Nature versus Nurture..if you think your desire is natural in the context of biology say in terms of sexual preferences...no it may not be so clear cut as genetics, and it may not be so clear cut as defined by nurture alone. As it turns out genetics may play some role to the degree of preference, thinking that you are attracted in some way to shapely symmetries (this seems to be at times a more universal biological characteristic), but on the other hand, what clearly remains a characteristic describing one's desire is a matter that seems arbitrary...for instance, why do shapes and sizes, and other attributes of social desire seem to evolve in cultures which point to some arbitrary factors, or factors which appear very much relative to a given a culture at any given time frame. More so it seems if we are raised with any sets of genetic potentials that are expressed in the outcomes of our individuals preferences and desires, these weightings may at times be arguably more pronounced in certain ways, or less pronounced in other ways. As it turns out there may be some genes which govern the degree in which we are stimulated by our given environment, but in other ways are actions in such environment may be more likely hallmarked by the degree in which nurture has factored into our perceptions of the world, or if you thought otherwise, there is likely less the absolute of either, but combinations of influences between both sets which help to the govern the degree in which we are. In either case, if often we were to preface, unnatural, or describe in absolutist ways, a given nature, it seems at times more characteristically hallmarked by collective social conditioning, or at times this could also be relative to larger predominant population sets with certain expressed genetics. In either case, if you've heard it argued in some many ways that something of behavior were 'harmful' or genetically against 'nature' itself, more often one could think this born invariably of ignorance on the matter.
Consider animals in nature that mimic the opposite sex as a survival strategy, now apparently evolution hasn't excluded the concept of feminine adaptations among male biological counterparts, or at least for some animal species this strategy seems perfectly fine...so is it against nature for something to assume or adopt feminine characteristics or vice versa?! Or consider something like the more spontaneous sexual changes in animals when population subset of one sex seems to fall below a given threshold?! Were expressed spontaneous sexual differentiation against nature or creation in this way?! Or relative to us these animals seem to find some positive survival strategy and nature has provided enough of niche for the existence of such...at least if we weren't to artificially exclude (in this in the unnatural sense). And where it seems likewise the complexity of neuronal computational power has diminished, and the context of asexuality as in the more simpler of life form where invariably it is harder to argue by degree that social exchange were a limiting factor with respect to the degree of sexual description, harder is to offer that nurture is exclusive to evolutionary policy making.
Of course, the cost of exclusions may have benefit, if it were likely to the degree that cancer were expressed significantly in populations prior to sexual reproductive ability to regenerate any such expressed genetic tendency (if it were such the case), then likely few offspring should as likely produce a predominantly non recessive expression of such genetics, but likely the reality of recess is exactly that, its a hidden and unseen thing which crucially defies and cleverly hides itself, so that even our reproductive selective natures couldn't as well see the culprit (without modern medicines) that would so warrant and likely dictate the possibility of discerning what truly should seem 'unnatural' versus 'natural' to us, but even there, the context of nature may be more complexly characterized by offsets of 'good' and 'bad'. A given genetic risk may also produce some positive advantages in other ways, or at times are genes may be wholly not all bad, not all good, but really mixed bag. The good news for this, is that you or I (being as natural as one should hope we are) are not clearly the most efficient, the most productive species, or maybe even the most intelligent ounce for ounce relative to the potentially engineered stuff, but we have such a mixed bag also of genes, that when the reaper falls, enough of our population survives and isn't genetically bottle necked...
Often times, on the opposite side of the spectrum, sometimes, I wonder, how much influence nurture is expressed in our genetics likewise...from the epigenetic standpoint, if we were more likely to be influenced as smokers or drinkers alike because of the decision making of our ancestors, it seems the unclear division or line could be even blurry in so far as the persistence of our decision making and desires, or that more likely despite all matter of attempts by parenting otherwise, our carboholic sugary desires may have some genetic factorization likewise. This isn't to say that components of social decision making our nurture can't be discounted none the less.
Obviously genetics may be less likely to provide us with high level abstract languages (outside of inherent abilities to read our parent's body language even before we have spoken or written anything), or that how we might identify more strongly in social groups, provides a more likely readied synergy for societies to operate on given the principal strength of length minds and potential unity concerning the matter of decision making. Our civilization is born of the backbone of recorded and transmitted knowledge, and that genetics alone could only pale in the synthesis of providing an education and/or time spent luxuries where other life has less, or at least this should seem much more irrelevant to the nature of survival there, and then alone our genetics outside of nurture should leave us more likely stranded, I think of a cat that the family home adopted years ago...more likely living a solo life, skinny, less sheltered, and unable to fend for itself in the same ways that wild animals of long since genetic departure, are able to move adept to a given environment without the same needs. Then remembering a show some months ago I'd watch on the History channel running to the tune of apocalypse, some theories would range that our domesticated friends in our absence might survive to the tune of decades, or a century(?!) at best. It seems inevitably the consequence of our trait selection should seem that much irrelevant to the nature that once bore such creation, and, here, likely the consequence of trait selection, would mean abilities like hibernation, physical traits, or selectivity would breed an animal less likely the same sorts of power, stamina, or in general, with persistent shelter the necessity for something as simple as thick furs and so forth to withstand colder extremes, alongside lost social natures and propensities to appropriately self den(?), and for this exchange, change in social psychologies. An animal less more likely to stay put could be a more then likely dead animal in the wild, contrary to man's learned ability to paradoxically counter migration by way of agriculture and civilization. Sure maybe some inherent landscape provides enough of a niche for the lotus eaters but this were likely short change for the abundance otherwise. I contemplated myself briefly as a stone age hunter, how long would I last?! In all honesty most survivalists don't talk of a matter of extended stay tours here, its a matter of getting back into the grid in some way shape or form as soon as possible, not attempting to live outside of it, not at least without tools, without machinery likely, or some form of reproducing food sources, or having a readied abundance to aid here, and then likely requisite migratory knowledge as in instinct of knowing where to go to the bounty if and when long since departed, and bounty is a relative word, that might have required as in the more herbivore inclined, root plants in the off season, and fruits in the seasonal prime (if you were lucky enough for say the tropical), and then despite relatively small geographic location, the sustenance while seemingly lesser to choose from could be exceeding in some cases to the culinary habits even of some humans, and likely the produce ranging could generally be described as exotic to the commonplace supermarket (save, for instance, as in one thought instance varieties of wild ginger).
No comments:
Post a Comment