Genetics, Environment and Social Adaptation.There has been a long standing battle between those who would argue their preference for the influences of genetics versus that of the environment. Some would insist that this 'split' is now tired and a bit irrelevant these days. The social impact of this old argument remains with us, in our institutions, although more intelligent, modern thinkers realise that this kind of thinking is simplistic, rather than a misunderstood fundamental truth. Those that insist on 'the split' become extinct. I take a relativistic perspective that produces a more revolutionary insight, which can allow us to understand that 'any' genetic disposition can manifest in different ways, according to the varying developmental & other environmental influences. This is true of established, inherited genotypes and spontaneous mutations, including those that produce some 'physiological abnormalities'. Each genotype has an optimum developmental niche, which can (when we choose to) be identified and created, individualising this relationship for each genetic manifestation & resulting environment. This happens quite naturally in evolution, although this is usually done by trial and error and usually relies upon accidental events of environmental change and social revolutions. These 'relationships' advantages one generic manifestation over another and then advances classical evolution. Other alternative genotypic manifestations then adapt to this 'social-environmental' change and just survive in their own niche, adapt to mutually co-exist, become in some way symbiotic, or else are made extinct through competition within the same restricted niche. Human evolution (and that of other intelligent, creative, species, including those we have learned to live with) allows us to create our own niche and adapt it to us and us to it, as we gain experience of it, ourselves and other co-existing types and species. This process is entirely two way for human beings, although we tend to believe that genetics sets our disposition on its own. There are always trade offs to each adaptation, although some are more mutually beneficial than others. This is where 'intelligence adaptation', 'creative adaptation' and 'social adaptation' come together. There are scenarios which can lead to a competitive extinction; evolutionary stagnation, species and type selfish evolution; or open and adaptive Darwin had already seen this potential and, as usual, academics lost the plot and misrepresented his fundamental findings. The Social Technician and Political Engineers chose to interpret the whole thing to suite their selfish end; seeking to manufacture a learning environment which perpetuated their own kind of existence and produced the worker bee-ings, to benefit them. This, in turn, disadvantaged those who otherwise create the new technologies and creative opportunities which allowed for change and adaptation. They had minds of their own. In their turn, the old school stagnated and was overturned by those able to create an adaptive environment. The battle goes on still: It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin So, here is a simple fact for you. Genetics has no significance other than its two way, interactive effect on animals (including humans) 'within the environment'. The environment is everything outside of genes, everything from our bodies, brains, minds, social relationships, physical objects of all kinds and time & space itself. In fact, it can even be argued that genes are actually part of that general environment, they certainly replicate themselves within and from it (this is my position). In a conceptual sense there is no separation. I start from the simple assertion that both genes and environment, as identified entities, are equally important, neither one more relevant than the other. They are interactive and inseparable and achieve a dynamic balance, whatever we do. If genes are completely corrupted by the environment, life (as we know it) ceases . If our environment is destroyed to the extent that life ends, those genes end along with it. You can not get more interdependent than that. The separation is an artificial construct that allows us to examine the bits. The interaction of genes is not (as commonly thought) simply one-on-one. The genetic influences are conditional upon the prevailing physical and social environment. That is to say a particular set of genes will have a different influence within differing environments. In the case of us human beings, the psycho-social environment has a particularly powerful and significant effect on how genes are interrupted and how they show themselves in the behaviour, perceptions and thinking of human beings. This, in turn, affects how 'selected' they become. Genetics has a particularly complex influence when it impacts on our language, thinking and socialisation. Our peculiar form of genetic makeup has given us a combination of physical, mental and emotional features that means we can significantly 'adapt' our environment to suit us (or destroy us and everything else with it). It has even given us the potential to extend life and to alter the basic building blocks of life (genes). In the case of human beings, in particular, genetic makeup interacts with our physical and social environment, to influence how we are physically and what perceptual and mental capabilities we have. It also gives us the flexibility to choose (in large measure) how we use our physical bodies, how we perceive and how we our train or minds, to our advantage, however puny either one aspect may be. We are genetically endowed to be mentally and socially adaptive. The old genetic argument; 'red (or strong) in tooth and claw', looses its significance, compared with human capabilities, as expressed through a few genetic advances over the primates. This human gene makeup has been evolving for some time and the genetic variations over the last few thousand years are insignificant compared with the 'psycho-social evolution' that was generated some 75,000 years ago and started to express itself in earnest, perhaps less that 10,000 years ago. Like Moore's Law in relation to computers, human mental and social, or psycho-social capabilities advance (and periodically, partially regress) at a similar kind of increasing rate. We are capable of utilising our advanced psycho-social skills but are also able to draw upon our more primitive instincts and perceptions, magnifying these through our various technological advances. Not all our uses of this dual potential is always to our own short, or medium term advantage and certainly can even be to our long term detriment. Then again, which elements of humanity destroy themselves in this process and which others organise themselves for survival, is also a form of natural selection. Who know who will win in the end? If anyone? Do we care? Is it important? Do we need a mystical answer to these questions? Some of this struggle, between the two side of ourselves, seems to be accidental. Perhaps it is a bit random, but the pattern is quite clear. We are still in the transition between the primitive (animal) genetic disposition and the psych-social (higher order human) disposition. Both broad traits, and everything else that evolved in between, continues to evolve and is represented in the struggle within each of us and within our communities, institutions and societies. One thing is for certain: Those genetic features that are most practical and best adapt us for our environment (at any point in time); combined with those adaptations which give us advantages in how we perceive and conceive of things; coupled with those genetic adaptations that best allow us to express and create the most suitable environments for our survival; will be those that will win (assuming human beings actually manage this successfully between themselves). It is from this perspective on genetics, with its inseparable link with environment and its psycho-social