Blogging – at least for me – is in many ways a manner of talking to myself. It’s more discrete than physically muttering to myself in public, as most folks don’t really appreciate the potential facial mannerisms that might accompany such activity. But it also makes no claim to worldly originality. In this post, I talk about a concept of which I’ve never run across in all my reading, but since I don’t do any specialty reading in genetics nor anthropology, I can only say that, on consideration, surely this has been brought up – and possibly roundly dismissed – by many, many scientists much better trained than I.
But I enjoy the act of creative thinking, and the blog provides a place to talk to myself on such topics. I’ve refrained from using the blog for fiction writing, as that’s a messier endeavour than I wish exposed publicly. But this sort of thing – original only in the sense that I came up with it without consciously having read about it – makes it fun for me. I hope you enjoy it as well.
I’ve continued to think about some of the issues I raised and/or sidestepped on this rumination on President Washington’s farewell address, which was mainly concerned with Washington’s exhortation for Americans to attend to their religions. It occurred to me this morning that there’s a rough – perhaps very rough – correspondence between institutions such as various religious sects, as well as, say, Masonic lodges, or even theories of reality, and any other entities concerned with advocated behavior – and genes.
Genes, in modern biological theory, are the carriers, both alone and in combination, for many of our phenotypic (physical) characteristics, from our gross physical formation to the subtle manner in which our brains function. They pass on to our offspring, modified by our mate’s genetic pool, and are also vulnerable to disturbance by the environment, primarily by radiation, but also through some chemicals, as well as even viral intrusion. All these areas are matters of active research.
A gene may have various types, known as alleles, and for my purposes, they can be considered to be in competition with each other. That is, if a gene contributes some feature to the general organism which is important to survival, and a particular allele improves that feature’s performance in the environment the organism commonly finds itself, particularly when it comes to reproduction, then that allele may become dominant within the general population; it’s allele frequency becomes higher, much higher, than its’ competitors’. Contrariwise, an allele which contributes to an inferior feature will have a very low allele frequency, and appear infrequently as a recessive allele, or due to external environmental factors interfering with the genetic reproduction.
As a final point, some alleles simultaneously have negative and positive features in their phenotypic end-point. Perhaps most famous is the allele which contributes to sickle-cell anemia, a blood disorder. Its positive feature? It’s protective against malaria, a parasite.
So let’s draw a rough equivalence between an institution, which might be a religious sect or some other institution advocating a set of behaviors, and a gene. For our purpose, an institution advocates some set of behaviors, both overtly (that is, publicly) and covertly; the two may actually conflict. Additionally, the institution may perform work. As its members join and leave/die, it may be said to reproduce in situ, surviving within the greater organism of society, contributing to the survival of that society through the behaviors and works of its members.
The correspondence between genetics and societal institutions, while rough, is not that rough. Genes may contribute to more than one feature. Similarly, an institution commonly advocates more than one behavior, and may do work as well.
But, for me, the correspondence to alleles is also reasonable and often seen. The societal equivalent? I see a societal gene as a particular type of institution, and the alleles are the various attempts to fill that institution. One example might be medical theories of reality. The dominant allele would be mainstream medicine, its measure of success being the cessation of many illnesses, the abolition of smallpox; the subordinate, inferior alleles would be the various competitors, such as chiropractic, homeopathy, and others of even more dubious merit; an up and coming allele would be evidence-based medicine.
But perhaps of more interest is the overt institutions for moral & ethical behavior. Overwhelmingly, but not exclusively, of a religious nature, the various sects of society compete with each other in the area of teaching and perpetuating various moral theories. The high probability that much of the theory is propounded based on myths and imagination has little impact on the success or failure of these alleles, because, as mentioned in the post on Washington’s farewell address, the question is efficacy, not truthfulness.
Our fidelity to moral behavior is often a dictate of our collaborative success, but only if the morality taught results in effective behavior – society & its members survive and prosper. In a sense, a naive approach would suggest that society is a monstrous calculating machine for calculating the most effective morality.
A more seasoned approach would suggest drawing a parallel to the gene causing sickle cell anemia – the behaviors may be effective to greater or lesser extents, but its origins in unverifiable myths, imaginings, and no doubt outright lies, leaves the adherents vulnerable to unscrupulous sect leaders – and with a temperament to trust them when their response should be “Wait, what?” The calculation of effective behaviors vs personal vulnerabilities becomes non-trivial.
So why is this all interesting to me? Mathematicians (I’m not one) can be quite excited when working on isomorphisms. An isomorphism, if I recall the informal definition from Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid (Hofstadter), is a mapping from one domain of values, and a similar mapping back. The excitement comes from realizing that a problem for which no solution is known in one domain may be translated to the other domain, where a solution exists, and the result can be translated back. In similar, if strictly illicit fashion, I’ve roughly shaped an isomorphism between societal facets, if you will, and genes; between societal institutions and the alleles they represent. From that work, we may speculate, given what we know about genes, about how society has evolved: the nature of institutions and, despite insistent nattering on about the eternity of this or that sect, how malleable it has been – and how that has contributed to its survival.
In turn, using lessons derived from the speculations and follow-on research confirming those speculations, we might predict future behaviors of these societal alleles and genes – and replacement institutions which have a more rational basis.
