Genetic determinism is not true. Except for a few neurological disorders, no behavioral trait is determined with 100 percent probability by the genome, or anything else (we know this because identical twins are only similar, not indistinguishable, in their personality and intellect). Of course, even a statistical influence of the genes does not mean that the Nazis were right. Factually, they were wrong in believing that races and ethnic groups are qualitatively distinct in their biology, that they occupy different rungs on an evolutionary ladder, that they differ in morally worthy traits like courage and honesty, and that "superior" groups were endangered by interbreeding with "inferior" ones. Morally, they were wrong in causing the deaths of some 35 million innocent people and horrific suffering to countless others.

Your question, of course, alludes to a conventional wisdom among left-leaning academics that genes imply genocide. But the 20th century suffered “two” ideologies that led to genocides. The other one, Marxism, had no use for race, didn't believe in genes and denied that human nature was a meaningful concept. Clearly, it's not an emphasis on genes or evolution that is dangerous. It's the desire to remake humanity by coercive means (eugenics or social engineering) and the belief that humanity advances through a struggle in which superior groups (race or classes) triumph over inferior ones.

They are the different visions of human nature that underlie left-wing and right-wing ideologies. The distinction comes from the economist Thomas Sowell in his wonderful book "A Conflict of Visions." According to the Tragic Vision, humans are inherently limited in virtue, wisdom, and knowledge, and social arrangements must acknowledge those limits. According to the Utopian vision, these limits are “products” of our social arrangements, and we should strive to overcome them in a better society of the future. Out of this distinction come many right-left contrasts that would otherwise have no common denominator. Rightists tend to like tradition (because human nature does not change), small government (because no leader is wise enough to plan society), a strong police and military (because people will always be tempted by crime and conquest), and free markets (because they convert individual selfishness into collective wealth). Leftists believe that these positions are defeatist and cynical, because if we change parenting, education, the media, and social expectations, people could become wiser, nicer, and more peaceable and generous. Lest we misunderstand him, Pinker is not willing to relegate "free will" to the bookshelf of mythology just yet, which, in turn, influences the fine distinctions in his opinions about criminal justice.

I don't think free will is a myth, only that it consists of a brain process rather than the uncaused action of an immaterial soul. In cases where we can tell with certainty that an identifiable kind of actor is undeterrable by criminal sanctions, in fact we “don't” punish him -- that's why we don't punish children, animals, machines, or the truly insane (though we may incapacitate them if they are dangerous to themselves or others). In other cases, we hold people responsible because the steadfast policy of holding a person responsible can deter bad behavior in the future -- if not by the person himself, then by other people who see the policy being applied resolutely and are not tempted to game the system.

We cannot teach a psychopath that crime is wrong even if no one sees you commit it. With everyone else, we can appeal to their empathy, alerting them to the harm they do to other people; to their intellect, pointing out that they cannot logically hold others to standards that they flout themselves; and to their sense of character, reminding them that a person of principle will, in the long run and for good reason, be trusted and esteemed more than someone who cuts corners whenever he thinks he can get away with it.

Are some of us programmed to prefer violence? Is there any way to civilize a man whose genes bade him to remain uncivil? Are we preparing ourselves only for the most insidious double-lives by believing we can "change" certain aspects of behavior, while simultaneously knowing this to be an impossibility? All of these are important questions that will continue to surface in the cracks of the debate between nature vs. nurture or free will vs. determinism. The most important question for public policy, however, remains: Can laws ever really force humans to internalize changes in the form of new moral or ethical constraints? Or are the technocrats just looking for bureaucratic tenure?

Saturday, December 28, 2002

Politics as usual.

Politicians' faces, worn by excessive grinning, reveal only their ninnets now. US troops are preparing to invade Iraq in spite of themselves. The news from DC leaves a nasty aftertaste, almost a permanent scar on the taste palet. So much so that I would rather read Dave Shortland's chronicle of a 40-year-old rock and roller's visit to the Move Festival, in Manchester this year.

