THERE is a battle occurring inside each one of us. Our animalistic side is fighting our rational side. We desire to smoke marijuana, but we know it destroys our body. We desire to eat a gallon of ice cream, but we know it makes us nauseous. We desire to have sex, but we know it increases our chance of catching a sexually transmitted disease.
A book released this August by Harvard professor Terry Burnham and UCLA professor Jay Phelan sheds light on this apparent contradiction of the self. "Mean Genes: From Sex to Money to Food, Taming Our Primal Instincts" argues that our genes are still in caveman mode - while the society that surrounds us is of modern design.
Our caveman genes, for example, order us to gorge on fat at the same time that modern society provides easy access to copious amounts of food. As a result, we're driven by two conflicting forces: the desire to gorge and the knowledge that gorging will result in obesity and serious health problems.
What is unique and wonderful about this book, however, is that it is an academic book written to benefit people who only have a superficial understanding of biology, philosophy and economics. The book explains complicated research so that anyone can understand, and offers practical solutions based on that research.
"Writing this book is our way of bringing this information into people's lives," Burnham and Phelan said in an interview with their publisher. (Perseus Publishing, June 5.)
The text does not require a Ph.D. to understand. It is not a system of thought so complicated that its only hope of changing the world is after it has been "translated." It addresses dilemmas that affect any person living in an organic society - as opposed to the run of the mill biological/philosophical/economic tract that focuses solely on elitist concerns and solutions.
Our society would benefit immeasurably if more academic researchers published material aimed at the general public. This is not to say that highly technical, sophisticated ideas should not be pursued. Of course they should.
Only that once a researcher has made a discovery in his field, he should take the time to translate it back into the real world, and point out how his innovation can improve people's lives.
How his idea makes a difference to the humans who are living around him. Some think a complex idea need not change the present world, for it will surely benefit future generations when the rest of humanity catches up with the innovation.
But there are no guarantees that the future will even exist. Brilliant ideas should be explained as soon as they are developed. They should be brought into the world so they can mold the world into a better place to live. As humans, we hold the power to produce, create and change.
By sharing ideas with others, now, and taking the time to see that others can understand the ideas, we can shape the present world into the best possible world. We can make the existing as beautiful as it can be. We do not need to resign ourselves to accepting what is, because we are capable of changing both the world and ourselves.
Burnham and Phelan, who have clearly done extensive and complicated biological/economic and philosophical research, manage to present their work so that it is accessible and relevant. They address 10 categories of interest: debt, fat, drugs, risk, greed, gender, beauty, infidelity, family, friends and foes. These categories are obviously pertinent to every human, and not just humans who hold Ph.D.s.
The solutions they offer are also for this world. Rather than claiming we are doomed to obey our caveman genes or societal dictates, Burnham and Phelan argue, "Along with passions, genes have created willpower and the ability to control behavior consciously."
While Burnham and Phelan do not have a strong view of the will, they do argue that the will has some control. We can decide to pass on the brownie if we so chose.
In times past, human behavior may have been completely determined by animalistic forces, but no longer. We make conscious decisions, and we chose our behavior. We have ultimate control over whether or not we chose to smoke up.
This argument is much more realistic, and accurate, than its converse. Biologists and philosophers who argue, in a defeatist fashion, that the will is a complete slave to deterministic forces, can offer no solutions. They can offer humankind nothing except for the statement that our path is already chosen for us.
As soon as they argue that we can delight in our determinism, they have argued that we have a choice: between delighting and moping. Which should tip them off to the fact that there is an error in their thinking. There's no reason to think our will is an illusion. And there is no reason to think our conscious mind holds all the same properties as the physical world. Because we can choose to fight a bit harder, or work a bit longer, and we can make a difference in other people's lives. To delude ourselves into thinking otherwise is to let go of all we could have done.
More researches should follow the example set by Burnham and Phelan, and translate their complicated ideas into the real world.
(Kelly Sarabyn's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily.)
Read More
ONIBUDO AND SAWAYA: Police, not students, were agents of chaos
By Naima Sawaya and Nathan Onibudo | 2 days agoSaturday, the state, not students nor protesters, brought violence to this campus.
IYER: Sports stadiums should sport more benefit to Virginia residents
By Arjun Iyer | 4 days agoPast stadiums in other states show that Virginia has the potential to succeed at such a construction project, provided that proper measures are undertaken.
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | April 29, 2024The implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
