On the origin of species

Science tells us that a degree of our behavior is genetically determined. Whether it's coded into the genome, determined by the interaction of our genes and our fetal environment, or determined by the way genes are expressed as we develop science can't say. Science is also at a loss to define how much of our behavior is genetically determined and how much is learned later. We know, for example, that congenitally blind babies know how to smile even though they've never seen a person smile. And congenitally blind adults still use hand gestures when talking even though they've never seen such gestures. Clearly these people are acting on behavior they have not learned.

We even tacitly recognize this idea in our personal lives. Our personal fetishes and taboos have largely been with us since birth. I, for example, never made a conscious choice to be turned on by redheads. Nor can I consciously decide to not be turned on by redheads. It's an urge that has always been there and will be there as long as I draw breath.

If we accept the validity of the hypothesis that some behavior is genetically determined, I think we have to accept a somewhat more radical hypothesis. This is the radical idea that there is not a single human species. If behavior indicates something about your genome then radically different behaviors must indicate differences in the genome. So just like we differentiate between caucasians and occidentals we may have to differentiate between liberals and conservatives or between marxists and capitalists.

Not that I think there's a gene specifically for voting a certain way or similarly minute behaviors. But there is a strong possibility that there is a genetic predisposition to have a mindset which causes you to think in a way that leads you to voting a certain way. And this is why you can never win political debates. You aren't asking your opponent to change his mind. You are asking him to change his genes. Asking a liberal to become conservative is like asking an Asian man to stop squinting or asking a midget to grow. It is beyond the realm of the possible.

So I posit that much of the conflict we see in the world today is the result of interspecies rivalry, not merely a battle of ideas. This conflict cannot be resolved by the means we are accustomed to using since those means typically requires compromise and people cannot compromise their genetics. I think this hypothesis further strengthens the case for absolute individualism. It is impossible to create a system under which so many disparate views can be treated equally. The only way to allow all these views to coexist harmoniously is to remove any hierarchy among them and thereby to let people fully express themselves without coercion. As long as we have a hierarchal system we will have people fighting to put their ideals in control. Because, according to my hypothesis, there is no way we will ever get everybody to agree on a single best way to live.