Two new books look at the role played by the British communist party on political events and developments in the latter half of the 20th century. The Enemy Within by Seamus Milne and Enemy Within: The Rise and Fall of the British Communist Party by Francis Beckett, suggest the extent to which state-centric politics creeps in through public discourse about national security and other such utopian mental constructs. Forget Fox. Ignore CNN. The best information to get right now is history.

Saturday, December 28, 2002

Anne Telnases' take on the Catholic pedophilia scandal

Friday, December 27, 2002

Slanguage.

To find out what les Anglais ont débarqué refers to in the French language, refer to Nerve's slanguage compendium. Caliente.

Friday, December 27, 2002

States attempt to reform mandatory minimuns in drug policy.

Faced with bulging prisons and budget deficits, a handful of states are repealing mandatory minimum prison sentences for drug-related crimes. This might give judges greater leeway in imposing sentences and, in some cases, it might even allow them to release convicts already serving time. Proponents say that new sentencing policies could result in significant savings to taxpayers.According to Families Against Mandatory Minimums, Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, New Jersey, and North Carolina are also considering eliminating such rules.

Michigan, for example, spends an average of $28,000 a year on each of its 49,296 inmates. Michigan lawmakers have already passed legislation expected to be signed by the governor next week to eliminate mandatory minimums for drug crimes.

State officials say drug offenders have the highest rate of parole -- 72 percent -- and nearly 62 percent of other nonviolent offenders receive parole when they are first eligible. Currently, Michigan law requires a sentence of at least 10 years and up to 20 years for a person convicted of possessing 50 to 224 grams of narcotics or cocaine. The new legislation would allow the judge to impose any sentence up to 20 years.

Friday, December 27, 2002

Diminished.

For some strange reason, I recieved lots of mail for "The Conversations we won't be having" when I first posted it. Well, I had one again tonight. It seems that "won't" gives way to "might".

Friday, December 27, 2002

Take me to your favorite century.

Thomas Whiston writes for the Mises Institute about medieval Iceland and the lack of government.

Thursday, December 26, 2002

Obits.

Roderick Long's obituary for John Rawls is definitely worth reading. Among others to emigrate to the netherlands this year...

103-year-old trivia expert Joseph Kane passed away this September. Kane wrote over 50 books of factual information and trivia including five editions of Famous First Facts. His Hollywood connection started as the host of a radio version of "Famous First Facts" in the 1940s. He later worked for TV games shows, such as "The $64,000 Question," "Break the Bank" and "Double or Nothing" as a question writer.

British born writer James Mitchell, who wrote over 70 spy novels during his lifetime.

Statesman Cyrus Vance, who served as US Seccretary of State from 1977 to 1980. Vance also served in the U.S. Navy during World War II, practiced law as a profession, and was an esteemed member of the American Bar Association, Council on Foreign Relations, and the Trilateral Commission. Vance received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1969.

Senator Paul Wellstone perished with his wife Sheila and daughter Marcia in a small plane crash near Eveleth, Minnesota, that also killed three staff members and two pilots.

A 24-year-old South Korean man died after playing computer games nonstop for 86 hours, according to Korean police sources.

German film star Hildegard Knef, who immortalized the 1952 films The Snows of Kilamanjaro and Diplomatic Courier with her talent.

Zoologist, Harvard professor, and writer Stephen Jay Gould who, along with Niles Eldredge, a paleontologist at New York’s Museum of Natural History, developed an evolutionary theory called "punctuated equilibrium," where long periods of evolutionary stability are broken by shorter spurts of evolutionary change, perhaps sparked by external events such as climate change or the impact of a comet. The theory contrasts with more traditional evolutionists, who believe evolution is a slow, steady process occurring at a nearly constant rate.

Jazz chanteuse Rosemary Clooney.

Paleontologist and fantasy writer William Anthony Swithin Sarjeant, who used the nom de plume Anthony Swithin, and also gave interesting talks on the geology of Middle Earth.

Search this weblog Search www