h3h.net

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.