Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Is Leadership Innate?, May 5, 2008
Every week there's a new headline. Smoking is in your genes. Alzheimer's is in your genes. The risk of cancer. Even gambling and risk-taking. Genes play a role in most human diseases and traits, it seems.
However, if you deconstruct the headlines, you'll see that "in your genes" is shorthand for something more subtle. Behind each claim is a carefully nuanced scientific journal article, which, upon deeper investigation supports only the narrow claim that, for example, "having a particular gene variant leads to a slightly greater risk of smoking behavior".
Still, it's a revolutionary idea that our genes can be responsible for our behavior, even in part. Not only that, but a recent study shows that certain drugs used to treat Parkinson's disease can trigger compulsive gambling behavior in people who had previously never gambled. Questions of free will and personal responsibility soon follow.
So-called "social behavior genes" are now being identified that construct specialized neural circuitry in the brain. Humans have instincts after all. Depending on what specific gene variants you receive from your parents, this gene-developed neural circuitry sensitizes us to respond to specific environmental cues. Having different gene variants makes you interested in (and motivated by) different things than your neighbor.
Even as these stunning announcements are made in the press, the implications have not yet registered into the public consciousness. Although Dennis Overbye writes in the New York Times that "our conscious brain is only playing catch-up to what the unconscious brain is already doing", most readers skip over this, because the idea of having innate preferences doesn't resonate with their preconceptions and folk understanding of free will and personal responsibility.
In Napoleon in Shanghai, a novel set in America and China, Will Frehley thinks he has the answer. Philosophers from Rousseau to Russell have turned to literary exposition to illustrate their ideas, and Frehley has done just that. Through the character of Napoleon, a robot, Frehley explores the notion that our genes are really algorithms - innate computer programs - that can react differentially to our environment. Genes are not deterministic, but they're not unconstrained either. Like an elevator that's programmed to respond to button presses, but not screams and shouts, our genes have many (but not infinite) responses to environments for which they are "designed" (by evolution) to respond.
Humans differ by only 1% of our DNA. Frehley shows how this small difference can have a dramatic effect on outcomes. The Napoleon robot is programmed to exhibit leadership qualities and skills such as charisma and charm and self-confidence. But Napoleon's computer programming may differ by only 1% from other robots that exhibit social anxiety, simply by changing a few master switches. (By implication, everyone possesses the entire set of innate traits in the 99% of DNA we all share, and human difference is explained by the 1% of DNA that varies among us.)
The main character in the novel is Napoleon's creator, Paul, who is plagued by acute social anxiety. Paul develops Napoleon's brain algorithms to better understand what qualities make a leader. Paul also intends to use Napoleon as his front man and proxy as he attempts to woo a pretty young Chinese biologist, Vivian. By studying his own robotic creation, Paul develops a better understanding of himself.
Can any adult change his or her personality? Can a non-leader suddenly choose to become a leader? Would he want to? Where do "wants" come from? Napoleon in Shanghai sides with the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, that we are free to do what we want, but we cannot change our wants themselves. A non-leader cannot suddenly choose to be a leader, because our choices themselves (desires, wants, motivations) come from our genes.
The implications are socially explosive. Anyone can become President or Prime Minister, but not everyone wants to. Modern society removes the barriers of social mobility, but those without the innate inclination and motivation will not even attempt to rise up to become political or business leaders.
Napoleon in Shanghai also addresses the issue of personal responsibility. If you smoke cigarettes (because your unique gene variants motivate you to do so), are you really responsible when you contract lung cancer? Frehley's answer is "yes". Genes are not something you have, they are something you are. They define your identity. In other words, "you" are defined as "someone with unique genetic variants that lead to the development of certain desires and motivations". So "you" (a genetic being) choose to smoke of your own free will (based on who you are). If a different set of genes were involved in your early brain development, you'd make different choices. But they weren't, so you don't. Our laws are written by genetic beings in response to other genetic beings. If you had the genes to be a serial killer, you would be responsible for your heinous acts, because they were performed by "you" of your own free will. As with quantum physics, you can't step outside the system.
By implication, we adults can't change much ourselves after we're developed. Our brains - specifically our limbic system and amygdala - are uniquely wired by our gene variants, which thus define our unique motivations and desires.
If this is too much philosophy, the novel also includes a love story, between Paul and Vivian. Their affair brings them to China, where they are caught in a plot of international intrigue. In China, with its authoritarian government, Paul asks whether the secrets of DNA should be trusted to a society which doesn't allow its own people freedom of choice, and where knowledge is not allowed to flow freely. With the current torrent of new knowledge about genetics, can the individual's unique DNA signature be used against them by those with mal intent?
Napoleon in Shanghai concludes by examining the core philosophies of the current U.S. political parties - Democratic and Republican - and whether a new political paradigm is needed in the Genetics Age. Republicans believe that individuals are responsible for their own actions. Abraham Lincoln, the founder of the Republican Party, believed all people are morally equal under the law, but he didn't believe everyone has the same natural talents. Republicans believe this is God's plan, and any innate differences between people shouldn't be tampered with. Democrats, on the other hand, believe that everyone can do anything, with the right encouragement and social programs. They believe we are all born as blank slates, and are infinitely malleable.
Clearly, the Democratic position is most at odds with the truth. More and more, we are discovering how innate temperamental differences lead to greatly different outcomes - some are born leaders who reap large monetary and social rewards, and some are born followers. But the Republican conservative approach is also flawed. Shall we accept the natural order of things? Or shall we allow parents to select their children's genes prior to development, to make them more ambitious, charismatic, intelligent, and ultimately more successful (in traditional terms of social wealth)?
Frehley's novel leaves unresolved what finally happens to the main characters, but the answer is not hard to guess. Paul wants to be a leader, for the perks of social status and wealth, but he wasn't born with the "leadership gene". Paul programmed Napoleon to be a charismatic leader, and sure enough, the creator becomes the follower. What comes next? With his ambition, drive and talent, will Napoleon run for President? Will Paul and Vivian get married and have children? Will they select their own children's genes, to ensure Paul's innate social anxiety is not passed on to the next generation? And what will the world look like eighteen years from now, when the "Selects" (children born with genetic enhancement) and the "Naturals" (children born as they are today, with gene variants allocated by a roll of the dice) face each other in college?
Frehley is a clever and intrepid writer, and I look forward to reading more about Napoleon's adventures in the future.
|
|
|
|
