Idea No. 2521: The Decline of the Genetic Drive and its Replacement by Values
Short Essay
It is the hypothesis that people are less and less driven by genetic proliferation and preservation as commonly assumed and are increasingly motivated by less obvious but more general drive for the proliferation and continuity of leading values.
Namely, the theory is that people simply want to continue, perpetuate and preserve, as well as spread and multiply whatever becomes important or significant for them, whether these are genes, lives, ideas, monuments, personal fame, life style, nations, ideologies, ethnicities, institutions, environment or art.
Thus, genetic preservation and multiplication is viewed as only one specific case/part of a wider and more diversified drive to pursue certain sameness and continuity across space and time which we explore more fully in another essay. Moreover, as part of this broader drive, the propensity for genetic proliferation and perpetuation seems to be diminishing in importance for humans and is being increasingly replaced by other values and aims, a process which only accelerates and emphasizes the human transformation to “general perpetuation”.
Similar to the genetic code, a memory of an emperor, an empire, a religion, an idea, or an institution could all be viewed as intangible constellations, as patterns, or as codes that we all try to duplicate over space and time. Accordingly, we can say that people increasingly supplement or replace their preservation and proliferation of the genetic code with various other architectural, intellectual, visual, organizational, social, spiritual, or political codes.
The historical relations between these two drives or motivations are not completely clear and we might explore them later in our discussion. It is possible that our genetic drive was the primary drive for most organisms including man. However, with the development of the human brain and cognition, and/or the emergence of complex and tight cultures and social forces, it lost its primacy which is now being shared with other drives, values and goals. It might still be the most important, or the most important for many people, but currently, it is clearly “one goal out of many” as well as a weakening one. It is also possible that the genetic drive was always part of a more general drive for similarity and continuity but because of its primacy and domination we failed to recognize these relations and assumed it to be the main or only one.
Regardless of their relational past, this change of motivation and/or perspective, puts in question many popular and entrenched assumptions and outlooks regarding men. In particular, some of the presumptions that came out of the traditional evolutionary Darwinistic theory and the growing popularity of the gene as the leading factor in the current version of this theory.
We must remember that unlike hunger or the sex drive, there is no obvious felt urge for genetic perpetuation--we only presume it. However, the majority of our scientific theories currently assume that most, if not all, our individual and social forces, drives, motivations, and values are somehow aimed at this overall goal--whether it is hunger, thirst, survival, sexual drive, urge for power, territory and prestige, loyalty to off spring, and even ethics. (see the Selfish Gene and many later versions of this perspective). [date]
Perhaps somewhat similar to periods preceding scientific transformations like the Copernican one, more and larger portions of human phenomena seem to contradict the genetic assumption and are “forced” to comply. At the same time, an increasing number of man’s critical and significant social phenomena seem to support a more cultural, complex and diversified theory of human drives, values and motivations.
For instance, the explanatory power of the genetic theory is put into question when thinking of the readiness, and often eagerness, of hundreds of millions of people to die at war or have their children die there. Some of these phenomena could be explained by social pressure aimed at the preservation of the species as social insects do for their community or parents do for their off spring. However, the magnitude of this behavior as well as numerous additional “non-communal” phenomena make the “social sacrifice” an unlikely explanation. The most apparent current phenomenon is the growing voluntary choice of many educated, powerful communities to have very few or no off spring and thus give up their chance for genetic perpetuation. Unlike a powerful stag in a herd full of females, this forfeiting of numerous offspring is even common to powerful human leaders, whether positive ones like Jesus and the Dalai Lama or negative ones like Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin (where social consideration and sacrifice are hard to assume).
Some of the current explanations regarding the “convenience” of not having children, might explain some of this tendency. However, it only emphasizes the growing readiness to substitute other values for the genetic one. This is particularly obvious when we consider how most cultures actually idealize the sacrifice of life and genetic preservation for the sake of various other ideals and causes. Jesus is a prime example of this phenomenon, but so are many other spiritual leaders like the Buddha, the Dalai Lama or the Pope. This is part of a long tradition of genetic sacrifices for spiritual goals such as the celibacy of monks and nuns, or the sacrifices of eunuchs.
At the same time, for millennium, people put a lot of effort into continuing and spreading other values and elements aside from genetic preservation. For example, people have been very busy building monuments and pyramids to perpetuate their memory, not to speak of their attempt to mummify their leaders for eternity. Most empires, nations, religions, institutions, regimes, and ideologies try to spread all over, force uniformity, and wish to last forever. If we already gave the example of Hitler, we can reiterate his hope for a global empire and a “Reich of a thousand years”. This was not very different for Stalin and Communism, as well as for Capitalism and democracies. Probably as part of the same drive, most if not all leaders wish to spread sameness across space and time. Totalitarian regimes, and Mau forcing all Chinese to dress in blue, are only a few extreme examples of a globally popular practice and drive.
Even in art and music everyone wants to create masterpieces that are widely popular and “pass the test of time”. Though scientific theories are supposed to be challenged periodically and replaced, the hope and goal of most scientists is to create a theory with the widest applicability and explanatory power, global recognition, and prolonged longevity. Much of our cumulative culture is built on these premises. Again, some of these aims could be explained as serving indirectly a genetic goal, but in most cases, they could be better explained simply as alternative goals and values. As such, they confirm a very different theory in which different values now compete and often overshadow genetic replication.
Overall it seems that humanity retained the drive for proliferation and continuity over space and time but diversified its content or manifestations.