norm wrote:
>i say that humans, like ALL animals, have a genetic endowment that limits
>how we behave.
I think it's silly to reject -- as some leftists do -- the fact that
there's a genetic determinant to the "nature of human nature." The genetic
basis of human nature, however, has a lot of room to move (unlike, say, for
cats, whose behavior seems to be mostly -- though not totally -- programmed
by their genes). That is genetics determine human _potential_. The point
for socialists should be to liberate and to _realize_ that potential, not
to turn people into angels. This should be possible given the way that
humanity has switched to using culture (including technology) as the main
way of surviving and evolving and the many ways in which people's
characters have varied over time and between cultures.
BTW, Albert & Hahnel's QUIET REVOLUTION IN WELFARE ECONOMICS, like all of
their writings that I've read, take the fact that genetics plays a role
very explicitly. These are folks whose politics veers toward anarchism or
utopian socialism. In this, they are like Noam Chomsky, a more explicit
anarchist (he's a self-described "libertarian socialist," isn't he?), who
sees a genetic basis for the abstract grammar that he sees as the basis for
concrete languages that people have.
> further, that social engineers need proceed with caution.
My flavor of socialism has always opposed social engineering -- as a
version of "socialism from above," imposed by what the "Internationale"
terms "condescending saviors." Instead, the emphasis is on working-class
collective self-liberation (with parallel principles applying to other
oppressed groups).
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
