You’re up late in Widener Library on the Harvard campus, studying for your MCAT to get into Johns Hopkins Medical School. There’s a familiar face at one of the tables next to you — it’s that kid who never shows up for lecture and is constantly struggling through the same material that you and your classmates are learning.
After quietly striking up a conversation, you find out that he works full-time to pay his own tuition and doesn’t have the same amount of time to devote to studying as everyone else. The tests are the next day and he is probably going to fail. You are faced with a dilemma: should you give him copies of the study notes you have painstakingly assembled? He might have a better chance of success on the tests if he has your hard work to use as a springboard.
Though if you give him copies of your notes will he actually learn the material? Or will he just memorize enough to pass the test and then forget most of it? It seems like an altruistic gesture, helping a disadvantaged person out, but are you really helping him in the long term? Will he be a better doctor because of your help?
In Richard Dawkins’ book, The Selfish Gene, he outlines a theory of a gene-centric evolutionary process in which organisms (including human bodies) are simply survival machines built around genes. In essence, organisms have evolved over millennia to better protect and pass on the genes that they carry inside themselves. This is an intriguing perspective because it focuses all actions that an individual may take toward a single evolutionary goal: gene survival. Instead of saying that all people are selfish, we can say that all organisms are selfish by nature as protectors and transporters of genes.
Under Darwin’s theory of evolution, the best (”fittest”) genes will be the ones that survive to procreate and evolve into new species that are equipped to survive in their respective environments. It then stands to reason that those people who live and procreate at a later age will have done so because of their “fit” genes and will thus pass them on to the next generation. Those who die in youth due to some genetic illness will have perished because their genes were not fit and should not have been passed down to the next generation.
Now, with the advent of modern medicine, we are able to artificially prolong lives. Certain genetic disorders or weaknesses can be screened for and guarded against to preserve human life and allow for survival of admittedly weak genes. At least parts of the population are reproducing and propagating weak genes then, contributing nothing positive to the gene pool in the way of genes fit for survival. Is this a problem for the human species?
In the dilemma with the pre-med students, a choice was presented between letting a disadvantaged man fail due to his circumstances or artificially boosting his chances of success with a short-term advantage. This is a false dichotomy and was chosen specifically to elucidate the common thought processes surrounding welfare and public services. There are several better alternatives, one of which would be to tutor the student for the next available MCAT and help him accumulate the knowledge necessary to become a good doctor. The details are not important for this exploration, but simply the fact that there are better ways to solve the stated problem.
What about helping the genetically weak and interfering with the natural evolutionary process via the gene pool? Similar to the failing student, if a genetically weak person is only given enough medicine to survive one more day, the net value to the human species is obviously low. If, however, the person is given the strength to live for forty years and in that time is able to contribute positively back to society, the net value to the species could be considerably high. We must be careful not to trade on qualitative descriptors here: a “high value” to society from a genetically weak person obviously cannot be a value measured in fitness of genes, but rather in some other way; a “high value” contribution by a genetically fit person made by reproducing and propagating good genes is one of physical evolutionary value. Thus, helping a genetically weak person does still interfere with the traditional evolutionary process, but that may be of less importance in this age.
One of the largest advancements in medical history was the discovery of penicillin in the 1920s. Penicillin has made an enormous contribution to the human fight against infectious diseases, aritifcially strengthening our species against a plethora of deadly bacteria that had previously kept our population in check. Since then more advancements have been made in several areas of medical science toward the goal of increasing lifespans throughout the species. We have harnessed technology to overcome our physical weaknesses in many cases, leading us into an age where our genetic disposition to strength is minimally important instead of being at the core of our survival.
Is it a problem for the species then that the gene pool isn’t being optimized for survival genes? Probably not. This is the age of the intellectual where brain is valued over brawn and the most important moral values involve preserving human life. Measuring people by their intellectual qualities and the levels of success they have achieved is far more egalitarian and capitalistic than depending solely on natural dispositions to determine a person’s place in society. It’s great that we’ve theoretically leveled the playing field for even those people with weak genes, but we still have a large problem with disadvantaged people and a class-based society.
