Text 628, 144 rader
Skriven 2004-11-03 05:57:00 av Michael Ragland (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: Is there a gene for s
=================================



Note: This was originally posted on 10/29/04 but for some 
reason did not get to the ng. Since it is clearly pertinent to
evolution, I suspect I have a glitch in my Outlook Express program. AC
11/01 

Tony C.

support embryonic stem cell research

Michael Ragland:
Maybe but a few of my posts haven't made it through and I've been
informed the problem is with USENET. Hopefully it has been fixed or will
be fixed.

AC:
I came across this idea in a SF book by either Wil McCarthy or Jack
McDevitt (don't remember) but it was just mentioned in passing. Thinking
about it, I feel one or more genes for social dominance factors might
explain quite a bit about how great leaders come to be leaders.
Presumably, such a gene or gene complex would code for one or more
proteins that lead to dominance pheromones, or perhaps, just a complex
of other factors (a deep, resonant voice might be a simple example,
demagoguery might be another--but there could be zillions of subtle or
not-so-subtle actions like this that lead to dominating 
behavior and leadership. [Also explains why I never ever got to speak
much at action meetings! :) ] It's a captivating idea. If true, great
leaders are truly born, not made! 

Michael Ragland:
It depends upon what your definition of a "great leader" is. Adolf
Hitler was arguably the 20th century's greatest demagogue. He was a
tremendously powerful and dominating-violent speaker who used forceful
dominating bodily gestures. He appealed to the most base insticts of the
German people in which antisemitism was indispensable. He screamed forth
retaliation and revenge on Germany's enemies and enticed the German
people. 

I recently asked a person, "What do you think caused the Holocaust? Do
you think it was Hitler, the German people or both? In regards to
Hitler, the person responded, "I don't think he caused anything. I think
he was a catalyst. An enzyme." I found that idea interesting. He
elaborated, "I think it is more important to know the conditions which
made Hitler possible than to actually study what made up the person
known as Adolf Hitler. Obviously, there were numerous factors which gave
rise to the Holocaust going all the way back to the 2,000 year history
of Christianity, the statements of Martin Luther and many other notable
Germans. There was the Nordic racialism of Darwin's disciple in Germany
Ernest Haeckel. There were pre-Nazi Germany scholarly publication
advocating "the destruction of life unworthy of life." There was Social
Darwinism and a focus on the "Volk" in Germany. There was World War I
which Germany instigated but felt it had been unduly punished by the
Allies. There was the French occupation of the Rhineland. There was the
severe depression in Germany. These are all historical events and not
biological explanations. But Hitler grew up in a very dark time, when
antisemitism and ideas of Nordic racialism were common; when the
"destruction of life unworthy of life" and the survival of the fittest
(those who are weak and don't want to fight deserve to die) Social
Darwinism, etc. prevailed. Hitler's experience in WWI which resulted in
the needless slaughter of millions merely reinforced Hitler's
devaluation of human life and that life is war, might makes right and
the weak who don't want to fight deserve to die. All the aforementioned
events coalesced in Hitler's brain and resulted in the Fuehrer enzyme.
There was also a bit of luck in making Hitler possible. He could have
been killed in WWI or been killed by an opponent or died while numerous
times flying in an airplane electioneering.

The reason I'm mentioning all this is that sometimes a "great leader" is
the product of historical patterns and circumstances which can be partly
traced going back hundreds or thousands of years. In the case of Hitler
we would have to say many of those historical patterns and circumstances
were negative as they did not bode well for the world in general (aside
from war profiteers) and the groups he systematically and deliberately
exterminated.
In the case of Hitler he was "made" a "great leader" just as much as he
was possibly born one. But I would not consider Hitler a great leader.
He was a terrible leader. He led his nation unnecessarily into war which
resulted in approximately six million Germans dieing, civilian centers
being firebombed and the military defeat of the German nation. By
organizing the systematic and deliberate genocide of the mentally and
physically disabled, infirm, Gypsies, Poles, Russians and Jews he
stained the German nation so horribly the modern German state still
hasn't morally cleansed itself totally. 

Was Hitler the greatest demagogue of the 20th Century? IMHO there is no
question about it but that doesn't make a great leader. Was Hitler
socially dominant? No question about it. But social dominance doesn't
make a great leader either. At least as far as people are concerned
IMHO.

I did a Google search for genes which may be implicated in social
dominance in humans and I found nothing. That doesn't mean they don't
exist and I would include social dominance as a form of aggression.
Social dominance is observed in other species such as bees, fish and I'm
sure many others. You ask, "Why shouldn't humans also have such
analogous genetic program? Oh, I think you're quite right. We just
haven't yet discovered all the genetic mechanisms which may be involved
in social dominance/aggression. In research on mice, rats, voles, etc.
there have been some interesting discoveries of pheromones involved in
aggression. In knockout mice in which nitrous oxide has been removed
they become mutants who savagely and repeatedly attack (and in some
cases kill) other male mice and repeatedly mount female mice even when
not in estrus. There are many biological factors involved in aggression
and in the past I've mentioned several of them on s.b.e.

But I think you are more interested strictly in social dominance as it
pertains to human leadership. Their is a wealth of literature out there
on the subject. From what I've read it somewhat mirrors the behavior of
other primates. I think you would find more general information on the
subject in anthropology, zoology, sociobiology and evolutionary
psychology than you would in evolutionary biology. In the field of
molecular biology I don't think you will find any scientitic evidence of
"genes" having been discovered for human social dominance. Again, that
doesn't mean they don't exist but just that we have a long way to go
before we discover them.

Personally, I think the world is so complex that the idea of one man
"leading" a country is an absurdity. Even if these leaders are stooges
to varied special corporate interests, dictators, etc. I look forward to
the day when no one man, stooge or dictator, etc. is the "leader" of a
country. I envision "leadership" in the evolutionary future as
consisting of a social, economic, scientific and technological
international cooperative continuing along a continuum in which the
total sum make up the parts and not the parts make up the sum. This is
currently a pipedream and will remain so long after I die but I believe
someday it is possible. The best thing biological modification of us as
an organism could accomplish is totally eliminating what stands for
"politics"..the very thing which is associated with social dominance and
leadership. I'll concede, however, I'm voting today. It is a choice
between the best of two evils. 

"It's uncertain whether intelligence has any long term survival value.
Bacteria do quite well without it."

Stephen Hawking
---
ū RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 11/3/04 5:57:44 AM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)