The Question of Human Nature

The question of human nature has haunted mankind for years: are we born with genetically predisposed characteristics and behaviors, or are we born as blank slates, our characteristics and behaviors to be determined by the culture and environment we are raised in? Though there is no way yet to know for certain whether nature or nurture plays the stronger role in our development, it is currently more widely accepted that "the influences of class and culture far outweigh the weaker predispositions of our genetic constitution" (Gould, Stephen Jay. Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History, p. 237).

Because of the large brain size found in Homo sapiens, which evolved gradually throughout the duration of other hominid species, human beings are "endowed with sufficient logic and memory to substitute non programmed learning for direct specification as the ground of social behavior" (Gould, p. 257). That is to say that while animals are born with certain ingrained behaviors, such as baby chicks that are born already knowing the difference between a chicken hawk and a falcon so that they will recognize their natural predator, human babies are born knowing only how to cry, breathe, and nurse. During the extended childhood, the child will participate in social learning, where many behaviors are learned through observation and imitation of those around them. Just as a young chimp will learn to use a blade of grass to fish for termites (Goodall, Jane. Through a Window: My Thirty Years with the Chimpanzees of Gombe, p. 19) or to do a charging display (p. 44), a young human will learn to speak and share.

Assuming that humans are born with a predisposition toward negative qualities such as aggression, patriarchal male dominance, jealousy, and the like seems like an excuse to avoid change. It is easier to blame genetics than to admit that society is at fault. By blaming genetics for our shortcomings, society avoids admitting responsibility and therefore avoids the need to change, the need to think of methods and programs to implement in order to improve our way of life. "Flexibility may well be the most important determinant of human consciousness" (Gould, p. 257) - our brain's ability to allow us to behave in any way we ultimately desire to behave. It may seem optimistic, but if human beings demonstrate gentleness, cooperation, and kindness more than we demonstrate violence, aggression, and intolerance, then we can change our society into a more peaceful and egalitarian society.

Believing in biological potentiality rather than biological determinism is the only thing that people should believe in, if they want to believe there is any hope for the future of mankind. If the human brain is "capable of the full range of human behaviors and predisposed toward none" (Gould, p. 258), then there is no reason to believe that society is doomed to wipe itself out through detrimental behaviors like war, racism, and sexism. These things are not inherent; they are learned. They can be unlearned also.

For example, what purpose would committing an altruistic act fulfill in terms of Darwinism? The very nature of this act is that it benefits a member of society other than the individual who does it, who sacrifices something of theirs, if only their time, in order to benefit someone else. According to Darwin and the theory of kin selection, "animals evolve behaviors that endanger or sacrifice themselves only if such altruistic acts increase their own genetic potential by benefiting kin" (Gould, p. 263); however, even chimpanzees are known to commit altruistic acts which benefit those who are not their kin. "In chimpanzee societies ... even non related adults frequently share with each other, although they are more likely to do so with relatives and close friends" (Goodall, p. 211). This shows that perhaps altruism is not so much a behavior practiced in order to further genetic potential as it is a behavior that promotes social harmony and unity, because "functioning societies may require reciprocal altruism" (Gould, p. 257).

"Altruism is part of the behavioral repertoire of social animals, so it can be expected to develop much further in intelligent and intensely social animals" (Leakey, Richard. Origins Reconsidered: In Search of What Makes Us Human, p. 350). Therefore, we also constantly see examples in human society which contradict the Darwinian notion of altruism as a means to further genetic potential. Not only do ordinary individuals commit random altruistic acts, but even jobs exist where people, like police officers and fire fighters, consistently risk their lives on a daily basis to help other human beings who are not related to them. Consequently, "if altruism is the cement of stable societies, then human society must be fundamentally outside nature" (Gould, p. 261).

Currently, it seems likely that altruistic acts occur among humans due to cultural reasons: religions which teach that one should treat others as they wish to be treated, the ideals of honor and nobility, or simply because a person has been raised to be a good samaritan. "Our genetic makeup permits a wide range of behaviors ... upbringing, culture, class, status, all the intangibles that we call 'free will' determine how we restrict [those] behaviors from the wide spectrum - extreme altruism to extreme selfishness - that our genes permit" (Gould, p. 266).

Although it may be impossible to answer the question of what exactly determines human nature - be it genetics or environmental and cultural factors - one thing remains certain: if we choose to believe that human nature is biologically determined, then we choose to believe that we can do nothing to alter or improve it either. If we choose to believe instead in biological potentialism - the potential for both good and bad to manifest themselves in human behavior - then we choose to have hope for the future of mankind. "As John Stuart Mill wrote ... 'Of all the vulgar modes of escaping from the consideration of the effect of social and moral influences upon the human mind, the most vulgar is that of attributing the diversities of conduct and character to inherent natural differences'" (Gould, p. 247).