The nature vs. nurture issue seems to be making its way around again. Not sure why, perhaps the birthday of Origin of the Species, perhaps someone selling their own book or promoting new research, who knows. I must admit, I can't understand why there's any real discussion and my only thought is that we live in a society where people want everything black and white, ones and zeroes.
Well, sorry, but it's not.
For the record, I'd just like to present a little thought experiment I came up with to show the importance of the two. First a disclaimer: obviously we don't fully understand our developmental biology or how our genes turn into, well, us as people (as opposed to us as snarling bags of vicious, thoughtless flesh). But I believe this thought experiment will still be convincing enough to most, regardless.
Thought Experiment: Nature vs. Nurture
Hypothesis: I exist now, in this time, and who I am is a function of both my biology and my environment.
Experimental goal: separation of nature and nurture to study effects individually
Experiment A (nurture): take another, genetically unique, individual and subject them to as similar as possible environmental factors during development from birth.
Comments: this is essentially the case with fraternal twins of the same sex. Few, if any, claims have ever been made that fraternal twins are too similar to differentiate. Of course, it must be noted that their nature will affect their interpretation of their nurture (i.e. who they are genetically, affects how they interact with their environment). This seems obvious when viewed in this common context and is the point of this experiment.
Experiment B (nature): in a century, clone an individual and raise him/her as normal in that century. Compare that individual with the one living today.
Comments: in this case, the nature is exactly the same, barring any changes that happen as an effect of the environment. It seems obvious that the two individuals will be grossly different. Their knowledge will be vastly different, their health may be different, their relationships will be different. It would be surprising if these two individuals would even recognize each other, in a similar way that the same individual a century in our past would not recognize a contemporary clone.
Given these examples, it seems clear to me that both nature and nurture play a crucial part in determining the individual. The way I usually view it (rightly or wrongly) is that, a person is born with a 'potential range' with regards to each trait. For example, on a scale of 0-->100 person J might be born with a potential snarkiness (I believe the actual term used is 'agreeableness') of 35-->65. Where they end up falling later in life is determined by their experiences during life; everything from the first time their parent yelled at them, to their first kiss, to the country they were born in.
Incidentally, something that seems often to be overlooked: The environment plays a multifaceted role in development. The obvious meaning of 'environment' when spoken of in the context of this argument is in relation to the influence of other people, other minds, or macroscopic events such as accidents, on the individual. However, it is well known that the environment also affects the biology through access to needed resources (minerals, vitamins, food in general) for continued well being, and through the influence of hormones, which can affect us at anything from a genetic to a physiological level (yes, there are hormones that are transcription factors). Although the latter is an idea that has only been resurrected rather recently, it is vaguely Lamarkian in principle (remember that name from high school biology?). Only now, we can imagine an actual mechanism for it, in certain cases.
Edwin
Monday, November 23, 2009
My Sci-Fi Pet Peeves
While doing some research I was recently reminded of some of my personal pet-peeves that creep into science fiction. Some are rare, and others, unfortunately, more common than I'd like.
Humans as sole rulers of the Far Future
This one is one of the common ones, in my opinion, to the genre's detriment. Usually, since setting a story in such an advanced technology and futuristic society is all but impossible, authors generally leave such things as glimpses into the distant future (I'm speaking of billions or trillions of years). And the type of vision that particular peeves me is where humans are the unchallenged rulers of the universe. The book I've most recently read suffering from this (although not the most recently written) is Stephen Baxter's Manifold:Time. While this book had some great, well-developed ideas in it, it also had some doozies, which is why I also feature it in the next peeve (needless to say, between swearing at the book and trying to force myself to pick it up again each day to finish, it took me some time to read).
So, what's my peeve exactly? Well...it's a big universe. Any story that puts mankind as the sole survivor trillions of years in the future seems, to me, at the best to be hopelessly naive, at worst, to be some kind of religious apologeticism. Knowing humanity as we do, we can guess that, at the very least, mankind will make other forms of intelligent life that may go out on their own. We may make AGI also. But moreso, it seems to me to be very short sighted to believe that in billions of galaxies, trillions of stars and likely even more planets, there is only one lifeform in existence (or that will ever be in existence) simply because we, at the beginning of our technological life, have not yet detected others.
Whenever I read such a scene (and thankfully, they are generally only scenes) I have a very difficult time to continue reading the book.
Crazy philosophies as the basis of series sci-fi
This one, fortunately, is less common (strange as that might sound for science fiction). I guess what I mean here, as with the last peeve, is that in serious (read: hard) science fiction, ideas that I believe to be in error take me completely out of the story.
Once again, Manifold:Time has to win the prize for most obvious example from a quality author that I've read. The issue here is the use of the Carter Catastrophe. In Baxter's defense, he didn't invent it, he just used it in the story. Instead of wasting a lot of space and wearing out my fingers writing it, I'll just include the Wikipedia link here. Essentially, what it amounts to is pseudo-scientific (or even creationist) eschatology masquerading as reason.
