Zeitgeist: Moving Forward Page #2

that are truly genetically determined.

Most complex conditions

might have a predisposition that has a genetic component

but a predisposition is not the same as a predetermination.

The whole search for the source of diseases in the genome

was doomed to failure before anybody even thought of it

because most diseases are not genetically predetermined.

Heart disease, cancers, strokes

rheumatoid conditions, autoimmune conditions in general

mental health conditions, addictions...

none of them are genetically determined.

Breast cancer, for example, out of 100 women with breast cancer

only seven will carry the breast cancer genes.

93 do not

and out of 100 women who do have the genes

not all of them will get cancer.

[Behavior]

Genes are not just things that make us behave

in a particular way regardless of our environment.

Genes give us different ways of responding to our environment.

And, in fact, it looks as if some of the early

childhood influences and the kind of child rearing

affect gene expression

actually turning on or off different genes

to put you on a different developmental track

which may suit the kind of world you've got to deal with.

So for example.

A study done in Montreal with suicide victims

looked at autopsies of the brains of these people

and it turned out that if a suicide victim

(these are usually young adults)

had been abused as a child, the abuse actually

caused a genetic change in the brain

that was absent in the brains of people who had not been abused.

That's an epigenetic effect.

"epi" means on top of, so that

the epigenetic influence is what happens

environmentally to either activate or deactivate certain genes.

In New Zealand, there was a study

that was done in a town called Dunedin

in which a few thousand individuals

were studied from birth into their 20s.

What they found was that they could identify

a genetic mutation, an abnormal gene

which did have some relation to

the predisposition to commit violence

but only if the individual had also

been subjected to severe child abuse.

In other words, children with this abnormal gene would

be no more likely to be violent than anybody else

and, in fact, they actually had a lower rate of violence

than people with normal genes

as long as they weren't abused as children.

Great additional example of the ways

in which genes are not "be all - end all"...

A fancy technique where you can

take a specific gene out of a mouse

and that mouse and its descendants will not have that gene.

You have "knocked out" that gene.

So there's this one gene that encodes

for a protein that has something to do

with learning and memory and with this fabulous demonstration -

"knock out" that gene and you

have a mouse that doesn't learn as well.

"Oh! A genetic basis for intelligence!"

What was much less appreciated in that landmark study

that got picked up by the media left and right

is take those genetically impaired mice

and raise them in a much more enriched

stimulating environment than your normal mice in a lab cage

and they completely overcame that deficit.

So, when one says in a contemporary sense that

oh, this behavior is "genetic"

to the extent that that's even a valid sort of phrase to use

what you're saying is: there is a

genetic contribution to how this

organism responds to environment;

genes may influence the

readiness with which an organism will

deal with a certain environmental challenge.

You know, that's not the version most people have in their minds

and not to be too 'soap-boxing'

but run with the old

version of "It's genetic!"

and it's not that far from the history of eugenics

and things of that sort.

It's a widespread misconception

and it's a potentially fairly dangerous one.

One reason that the

biological explanation for violence...

one reason that hypothesis is

potentially dangerous, it's not just misleading

it can really do harm...

is because if you believe that

you could very easily say:

Well, there's nothing we can do

to change the predisposition

people have to becoming violent;

all we can do is punish them - lock them up

or execute them

but we don't need to worry about changing the

social environment or the social preconditions

that may lead people to become violent because

that's irrelevant'.

The genetic argument allows us the luxury of ignoring

past and present historical and social factors

and in the words of Louis Menand

who wrote in the New Yorker

Very astutely, he said:

it's all in the genes... an explanation for the way things are

that does not threaten the way things are.

Why should someone feel unhappy

or engage in antisocial behavior

when that person is living in the

freest and most prosperous nation on Earth?

It can't be the system.

There must be a flaw in the wiring somewhere.

Which is a good way of putting it.

So, the genetic argument is simply a cop-out

which allows us to ignore

the social and economic and political factors

that, in fact, underlie

many troublesome behaviors.

[Case Study:
Addiction]

Addictions are usually

considered to be a drug-related issue

but looking at it more broadly

I define addiction as any behavior

that is associated with craving

with temporary relief

and with long-term negative consequences

along with an impairment of control over it so that the person

wishes to give it up or promises to do so

but can't follow through

and when you understand that, you see that

there are many more addictions

than simply those related to drugs.

There's workaholism; addiction to shopping;

to the Internet; to video games...

There's the addiction to power. People that have power but they

want more and more; nothing is ever enough for them.

Acquisition - corporations that must own more and more.

The addiction to oil

or at least to the wealth and to the products made

accessible to us by oil.

Look at the negative consequences on the environment.

We are destroying the very earth that we

inhabit for the sake of that addiction.

Now, these addictions are far more

devastating in their social consequences

than the cocaine or heroin habits of my downtown Eastside patients.

Yet, they are rewarded and considered to be respectable.

The tobacco company executive that shows a higher profit

will get a much bigger reward.

He doesn't face any negative consequences legally or otherwise.

In fact he is a respected member of

the board of several other corporations.

But, tobacco smoke related diseases

kill 5 million people around the world every year.

In the United States they kill 400,000 people a year.

And these people are addicted to what? To profit.

To such a degree that they are addicted

that they are actually in denial

about the impact of their activities

which is typical for addicts, this denial.

And that's a respectable one. It's respectable

to be addicted to profit, no matter what the cost.

So, what is acceptable and what is respectable

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes