Morality is about survival. Morality refers to the behaviors that keep us alive. Behavior has genetic and learned components to it. The basis of this discussion of morality is to examine how humans survive and can survive in a changing world. Change is very dangerous for any specie. The specie would not exist if there was not an ecology that it was adapted to. If the specie changes, it is because its environment has changed and it is never sure that the specie will successfully adapt to those changes.
Human ecology is undergoing massive changes. Our only chance to survive is to adapt both behaviorally and genetically. The unique part of this though, is that humans will have to do much of this adaptation consciously, We will have to make choices. It's hard to say if that makes the changes more or less dangerous. In any case, there are some things that will present far more risks than others. Any changes that relate to reproduction will offer the greatest hazard.
Consider that this thesis is based on a hypothesis that increased population density, such as humans are currently experiencing, along with advancing medical techniques, will fantastically increase the hazard of disease to humanity as a whole. As such, it is suggested that disease is the most important place to use artificial selection to help humans adapt to changes that are coming. This is almost certainly going to be needed for humans to survive and is less of a change than an enhancement. There is likely to be little hazard to that change.
On the other hand, consider changes effecting reproductive behavior.
On the other hand, consider that later.
This essay started as an early discussion of the need for balance in certain human traites, particularly aggressiveness. That is continued below, but a more general case of this situation has shown itself, with perhaps the greatest potential for danger that humans will face from the use of artificial selection. In the case of aggressiveness (as discussed below), if artificial selection were used to increase or decrease the distribution and degree of agressiveness, it could present an incredible hazard. Well, it seems like that is also true for a number of other traites.
Hopefully I am not stepping on toes printing this excerpt from a news service.
Aug. 11, 2004 - WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Procrastinating monkeys were turned into workaholics using a gene treatment to block a key brain compound, U.S. researchers reported. Blocking cells from receiving dopamine made the monkeys work harder at a task -- and they were better at it, too, the U.S. government researchers found. Dr. Barry Richmond and colleagues at the National Institute of Mental Health used a new genetic technique to block the D2 gene. ...
This is not the first report of important behaviors that show a large degree of genetic control, but it is one of the scariest. Happiness, fear, belligerence and many other important traites seem to be largely controlled by genes. This is nothing new. It has been the premise of this book for near 30 years, but to see it not just proven, but so simply and clearly described, shows that the danger is very real. If it was harder to manipulate, we would be less at risk. Instead, it looks like it would be simple to manipulate. If humans mess up those balances for any reason, there will be incredible danger.
Now back to our regularly programmed discussion of the balance and importance of aggression.
Ah. Here it is. I knew there was some aspect of artificial selection that deserved a warning. The first part of this essay is an internal conversation analyzing potential hazards of artificial selection. It is interesting in that a systematic evaluation doesn't spot many. There are some though and they are not hard to find. Human experience reveals them. The hazard is in good intentions. This is about aggressiveness.
The word aggression tends to have one meaning. The word aggressive,
tends to have two. Word games can deceive, but words can also reveal.
The word aggressive can relate to dominance by various means and is
associated with violence, but it is also synonymous with active. In
humans, they are often truly related. Careless artificial selection against
aggressive traits, could have the effect of removing active traits or traits
that could be important for other reasons.
My learning has shown that the most damaging things are often done with the best of intentions and reasons. I could easily envision fashion or good intention causing artificial selection to be used to reduce human aggressiveness. I expect that this could damage the human race enormously, perhaps to the point of risking extinction. If you think I say this casually or without due thought, consider that this entire discussion of morality is about a system described as based on the cooperative system derived from the teachings of Christianity. Uncontrolled aggressiveness would destroy that system, but it seems clear that the moral system can teach humans to control their aggressiveness adequately. If humans were to lose their aggressiveness though, the moral system would fail. The moral system is also based on features of aggressiveness as well as cooperation. This includes organization. There is an interesting balance there that deserves an extensive explanation which I don't currently have time to write, but trust me, it is there.
As a minor, simpler, point and requiring a shorter description, if aggressiveness is reduced, the people that do that will be subject to militarists. That is not the primary reason alluded to above though. It is important though and easily described. If we become by nature timid, like the early Sumarians, inevitably warrior groups will come along to conquer. Then we will repeat the history of the Iron Age.
This discussion of aggression was to look at the hazard of tinkering with a
traite, in this case, a behavioral traite, for fashionable or not strictly
rational reasons. Recent work in biology includes a rapidly growing list of
personality traites and drives that are strongly genetically based. This is
where this hazard lies. Besides other dangers, you could end up creating
overwhelming obcessions and compulsions in people. The key to survival is
almost always going to be for a balance. This is going to be difficult.
Extremes are strategies that often genetically naturally occur, but for humans
to artifically select for most extremes is unlikely to be successful in terms
of survival. That is another degree of artificial selection.
This same need for balance in genetic traites is mentioned elsewhere for
physical traites, specifically height.
Here is one further thought on this topic and it seems important as a general principle.
Much of genetics seems to be an additive process. I love the term ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. It describes that the embryonic development of a creature goes through stages that seem to repeat the evolutionary sequence leading to that specie. We do not lose our past, we build upon it. This seems to be a general genetic principle. I suspect that this is also a psychological and meme principle.
Aggression is such an important aspect of human existence that I spent a great deal of time trying to understand it. To me, the fundamental question is how can a creative person deal with an aggressive person who wants to take what they create. This seems to be a few principles here to consider, deterrence, passivity, understanding and control.
The first issue is control. The question is whether aggressiveness is just a bad thing that would be best removed as a risk with no benefit. The answer seems to be no. As said before, genetic and memetic evolution tends to be additive. If there's a trait with a potential liability to it, then there must be a control added to it. In genetic terms, there are very complicated controls because aggressiveness can become a liability to survival. This is true in memetic terms as well and is easier to see than genetic adaptations. There are many philosophies from history that show how societies regulate aggression so that it does not harm the society, yet its benefits are not lost. In historic terms, it is said that Alexander was the first to make warfare pay by creating the Satraps. War has generally not been about complete destruction (though not always). It has usually been about competition and profits. Obviously warfare cannot be allowed within the society. Also, aggressiveness within the society must be highly regulated.
Another issue is deterrence. It is extremely difficult for a creative person to find a way to deal with an aggressive person. One of the best ways is deterrence. If aggression is costly, the aggressor will be deterred. Aggressiveness is a strategy. It is not a onetime thing. It must be successfully repeated over and over again. If it is done with high risk, onetime it will eventually fail and the result is likely to be catastrophic. As has already been mentioned, in current civilizations, the warriors have had a reproductive advantage for so long, that they are very highly hybridized into most peoples. A large percentage of the creative people are capable of fighting back. Not only that, but philosophically it has become a common understanding that the warriors must be resisted. This is not universal. It is a historical trend. It is reflected in the replacement of the monarchy, something that has vary widely happened recently.
Corresponding to the capability of deterrence are the strategies of understanding and passivity. So how does a creative person deal with an aggressive person? The first thing is that they do not use the strategy of the aggressor. The the aggressor will always be better at it. Not that the creative entity cannot be fighters, they can be great fighters, but even in war strategy of the creative fighter will be different from that of the aggressive fighter. One of the primary strategies that the creative fighter can use is passivity. This is true that many levels within the society all the way up to warfare. Try to take advantage of being able to force the aggressor into taking the first action. This is more likely to work within the society where aggression is regulated than between societies in warfare. Even in warfare it is the best strategy to use (if possible) because having the moral high ground is a very powerful (if not essential) weapon for a creative society.
The other powerful tool for creative person to use in conflict is understanding. A deep understanding or empathy for one's opponent gives one a great ability to deal with the opponent. Understanding is a natural tool of the creative person. It has been said at times that the best way to defeat one's opponent is to love them.