Essentially, we are trying to shift to an intellectual meritocracy where those who work hard and provide useful goods and services are richly rewarded. In order to have a good meritocracy, though, everyone has to have the same level of opportunities. Right now many people in the poorer social classes are never given the opportunities for advanced education or achievement that are enjoyed by those in higher social classes.
So should we really help other people? Yes we should, but that much should have been obvious. We can now see that the better question is: How should we help other people?
There is no single answer to this question, but there are certainly a class of answers that address the root of the problem and another class of those that only exacerbate it. Giving the pre-med student study notes was not the best solution, nor is giving a day of life to the sick or free money to the poor. If we are going to give anything, we need to give opportunities.
I thought this article was quite well-written.
I will like to add that we should always consider the options the person that needs help has. This will help us to determine if the help can be rendered by someone else.
Ironically, I stumbled across this work while constructing an article for submission to a leading medical journal. I was trying to locate a recent medical article I had read while researching Turner Syndrome, my personal nemesis. It stated something about “weak genes.” I was seeking it because as an individual with undeniably “weak genes” I had been utterly offended by its cold, inhuman perspective and its trivialization of the complexities of the human gene pool. The authors, as well as the present author, Mr. Fults, entirely overlook how such phraseology might be colored by their own personal biases and were very likely unconcerned about the impact such words might have on individuals with genetic diseases and conditions.
I am no proponent of “political correctness,” nor do I shrink from heated discourse when necessary, but I offer this. The word “weak” is entirely subjective, and in my opinion it belongs nowhere in any reputable scientific publication, nor in any intellectual discourse.
What is “weak?” Recent research reveals that many extant genetic conditions actually conferred a survival advantage on humans during times of devastating disease, starvation, and global catastrophe, and are currently maladaptive in our present world mainly because of industrialization. Take Turner Syndrome, one of the most common genetic conditions in women. It’s possible that the elimination of the homeobox gene, which results short stature, was advantageous during times of famine. Short people perhaps have “no reason to live” according to the old Randy Newman song, but they surely were more likely to survive back in the days when nobody had much food and women were among the last to eat.
How cavalier we are when we throw around such terms as “weak genes,” especially when we perceive from our lofty Ivory Tower, rightly or wrongly, that they don’t apply to us. What mind candy it is to discuss whether/how we should “help” genetically inferior people to live and reproduce.
The ideas presented in this work, that the genetically flawed are, when aided, a source of overall societal decline, are not new— they are as old as civilization. Ancient Romans smashed the brains out of deformed infants on rocks or exposed them to the elements to purge the taint of genetic impurity from their society. Spartans in particular regularly beat their surviving children and subjected them to what would clearly be called systematic abuse today in order to cull the weak from their fighting and societal service ranks, all in the name of social utilitarianism. It’s telling to note that this strategy proved ineffective in fending off the Goths and Vandals. We all know what ultimately happened to the Romans.
More recently, Hitler and his regime espoused systematic murder of anyone considered in any way defective or inferior, and from historical documentation, it appears that he was hideously effective at it. I wonder– did this purging of the gene pool make the German people any better off in the decades that followed WWII?
That was then, this is now. What about the Kurds? Rwanda? Darfur?
This article posits troubling ideologies. I reject the notion that an “intellectual meritocracy” is in any way preferable to brute Darwinian philosophy as applied to human beings. Historically, a voting majority of people who have in the past embraced various versions of “intellectual meritocracy” have also had no difficulty with the converse notion—that those who are not intellectually capable and who cannot “work hard and provide useful goods are services” are inferior and unfit, and are thus subject to the whims of their betters.
One of the ways many times and cultures, not just Nazi Germany, “helped” poor unfortunates who were deemed “unfit” was to sterilize them. Look up “eugenics” on the Internet and it won’t take you long to discover that Hitler was not alone. The U.S. and Canada also enforced such legislation, the U.S. as recently as 1981. (Julie Sullivan, “State will admit sterilization past”, Portland Oregonian (November 15, 2002). Available online at http://www.open.org/~people1/eugenics/eugenics_article_6.htm)
Even if you embrace the notion of “intelletual meritocracy,” it is naïve and simplistic to posit that “opportunities” will solely level the playing field for individuals in human society. Communists have long sought to make everyone’s opportunities entirely equal with pitiful results.
