The co-evolution of genes and culture is revolutionizing policy

It delivers on the promise that exploring more links between our genes, brains and cultures will put us in a better position to address our larger policy challenges. He is not everything. Something that injects a sense of urgency into the affair. As Wilson writes, “We are about to abandon natural selection, the process that created us, so that we can direct our own evolution by voluntary selection—a process of redesigning our biology and human nature as a We want.” If we as humans are going to write our own future, we must better understand the mechanics of how we get to where we are today.

One of the most important insights for public policy is the theory of multi-level selection. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution identified natural selection as the mechanism by which genes adapted to the environment are more successful in making copies of themselves. It stands for ‘survival of the fittest’. Fitness in the biological sense is about better chances of survival and producing offspring. After studying social animals – humans being the epitome of this category – Wilson and his colleagues determined that ‘selection’ operates not only at the level of individuals but also at the level of groups.

The idea that ‘survival of the fittest’ applies to clans, tribes, communities and nations is dramatic, not least because it allows the natural sciences to penetrate the faculty of social science. It pulls the rug out from under the feet of philosophers, sociologists, and political scientists, whose subjects are constructed on, well, thin air. Evolutionary biologists, on the other hand, not only rely on data, but offer theories that are falsified. Leaving aside academic competitions, the notion that human society is made up of groups competing for existence can profoundly affect our liberal sensibilities. As Wilson showed, nature has no obligation to conform to the human sense of right and wrong. it just is.

Many people object to the application of evolutionary theories to human societies because of the stark inequalities that occurred in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when using self-serving interpretations of biology such as racism, colonialism, eugenics and The massacre was justified ‘scientifically’. He remains a risk, and science to a thinker is like a lamppost to a drunkard; It is useful for the help it provides and not for the light it sheds. Yet, with Wilson and his successors accumulating persuasive evidence for group selection, no free society can deny it for the risk of abuse.

Interestingly, the forces of individual and group selection often pull in opposite directions. Within a group, a selfish person is more likely to be successful than a philanthropist. Think tax evaders, draft dodgers, and people who disappear just before it’s your turn to buy a round of drinks. But in competition between groups, those whose members are better able to cooperate are more successful. For example, groups where everyone steps in to fight at the risk of their own lives are more likely to be dominated by those whose members shirk responsibility. The difference in the balance between selfishness and altruism can explain the trajectory of human society, religion and politics.

The second profound idea after Wilson’s work is that of culture-gene co-evolution. On the one hand, cultures compete and are also subject to natural selection, and on the other hand, they influence and in turn are influenced by our genes. For example, the human digestive system has evolved to consume cooked food; But humans have neither the innate ability to cook nor any adaptations for it. Cooking is a cultural acquisition. Studies over the past few decades have shown that while cultures compete, the ones that are best adapted to the environment survive and affect which genes are passed on. Furthermore, cultural evolution is rapid and works horizontally over one generation (as in barefoot people adopting shoes), whereas genetic evolution is slow as it works vertically over many generations.

The wrong conclusion to draw from evolutionary biology is that everything is biologically predetermined and that biology justifies our actions. Neither is true. The fact that there is so much diversity in today’s world – genetic, ethnic, religious, cultural and political – shows that opportunities, choices and courses play an important role in shaping outcomes. Biology can tell us how our moral compass works, but we are free to travel in the directions we like. Ethics need not be subordinate to biology.

To quote Wilson again: “Humanity, I argue, arose entirely on its own through an accumulated series of events during evolution. We are not predisposed to reach a goal, nor are we predestined to reach any goal. We are accountable to power but ours. Only knowledge based on enlightenment will save us, not piety. From above we will not be given any redemption or second chance vouchers. We have only one planet to live in and one meaning to manifest Is.”

Nitin Pai is the co-founder and director of Takshashila Institution, an independent center for research and education in public policy.