Genetics v. Environment

[el Guapo]

The Human Race? What makes an Einstein, a Martin Luther King, a Tiger Woods versus a Tanya Harding, a John Wayne Gacy or a Roseanne Barr?

After chasing trailers for a few years as the zoning administrator I have developed a few opinions of my own. This subject has been debated by everyone else so why not planners. If we are going to plan for people's lives had we not have a better-deeper undestaning of their potential and possible life paths.

Planning - Applied sociology on a grander scale?

Opine if you will.

 

[NHPlanner]

I've got to think its a bit of both....but to be honest...I haven't a frickin clue.

That...and I'm trying to work, listen to the Red Sox, and keep up with all of you here....my brain is overloaded today!

 

[Chet]

4.6 Million Mullets can't be environmental

"Mulletude" is at least somewhat genetic, but I could be convinced it is learned behavior.

www.mulletsgalore.com

If I get into a serious discussion of my beliefs here, I will likely need to change my name and find a new job...

 

[el Guapo]

That is one funny web site

Good one bTurk! You win the Golden Rockford Files Camero - Web Site of the week!

 

[Downtown]

I believe it is definitely both, but I'm leaning towards the nuture side. I've seen too many people overcome really crappy family situations to think that we're limited by the depth of our gene pool.

 

[Downtown]

Crap. ignore my last post. I'm severely hungry, and just realized it made no sense - I just made an argument for biology. Everyone please ignore me today. Thank god I get to go home in 10. I'll write a real response tomorrow.

kelly

 

[Dan]

If genetics is the issue, is eugenics the solution?

 

[Journeymouse]

Dan Tasman wrote:
If genetics is the issue, is eugenics the solution?

Logically or ethically? I remember 'debating' (i.e. argueing and almost coming to blows) with someone at university about this. What we were specifically talking about was whether a 'Gattaca' approach to having children was acceptable. She said 'no'. I said that provided the genetic material is only from the two parents, human, etc., it was ok as it's just another example of parents trying to ensure a good start for their kids. I don't think everything is defined by one's genetics. But the society/community can only encourage or discourage behaviour.

Is it me or do I sound a bit poncey? Must be because it's the first day back after Easter...

 

[Richi]

Good genetics can overcome poor environment, but an idiot is forever. Just look at your legislature for proof.

 

[Wannaplan?]

To be quite honest with you, these simplistic "either - or" type of questions are quite uninteresting. How intellectually challenging is it to pose such a polemically charged question? (No offense to El Guapo.)

Obviously the answer is "both."

The thing that interests me as I go through life and ponder the big questions is how to avoid a major disability and to prolong my life until death. We're not getting any younger and everyday is a bit closer to oblivion. As a planner constantly dealing with mullets, idiots, and snobs, I have no time to think about their own genetic and environmental destiny. Just get them out of my face as fast as possible, please.

 

[Mastiff]

Hmmmm....

Dan Tasman wrote:
If genetics is the issue, is eugenics the solution?

Is that what they do down in Eugene? I was wondering about that...