Re: Biological Reductionism/Ideology

Many serious social scientists, and many, many biologists oppose the far
overreaching conclusions of various theories known as "sociobiology",
including the near theological-determinist theories of E.O. Wilson, Dawkins,
and others who try to claim that many decisive aspects of human social
behavior are largely determined by the biological evolutionary processes of
the past.

However, that doesn't mean that we reject biology. On the contrary, it is an
understanding of and respect for the COMPLEXITIES of biology, rather than
looking for simplistic "causes" that motivates many of us to oppose
biological reductionism.

As to whether genetic engineering poses a threat to humankind:

1) I emphasized earlier that a major threat is/will be the simplistic way
biology and genetics will be discussed in the media, further reinforcing
myths about the supposed "superiority" of the capitalist class and the
supposed "inferiority" of the working class, especially those labeled as
"racially inferior."

2) But while I would argue that the impact of these biological determinist
arguments in Nazi Germany had an even worse, larger impact on the
destruction of people than the attempts to actually create so-called "Master
Race" specimens in laboratories and breeding camps (which also did destroy
the lives of thousands), I would also agree that THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
GENETIC ENGINEERING AS WELL AS THE IDEOLOGY is something to be very worried
about.

Sure, it has the potential to find ways to treat many cancers and other
diseases. But his world capitalist system is allowing hundreds of millions
of HEALTHY people to suffer premature deaths even now. Do we really believe
that they are interested in preserving or extending the lives of the
billions of working class people all over the world? Everything that the
capitalists touch is, like King Midas in reverse, turned into crap, or
worse, a weapon against the working class.

Not long ago, some scientists used genetic technology to produce what they
thought was a "better" apple. Remember, as Karl pointed out, that "good" and
"bad" and "better"  should be understood in a materialist, class way:  "GOOD
FOR WHOM?"  Under capitalism, this means that they want to find a way to
increase their profits.  So they combined some genes from peanuts into
apples and produced an apple that was more "durable."  It worked fine,
except that, of course, they didn't label the apples as having peanut
material. Meanwhile, there are tens of thousands of people who are allergic
to peanuts.  When they eat those "new, better peanut-apples", they can
experience serious allergic reations. If the capitalists can't even produce
something as simple as an apple without creating a potential disaster, can
we even begin to comprehend the potential disaster if these profit-seeking
monsters start to experiment with cows, or bacteria, or people?  So we
should be very concerned, not only about the ideology of biological
determinism, but also about the catastrophic possibilities when these
monsters start playing around with genes.

Finally, can this technology could be trusted to a new kind of world
society, if/when one comes into being that is based on egalitarianism and
humanity rather than profits? (How about: "From each according to ability,
to each according to need?")  Hypothetically, I suppose that such a society
could be trusted to use that technology wisely and humanely.  But in
reality, even that kind of society should be very, very, very cautious in
how it might use this type of technology. The potential for misuse truly can
have catastrophic results.


Alan Spector





----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard N Hutchinson" <rhutchin@U.Arizona.EDU>
To: "Boris Stremlin" <bc70219@binghamton.edu>
Cc: "Alan Spector" <spectors@netnitco.net>; "Trich Ganesh"
<TGanesh@southampton.liu.edu>; "WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK"
<wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: Biological Reductionism/Ideology


> Boris-
>
> If human beings can be genetically engineered, that  might lead to all
> sorts of outcomes, come beneficial and some nearly unimaginably
> detrimental, but the technological capacity to do that engineering would
> in fact vindicate the scientific possibilities inherent in a [biological
> reductionist/sociobiological/insert your preferred term here] research
> program, quite apart from the uses that technology is put to, according to
> the ideology of the user.  Ipso facto, "biological reductionism" is not
> just ideology.  I can't make the point any clearer.  (Come to my
> assistance, list members, if you can see a better way to state this!)
>
> If this point is still not clear, then once and for all I will cease and
> desist, forced to conclude that Derrida was right about free-floating
> signifiers.
>
> RH
>
>