This article calls to mind a ridiculous argument I once had with a friend, who insisted quite seriously that those who carried firearms had a role in eliminating the “dregs” from the gene pool. He was quite insistent about his point of view, that shooting burglars helped the species. Shortly thereafter, a news story surfaced about a gun-toting man who shot his own teenaged daughter because he mistook her for an intruder. She was hiding in a closet, undoubtedly giggling, hoping to play a joke on her dear old dad. The article further revealed that more often than not, handguns in the home are used far more often against immediate family members than in defense of life and property. Somewhere in this story is a parallel to our present thread, I can’t help but intuit. You always shoot the one you love.
Seriously, I suggest that anyone who is interested in the topic presented by Mr. Fults should pursue the study of biological altruism, a recent theory positing that it’s not intellectual intelligence that confers a survival advantage on individuals, but what author Daniel Goleman might refer to as “emotional intelligence,” the ability to care about others, to want the best for them, and to do all one can to see that the greatest number of people survive.
Biological altruism ensures genetic diversity of the species, a known survival advantage. It’s a no-brainer that looking out for one’s fellow man improves mathematical probabilities of continued existence of the human race overall in times of cataclysm.
It’s no surprise that all of our major religions espouse this.
Ms. Beales (Donna?),
First off, thanks for your well-written and thought provoking reply; without it this wouldn’t be a discourse at all.
I think we are in larger agreement than might have first been apparent and I’ll try to explain why.
I will accept full blame for the “weak genes” phrasing — I took it straight from an article I was reading. Something more like “given normal circumstances, those with genetic disorders that lead to an early death nearly all of the time” (let’s call them “type G people”) would be more accurate.
I am acquainted with eugenics and don’t intend to support that in any way: I never suggested killing off type G people, only that giving aid in every direction at all times is decidedly inefficient and wasteful. Aid should be given based on evidence as much as possible to avoid giving thousands of dollars of aid to a single person who will (and it is known) die the next day instead of helping hundreds of children with that same money.
You did raise a new and interesting point that I hadn’t considered, though: diversity of genetic “strength” being a good thing for natural selection to operate upon. I am inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one; I’ll think about it more.
Overall, the message of my article wasn’t intended to be negative with respect to type G people, but to be positive with respect to the new intellectual age of evolution where technology is king and those who make the best contributions to it will be valued higher than those who don’t.
Thanks again for your insights.
Thank you for your comments.
In stating “Aid should be given based on evidence as much as possible to avoid giving thousands of dollars of aid to a single person who will (and it is known) die the next day instead of helping hundreds of children with that same money,” you make an argument for utilitarianism, and the classic flaw in utilitarianism is that we humans are not privileged to know which of the choices we make presumably will result in the most good for all concerned.
I offer for your consideration scientist and author Stephen Hawking in order to put a face and a name on the issue. Hawking suffers from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, of which 5-10% of all cases are genetic in nature. Assuming Mr. Hawking’s condition is genetically caused (I do not know if this is actually the case– my surmise is for the sake of argument) would an outpouring of resources be better spent on 100 children than on his ongoing and intense care?
I have enjoyed this discourse.
Your example is a perfect one. Assuming Stephen Hawking’s condition is indeed genetic, he would not and should not be neglected in favor of 100 children precisely because his condition is manageable and because he has made vast and amazing contributions to science and technology, which directly benefit society.
A good system is a system that favors Hawking’s life and recognizes the extremely high value he represents for our new technological society. A contrast to this example would be spending tens of thousands of dollars to medicate an infant terminally ill with branched chain ketoaciduria instead of feeding 100 starving children in Ethiopia.
Obviously the lines become harder to draw, but I’m convinced that the line must be drawn somewhere short of “spend as much money as possible on every person with any genetic disorder in the hopes that they’ll get better or live a little bit longer.”
All of this is, again, beside the original point, which is that genetic conditions don’t matter as much now in the new technological society because people like Stephen Hawking can make unparalleled contributions to the success of the species via technology instead of the traditional route purely through evolutionary genetic fitness. I find that fact rather refreshing.