Why?
Because it relies on (1) the idea that you, me, or anyone else, has an equal probability of being born at any time during the existence of humanity, and therefore, statistically we will be born near the end of race (because more people are alive at that time than ever before) and (2) the idea that we will never leave the planet (and hence our population will be capped at a relatively low number). Sounds reasonable to you, you think? Well, you might want to consider these ideas:
(1) My biggest argument is that this hypothesis is from a physicist/mathematician and, while math doesn't lie, it can be grossly mislead by incorrect assumptions. In this case, the incorrect assumption that we have an equally probable chance of being born at anytime in the human timeline. Carter may be correct is assuming the Copernican Principle (that the human race is not special in the universe) but individual humans are special, at least in one important way. We are unique in mind and body (or at least, almost unique in body).
Any given individual alive today is the result of a unique and highly improbable sequence of genetic combinations combined with the environmental factors that influenced their development. Thus you, me, your best friend or worst enemy, could only have lived at the time they did. It's worth repeating that because of it's importance. Any human that has ever lived could only ever have lived when they did. There is no probability that I was born now versus two hundred years ago. The only consideration is that I was either born now (1970) or never. I also had to have been born to my parents. Any other combination of parents and the child would not have been me. I call this the Bio-historical Rebuttal.
Many may not like the deterministic, undoubtedly non-religious, view of it but lets face facts, even your identical twin is not you and that's as close as one can come. Your unique biology and environmental factors, combined with the random fluctuations in your brain that made you choose A from B and time J can never be duplicated. Therefore, you are unique in the history of humanity--in the history of the universe--and there is no probability that you were born now versus then.
(2) If humanity doesn't leave the planet, then clearly the Carter Catastrophe may have been right (it may get lucky in 2029 anyway, but that has nothing to do with the principles of the Carter Catastrophe). If we don't leave the planet then we will, eventually, exhaust all it's resources. However, and this is only personal opinion, I happen to believe that eventually (within the next century, surely) the majority of the population will come to understand that the future is extraterrestrial. In fact, the only future is extraterrestrial. That will be the point when humanity's existence really begins. As we move out into the galaxy our population will swell immensely, completely washing out the CC doomsday predictions.
So, those are two of my science fiction pet peeves. As always, I'm happy, and more than a little interested, to read any comments.
Edwin
Humans as sole rulers of the Far Future
This one is one of the common ones, in my opinion, to the genre's detriment. Usually, since setting a story in such an advanced technology and futuristic society is all but impossible, authors generally leave such things as glimpses into the distant future (I'm speaking of billions or trillions of years). And the type of vision that particular peeves me is where humans are the unchallenged rulers of the universe. The book I've most recently read suffering from this (although not the most recently written) is Stephen Baxter's Manifold:Time. While this book had some great, well-developed ideas in it, it also had some doozies, which is why I also feature it in the next peeve (needless to say, between swearing at the book and trying to force myself to pick it up again each day to finish, it took me some time to read).
So, what's my peeve exactly? Well...it's a big universe. Any story that puts mankind as the sole survivor trillions of years in the future seems, to me, at the best to be hopelessly naive, at worst, to be some kind of religious apologeticism. Knowing humanity as we do, we can guess that, at the very least, mankind will make other forms of intelligent life that may go out on their own. We may make AGI also. But moreso, it seems to me to be very short sighted to believe that in billions of galaxies, trillions of stars and likely even more planets, there is only one lifeform in existence (or that will ever be in existence) simply because we, at the beginning of our technological life, have not yet detected others.
Whenever I read such a scene (and thankfully, they are generally only scenes) I have a very difficult time to continue reading the book.
Crazy philosophies as the basis of series sci-fi
This one, fortunately, is less common (strange as that might sound for science fiction). I guess what I mean here, as with the last peeve, is that in serious (read: hard) science fiction, ideas that I believe to be in error take me completely out of the story.
Once again, Manifold:Time has to win the prize for most obvious example from a quality author that I've read. The issue here is the use of the Carter Catastrophe. In Baxter's defense, he didn't invent it, he just used it in the story. Instead of wasting a lot of space and wearing out my fingers writing it, I'll just include the Wikipedia link here. Essentially, what it amounts to is pseudo-scientific (or even creationist) eschatology masquerading as reason.
Why?
Because it relies on (1) the idea that you, me, or anyone else, has an equal probability of being born at any time during the existence of humanity, and therefore, statistically we will be born near the end of race (because more people are alive at that time than ever before) and (2) the idea that we will never leave the planet (and hence our population will be capped at a relatively low number). Sounds reasonable to you, you think? Well, you might want to consider these ideas:
(1) My biggest argument is that this hypothesis is from a physicist/mathematician and, while math doesn't lie, it can be grossly mislead by incorrect assumptions. In this case, the incorrect assumption that we have an equally probable chance of being born at anytime in the human timeline. Carter may be correct is assuming the Copernican Principle (that the human race is not special in the universe) but individual humans are special, at least in one important way. We are unique in mind and body (or at least, almost unique in body).
