “next step” in the unfolding of
implications for
the basic tenet of the field. The history of science has many examples
of
simple yet profound new ideas being overlooked by the professionals.
Every idea
has many discoverers, and probably most of them only half realize the
import of
their discovery. The oft‑discovered idea remains out of the public
domain until
it is grasped by someone having the energy to push it into the
mainstream while warding off attacks by established scientists
unthinkingly defending their academic turf.
Some of the genes within us are enemies of the
individual, in the same sense that outlaws are the enemies of a society. This
thought should challenge the thinking of every sentient being. The discipline
of philosophy should be resurrected, and restructured along sociobiological
precepts. If this is ever done the new field would have as its major
philosophical dilemma the following question:
"What should an individual do with the mental pull
toward behaviors that are harmful to individual welfare, yet which are present
because they favor the survival of the genes that create brain circuits
predisposing the individual to those behaviors?"
In other words, should the individual succumb to
instincts unthinkingly, given that the gene‑contrived emotional payoffs may
jeopardize individual safety and well‑being? Or, should the individual be wary
of instincts and thoughts that come easily and forfeit the emotional rewards
and ease of living in order to more surely live another day - to face the same
dilemma? Should some compromise be chosen?
How can any thinking person fail to be moved by these thoughts?
Overview of This Book
In writing this book I have wrestled with the
desire to proceed directly to the matters of outlaw genes, and how an
individual might deal with them. But every time I returned to the position that
a proper understanding of the individual's dilemma requires a large amount of
groundwork. For example, how can I celebrate the artisan way of life without
first describing why the genes created the artisan?
In the first edition of this book I included the
many groundwork chapters in their entirety before the culminating chapters. The
first person to read the book (Dr. M. J. Mahoney) stated that “Once I hit Levels
of Selection
[Chapter 12] I couldn't put the book down.” That’s when I
realized that I had violated the first principle of writing, which is
to
“quickly engage the reader before losing him.” Starting with the Second
Edition I shortened the groundwork chapters by moving most of that
material to
appendices. The groundwork chapters have become a primer for the
paradigm that
leads inevitably to the positions of the main message of this book.
The remainder of this introduction is a précis
for the book chapters.
There
is no guiding hand in evolution; the
natural process of the genes acting on their own behalf leads to
individuals
who are mere "agents" for these genes. This is the starting assumption
for "sociobiology," also called "evolutionary psychology," and
presented most effectively for the general public by Richard Dawkins in
The
Selfish Gene (1976). To understand the "blindness" of
evolution one must first understand that the universe is just a
"mechanism," that every phenomenon reduces to the action of blind
forces of physics acting upon dumb particles. This outlook is called
"reductionism," which is the subject of Chapter 1.
Lest the reader surmise that this book is about
the physics of life, I attempt an impassioned appeal, in Chapter 2, for
an embrace of modern man's scientific approach to understanding life, and a
rejection of the primitive backwards pull that captures most unwary thinkers.
This appeal provides a foretaste of the spicy sting of chapters found in the
second half of the book.
Since genes are such an essential player in
everything, I found it necessary to include tutorial chapters on genetics. The
first of these genetics tutorials, Chapter 3, presents general
properties of genes, such as how they compete and cooperate with each other,
and have no concern for individual welfare beyond what serves them. The second
genetics tutorial, Chapter 4, explores some subtle properties of genes
that will be needed by later chapters. For example, since in every new
environment some genes will fare better than others, it is useful to think of
genes as being "pre‑adapted" and "pre‑maladapted" to novel
environments. This will be an important concept in considering artisan niches
in the modern world.
Chapters 7 and 8 are devoted to the
brain. The most recent advance in the evolution of the human brain is the refashioning
of the left prefrontal cortex. It is important to view the brain as an organ
designed by the genes to aid in gene survival. Rationality is a new and
potentially dangerous tool created by the genes, and it must be kept under the
control of "mental blinders" to assure that the agendas of other
genes are not thwarted. Competing brain modules, cognitive dissonance, and self‑deception,
are just a few concepts that any sentient must know about when navigating a
path through life's treacherous shoals.
