E.O. Wilson on Human Nature.

At the end of one of his great books, Sociobiology: A New Synthesis, E.O. Wilson suggests that the Darwinian rules that govern social behavior in animals may be applied to humans, as well. This suggestion refueled old concerns about genetic determinism and eugenics and ignited a new major controversy. In response, Wilson published On Human Nature to more fully explain the evolution of human social behavior, quieting the controversy to some extent. The book won him his first Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction.

To be honest, On Human Nature does reflect the idea of genetic determinism--that is, the belief that all aspects of human nature are the result of preexisting instructions contained within our genes. Human beings are not special, though we have intelligence, reason, aesthetic appreciation, and other qualities that some claim make us distinctly human. Wilson argues that human beings are simply vessels for carrying our genes, which perpetuate in the world. The goal of the human mind is to survive and reproduce, and reason is one of the tools it uses to do so.

In philosophy, genetic determinism is generally thought of as the opposite of free will. If life is determined by our genes, which program all our behaviors, how can we make our own choices. Wilson responds as follows:

“We have at last come to the key phrase: genetic determinism. On its interpretation depends the entire relation between biology and the social sciences. To those who wish to reject the implications of sociobiology out of hand, it means that development is insect-like, confined to a single channel, running from a given set of genes to the corresponding single predestined pattern of behavior…The channels of human mental development, in contrast, are circuitous and variable. Rather than specify a single trait, human genes prescribe the capacity to develop a certain array of traits. In some categories of behavior, the array is limited and the outcome can be altered only by strenuous training—if ever. In others, the array is vast and the outcome easily influenced.” (55-57)

In short, Wilson argues that genes encode the capacity to learn certain behaviors. For instance, he argues that aggressive behavior is genetically programmed, but the society in which an individual is raised largely determines what type of aggressive behavior, if any, is expressed. The genes do not instruct any one single outcome. And the interactions between genes and the environment are too complex for humans to understand or predict. In this sense, though our genes determine the types of behavior we express, to some extent we still retain free will. Another distinction that Wilson makes here is that the mind of a newborn is not a blank slate (tabula rasa) as many behaviorists would argue. Instead, genes encode a certain set of possible outcomes, which are shaped by the environment.

I do not know if Wilson's depiction of human nature is satisfying--it leaves very little room for the idea that humans exist for a purpose beyond simple biology--but it is nonetheless interesting, and eloquently argued in his prize winning book, On Human Nature.