Any given individual alive today is the result of a unique and highly improbable sequence of genetic combinations combined with the environmental factors that influenced their development. Thus you, me, your best friend or worst enemy, could only have lived at the time they did. It's worth repeating that because of it's importance. Any human that has ever lived could only ever have lived when they did. There is no probability that I was born now versus two hundred years ago. The only consideration is that I was either born now (1970) or never. I also had to have been born to my parents. Any other combination of parents and the child would not have been me. I call this the Bio-historical Rebuttal.
Many may not like the deterministic, undoubtedly non-religious, view of it but lets face facts, even your identical twin is not you and that's as close as one can come. Your unique biology and environmental factors, combined with the random fluctuations in your brain that made you choose A from B and time J can never be duplicated. Therefore, you are unique in the history of humanity--in the history of the universe--and there is no probability that you were born now versus then.
(2) If humanity doesn't leave the planet, then clearly the Carter Catastrophe may have been right (it may get lucky in 2029 anyway, but that has nothing to do with the principles of the Carter Catastrophe). If we don't leave the planet then we will, eventually, exhaust all it's resources. However, and this is only personal opinion, I happen to believe that eventually (within the next century, surely) the majority of the population will come to understand that the future is extraterrestrial. In fact, the only future is extraterrestrial. That will be the point when humanity's existence really begins. As we move out into the galaxy our population will swell immensely, completely washing out the CC doomsday predictions.
So, those are two of my science fiction pet peeves. As always, I'm happy, and more than a little interested, to read any comments.
Edwin
Monday, November 16, 2009
Novacon39 Art
Just back from Novacon39. It felt a little different than the other cons I've been to, slower, more relaxed (although just as much drinking). It was held at the Park Inn in Nottingham, a first for both hotel and con.
I was pleasantly surprised with the hotel. Friendly staff, comfortable rooms (and a decent sized single) despite being reasonably priced. They also had some nice food--an especially enjoyable macaroni and cheese for dinner Saturday.
However, the highlight for me (apart from seeing the guest of honour, Justina Robson) was the art show. My first exhibit of any kind and it was an experience. Of the good kind. I learned alot about what type of art people find interesting at these conventions, and some practical issues like different ideas for framing that can save money. And...I managed to sell two pieces. Alien Seaside (my twitter background) was sold as a canvas print and Alone (on my digital art page) as a clip-framed photo (10x7). Both went for the minimum asking price at the auction, but I still look at it as a good start. I'll try and take what I've learned from this convention and apply it to Eastercon in April.
Edwin
I was pleasantly surprised with the hotel. Friendly staff, comfortable rooms (and a decent sized single) despite being reasonably priced. They also had some nice food--an especially enjoyable macaroni and cheese for dinner Saturday.
However, the highlight for me (apart from seeing the guest of honour, Justina Robson) was the art show. My first exhibit of any kind and it was an experience. Of the good kind. I learned alot about what type of art people find interesting at these conventions, and some practical issues like different ideas for framing that can save money. And...I managed to sell two pieces. Alien Seaside (my twitter background) was sold as a canvas print and Alone (on my digital art page) as a clip-framed photo (10x7). Both went for the minimum asking price at the auction, but I still look at it as a good start. I'll try and take what I've learned from this convention and apply it to Eastercon in April.
Edwin
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Novacon39 and NaNoWriMo
Friday I'm off to Novacon 39 in Nottingham, yet another reason why my NaNoWriMo is going virtually nowhere. I'm sitting on 9k right now; my natural slow writing combined with higher than usual writing cobwebs from being almost idle the last two years, combined with preparations for the convention (preparing artwork to bring), finishing up the Assassins' Canon anthology and house hunting (the legal work is underway now!) has meant that my likely hood of making 50k is almost zero. However, if I can push myself to the 30k mark I'll still be happy as that'll be 1/3 of the book done (and, hopefully, much of the hard work will have been sorted in the process).
Anyway, regarding Novacon39: it's my first Novacon and, while each sci-fi con is similar, so far they all seem to have their own quirks as well. In addition, this will be the first one that I will be exhibiting some of my artwork and I'm very interested to see what feedback I might get. There will also be a few authors there including the guest of honour Justina Robson and I'm looking forward to meeting as many as I can.
Anyway, regarding Novacon39: it's my first Novacon and, while each sci-fi con is similar, so far they all seem to have their own quirks as well. In addition, this will be the first one that I will be exhibiting some of my artwork and I'm very interested to see what feedback I might get. There will also be a few authors there including the guest of honour Justina Robson and I'm looking forward to meeting as many as I can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)