Part I can be found here.
In my last post, I discussed the use of the concept of natural selection to justify social Darwinism, and how irresponsible it is to do so. Social Darwinism is the idea that that you can apply "survival of the fittest" to human political and economic institutions. Although this idea has fallen out of fashion, especially because of its ties to Nazism and eugenics, there are still individuals (you may even know one or two diehard "characters") in the world who believe this is an ideal course of action for humanity to pursue. These people have stopped dead in their tracks with regards to the intellectual pursuit of "truth" simply because, I would assume, it sounds logical at first glance. It does also seem to explain the proliferation of free-market economies throughout the West as a naturally evolving system. However, even if you were to apply the science of Darwinism to formal social systems, it wouldn't be an "every man for himself" type of society. In fact, evolution seems to favor cooperation between individuals, or at the very least, cooperation can be witnessed within the animal kingdom. This demonstrates that cooperative behavior should benefit those species in some way since at least their population is able to live long enough to successfully breed.
In an attempt to prove (mostly to myself, my ethical due-diligence) that social Darwinism is reprehensible, especially when used to justify laissez-faire capitalism, I came across a relatively new field of study that I've been fascinated with ever since. Epigenetics is the study of gene expression, ie: how environmental factors affect DNA.
Cells of a multicellular organism are genetically homogeneous but structurally and functionally heterogeneous owing to the differential expression of genes. Many of these differences in gene expression arise during development and are subsequently retained through mitosis. Stable alterations of this kind are said to be 'epigenetic', because they are heritable in the short term but do not involve mutations of the DNA itself.
Everyone knows you can't change your DNA; however, science appears to be proving that environment has more of an impact on DNA than previously thought. There exists a mechanism within our DNA that actually does interpret environmental signals. Not only that, but it also appears that certain behaviors could be inheritable!
My interest in this field appears to have impeccable timing. For the first time, researchers at Harvard are now able to image brain epigenetics. This is a major step towards a great understanding of the mechanisms of epigenetics. The sheer magnitude of data analysis involved in such a great understanding means that it will take years to even scratch the surface, but now we can at least physically see that something actually is happening.
For now, I'm contented to know that I'm not just the sum of my genetic composition and that a greater, more transcendent ethic is possible, one that is not based on deterministic biology. Using nature as a source of inspiration for human social life is fundamental and can be recognized in every civilization from the past and present. However, forcing a bastardization of "natural law" on others in an attempt to dominate entire social groups is not only immoral, but hazardous to the entirety of humanity as a species.
Further reading: Social Epigenetics and Equality of Opportunity