Chapter 11
is a gentle introduction to one of the most misunderstood topics in
sociobiology: "group selection." GS has had a rough time gaining
acceptance partly because it had too great a resemblance to the silly
notion (still embraced by the uneducated) that people do whatever is
good for the species. The mathematics of group selection was started on
a sound footing by Reeve (2000), and finally given a symbolic blessing
by Wilson and Wilson (2007). This last reference joins others in
suggesting that altruism has an unsuspected additional origin rooted in
tribal conflicts, and that it has co-evolved with genes promoting
intolerance for people in out-groups.
In Chapter 12
I combine the new thinking about group selection with something
entirely overlooked by sociobiologists: the role of individuals with
insight to subvert the genetic agenda and in the process influence the
rise and fall of civilizations. I argue that group selection increased
when tribal warfare led to ever‑larger tribes, which required
that its membership be ever‑more subservient to "tribal requirements"
since the entire tribal membership had a shared destiny. But,when group
selective forces were at their maximum during the Holocene,
something new happened that heralded the first‑ever "individual
selection" dynamic. The artisans assumed a leadership role in molding
culture, governance, and opening opportunities for individual
expression of
creative and productive labors that led to a state that we now call
"civilization."
It is inevitable that civilizations arise with
an ambivalent self‑hatred. This is because people whose thinking style is
overly influenced by their "primitive" right brain are naturally
resentful of the world created by those new left‑brain artisans. The new world
order favors the left‑brained artisan (engineer, scientist and other rational
thinkers) and relegates to some vague periphery the contributions that can be
made by the old‑style people. Thus, every civilization should have "two
cultures" that are in conflict, and this is treated in Chapters 13 and 14.
Chapter 19 describes what others now refer to as the Anthropic Principle (I hit upon it in 1990 and
later learned that it had been written about and published obscurely a few years
before). I use this idea to predict an approximate range of dates
for a significant crash in the human population. In the process of calculating this horrific
event, I show that the rate of technological innovations exhibits a trace over
time that foretells population patterns. From this analysis it appears that we
are now in the second major "rise and fall" pattern of innovation rate
and population, the latter pattern being displaced a few centuries after the
first.
In Chapter 21 I begin my "call to
arms" for individuals to emancipate themselves from the genetic grip. All
previous chapters are preamble to this one and those that follow. My appeal
must be qualified by some nitty‑gritty facts of genetics, such as pleiotropy
and polygenes. Nevertheless, I present a litany of "genetic pitfalls"
that any emancipated person should wish to avoid.
Chapter 23 follows naturally from the previous
chapter, since an individual who wishes to pursue an individual‑emancipated
life must do so within the constraints of living in a society where individual
liberation is difficult. When a sufficient number of people awaken to their
enslaved condition, thoughts may turn to a way for them to coalesce in a shared
search for a winning place. I describe utopias and prospects for isolated
enclaves as a path toward a stable community where individual liberation may be
sought. However, I warn that the world is becoming too "small" for
enclaves to remain safe from meddlesome outsiders. Since the door of
feasibility for creating isolated space communities has shut, and since the
earth is already "too small" for self‑sustaining communities to
remain secret, there are no feasible refuges for utopias. I conclude that
today's world will not tolerate the formation of an enlightened society of
liberated individuals, and that those who might wish to live in such a society
must be content with learning how to live a good life as individuals with
secret dreams while being surrounded by an ever‑increasing number of primitive hoi poloi. The "society of the
cognoscenti" will remain dispersed, and may only occasionally recognize
each other during normal encounters.
Chapter 25
is an annotated version of the best essay ever written: Bertrand
Russell's “A Free Man's Worship.” It is an excellent example of how a
liberated person thinks, and I use it to illustrate the point of the
preceding
chapter. Namely, once a person is liberated from genetic enslavement
and free
to choose values to live by that are compatible with the cognoscenti's
insights,
the best that one can hope for is an aesthetic and poetic attitude
toward "existence" that respects the plight of those not fortunate
enough to share these insights. The existentialist need not be a
sourpuss, nor must he become a passive esthete.
The thoughtful existentialist may end up a compassionate humanist with
a lust
for existence!
So now dear reader, if you exist, do take the
following speculations with a light heart; hopefully your thoughts will be led
in directions that are as congenial to your inherited ways of thinking as the
following are to mine.