Environment or Genes?

This one must have been going on since the second generation of mankind decided to put in an appearance on this earth. Whether the traits displayed by the offspring are genetic (inherited from the parents) or have these been formed and molded by the environment in which the child grows up – the jury is still out on that one. Studies, like studies have a tendency to, have shown all kinds of answer combinations to this one. Some results have suggested genes while some environment and most have shown a combination of both.

I personally have a sneaking suspicion that one day science will prove beyond doubt that everything is inherited and the upbringing only helps to hold back or promote certain traits. And by most traits I mean both physicals traits (tendency to be prone to certain diseases, body fat deposit patterns etc) as well as behavioral traits (aggression, optimism and so on). Now for a moment let us assume that every trait is inherited and go back to the early stages of evolution of mankind in this universe. Now as Darwin says, nature tends to nurture those traits and habits which prolong survival of the species. Hence certain traits have been increasing through out the history of mankind. Initially strength and intelligence were crucial to the survival and propagation of mankind and hence these increased over generations. Gradually intelligence was deemed more important for survival than strength and hence it is no surprise that the brats of today appear more intelligent than their earlier generations (though some may say that it is not a valid comparison considering that the average 10 year old today is exposed to far more than our fore fathers experienced in their life times). However no one argues the fact that intelligence is a far more effective aid to promote quality of life (and life itself) and hence is favored by nature over strength (heard of any pehelwan who has been elected head of State :) – but frail women have attained exalted positions due to sheer mental traits).

Now as mankind evolved, certain people had certain traits which helped them do certain activities better than their peers. For e.g. certain people were stronger and more aggressive and hence proved to be better soldiers while certain other were calmer and wiser which made them good statesmen and rulers. Similar for potters, weavers and myriad other professions. So over a period of time those with traits supporting their particular professions thrived while the weaker ones were wiped away. Back then people must have realized this (not rocket science anyways but pure common sense) and striven to protect and amplify those genes which helped them excel in their chosen professions. I presume this is how the infamous caste system must have snuck into place (agree that this is too simplistic a view but this is broadly speaking).

The caste system, per se, was not a bad idea. The offspring of the strong and aggressive became stronger and braver over generations while the intelligent and wise group became wiser and more intelligent. Blood lines were preserved strictly and inter caste marriages were dealt with firmly. However, the pro caste system group had overlooked two obvious drawbacks. Although strengths were magnified so were weaknesses. The other was that over a period of time it is not possible to prevent men and women from these different groups from falling for each other and mating (yuck choice of word but am trying to keep this scientific). Hence the so called caste system with all its fallacies has been diluted to a large extent.

However it is not possible to totally abolish this phenomenon. Consider the much hyped clan culture in politics. Every newspaper and news channel worth its salt has trumpeted the families rising to prominence in politics (the Nehru Gandhi dynasty, the Karunanidhis and the Marans). All the gory details of patronage to family members have been laid thread bare and reams have been written about it. But is it really unexpected and a bad thing? I do not think so. A seasoned politician has become so because of certain traits which encourage him in his chosen profession of politics (cunning, wily, intelligence and so on). The offspring of this politician is also likely to have inherited these traits, maybe even in stronger doses. And this child has been brought up in an environment where s/he is exposed to the nitty gritties of politics on a daily basis. When this child grows up and wants to join politics s/he is more likely to hit the ground running. Same for offspring’s of film stars (inherited looks, charisma and screen presence) and so on. Hence we should expect to see more and more children joining the profession of their parents and excelling in it which is not a bad thing per se. These children appear to be luckier in the profession of their parents but we should not forget that luck is created by habits which in turn are encouraged by inherited traits.

Nature favors honesty, transparency and all the good things because these traits help in preserving and prolonging the species. Hence, over a period of time these traits are likely to be strengthened and traits which are other wise (bad life styles, dishonesty, violence etc) are likely to weaken their hold over mankind. Hence the future should not be too gloomy. Just keep your fingers crossed and pray that that Darwin was right.