influences, that I argue the need to revise what we understand to be 'mental health' and 'mental ill-health'. I will show through argument; providing the logical associations with available evidence and through modern scientific thinking, how our perspective on mental health is an historical distortion. It misrepresents our underlying human perception, thinking and understanding. In effect, I argue that there are many legitimate perceptions and understandings of nature and of ourselves, and there are very few that are fundamentally corrupted by some 'organic' cause, or mutation (unless we want to consider that all adaptations are of this type). We are a highly adapted species, with multiple, alternative pathways to survival and towards individual and social development. Some may be better that others, often time will tell, but we have the power to short cut this process. In the words of Bob Dylan; 'The slow one now will later be fast, as the present is now and will later be past'. Genetic dispositions, of the important kind that we are talking about, have a time and place where they come into their own, when they are enabled to do so, to the advantage of human kind. Most of these dispositions are already there. It is 'nurture' that brings then out in the particular form and the social environment that determines what social value they have. Conclusion (for now):Current mutations have a very small bearing by comparison. These may affect individuals in the short term and, if viable in all other respects (i.e.: they don't kill us) they may prove beneficial in the future. The established genetic dispositions , which have been part our established genotype for generations, are differentially activated by available knowledge, resources and prevailing circumstances. The influence (for human beings at least) is now fully two way. Currently the Neanderthal and Hawkish feature have come to the fore in western cultures. Look; When it comes to Genetics, I have to admit that I am an enthusiastic amateur. I simple re-interpret and update the incredible thinking of those I have read about. The pioneers in this field. I have also had incredible conversations with those who are at the coal face of the field, playing with ideas and theory. This is also true for the other subject areas. What I can say confidentially is; my understanding of the influence of genetics and its interactive relationship with experience, is light-years in advance of Psychiatry and Social Work theory. Like myself, in the field of general mental health, I know there are inspired students of Genetics and Heredity (and other relevant subjects) who are pushing the boundaries and exposing the more fundamental truths. Some will be in relative isolation, struggling against the established notions and corrupted interpretations. That is in the nature of the development of scientific ideas. Not all will be recognised for their genius. Some will even have been identified as having ADHD, Learning Difficulties, or Autistic features during their early lives. *** I wish you luck and invite you to make a more informed contribution to this site. We think outside the box and sometimes even get out of it completely. | Genetics
Genetics is the study of how the fundamental construction blocks of nature (genes) directly influence our physical growth, the development of organs (including our brains) and the development of mental and social capabilities; like thinking, language, social organisation and behaviour.In addition; this study helps to explain some aspects of evolution and the adaptations that 'happen' and which prove beneficial to particular animals (including humans) within particular environments and under certain circumstances, over time. It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin Geneticists usually consider how small genetic changes (mutations) sometimes show themselves to be an advantage, or a disadvantage, to a particular species. They also seek to understand the relationship between genes and the physical and behavioural features that can be observed. That is, how genes are involved in constructing the physical organism that differentiates and grows into a being, expressing certain characteristic behaviours, mental processing and social functioning. Some of us are also interested in how this simple biological process establishes complex mental, emotional and social dispositions that (in effect) are able to allow us to influence our own personal, social and species development. How and why, in fact, we are able to influence our given genetic dispositions, our physical and social environments, out diet, our health, forms of social organisation and our personal and collective behaviours. In this respect, our understanding of genetics comes full cycle and our very genetic disposition has allowed us to directly and indirectly influence future generations, largely at will, if we choose to do so. Sometimes this appears to be by an apparent accident, or perhaps, in spite of our considered wishes and intentions (ignorance). This general genetic disposition even extends to giving us (indirectly) moral and ethical perspectives on these very issues. These influences have been evident through social modelling, teaching and adapting forms of social order; Through the selective breeding of animals for our own purpose; More recently, this has been through the direct manipulation of genes, transforming the features that a species exhibits, to the intended benefit of man; It is also through our generating of modified human cells / genes, for medical purposes, to overcome genetic conditions. NOTE: This Document is still at some stage of development. You are invited to respond and comment on its content and its logic. If you return to the document at a future date, you will be able to see its continued development, hopefully reflecting your own and others commentary. I thank you, in advance, for any contribution that you make. Please also feel free to visit and contribute, in any valid way, to these and other social issues, through our Forums. There is also a Chat Room and protected Chat Space for more serious group discussions and individual counselling. Please feel free o use this space for your legitimate activities. Copyright: Although you will see very few reference to other formal writings in this document, I acknowledge general recognition to the discussions and debates that I have had with students, practitioners and clients over the years. Most of the ideas and theory has evolved through this rather pragmatic process (operational research), rather than any formal reading. If any content of this document describes concepts, theory, or ideas that have been established else where, (prior to my writing, either here or else where - in part or in full), I acknowledge their entitlement to claim them as their intellectual property for financial purposes, if they can evidence this. I also reserve the right to retain them as my intellectual property, with due recognition to those who have made direct contributions, including other writers, should I identify such a past influences. Other than this, I invite you to share and copy any content, to the benefit of intellectual debate and the benefit of individuals and groups, without restriction, other than it be used for constructive purpose, in the wider context of my writing. Should you wish to use any material presented here 'as is', I ask that you then make reference to myself and the web site. The 'Reading Date' would be a useful 'publishing date' for the Current Edition. 1980 is the core publishing date for most of the basic ideas and theory (unless stated otherwise). This 'Reading Date' may be an important part of this 'reference', as the document (by its 'internet fluid' nature) will be constantly changing and this may affect meaning and interpretation, for those following up on such a reference at a later date. Thank you for your cooperation. TRC. eMail: terry.couchman@visitweb.org |
