There's a gene for moods?
Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 12:15 pm
Out of curiosity, I clicked on a link for DNA artwork, and discovered that they seem to have found a gene for moods. I expected that we were probably predispositioned to a particular outlook, but I believe that how you think has a much greater impact than a genetic predisposition. Apparently it has been known for at least 5 years, by the date on this article, that there are certain genetic markers that indicate if stress will lead to depression in that individual... but that isn't entirely true as everyone has a breaking point. Put a person under enough stress and they will snap (snap here referring to different levels of what happens when you go past a certain breaking point - from basic reacting to the stressor [facial expression, words...] to "going postal"), but the points of snapping do seem to lay somewhere in the genes.
Having recently watched Gattaca for the first time (link takes you to hulu.com on the page where you can watch Gattaca for free at this time), I was primed to wonder how much stress it would be ideal for a person to be able to tolerate. If (or should I say when?) we get to the point of genetically selecting pretty much every aspect of a child that we would bear, how much stress would be an ideal tolerance level? The automatic answer probably would be to prime the person for as much stress tolerance as possible. Be cautious of the automatic reaction. It may be that if everything is so tolerable, the person may not be motivated to improve anything. Yes, then one could ask "why improve?" and point to the slavery inherent in the desire for improvement... but if you are not a slave to your own whims, are you not a slave to the whims of Nature?
A more measured response might be to aim for the middle way in all matters, and in this case such that only arousal would be the amount of reaction needed to take care of the situation - need being measured pragmatically. Would seeking a pragmatic response in all cases sufficiently provide for all needs, or would it lead to detrimental complacency?
If one is more tolerant of stress, then one will naturally allow more stressors to build up in one's life, unless something counteracts that tendency. So if one is less tolerant, they might be more motivated to remove more stressors, leading to what one might call a better life.
It might be better to have a population with various amounts of stress tolerance, as we have now, in order to balance desire/progress against complacency/stagnation. If you took the responsibility of genetically programing a member of the next generation, what would you choose?
Having recently watched Gattaca for the first time (link takes you to hulu.com on the page where you can watch Gattaca for free at this time), I was primed to wonder how much stress it would be ideal for a person to be able to tolerate. If (or should I say when?) we get to the point of genetically selecting pretty much every aspect of a child that we would bear, how much stress would be an ideal tolerance level? The automatic answer probably would be to prime the person for as much stress tolerance as possible. Be cautious of the automatic reaction. It may be that if everything is so tolerable, the person may not be motivated to improve anything. Yes, then one could ask "why improve?" and point to the slavery inherent in the desire for improvement... but if you are not a slave to your own whims, are you not a slave to the whims of Nature?
A more measured response might be to aim for the middle way in all matters, and in this case such that only arousal would be the amount of reaction needed to take care of the situation - need being measured pragmatically. Would seeking a pragmatic response in all cases sufficiently provide for all needs, or would it lead to detrimental complacency?
If one is more tolerant of stress, then one will naturally allow more stressors to build up in one's life, unless something counteracts that tendency. So if one is less tolerant, they might be more motivated to remove more stressors, leading to what one might call a better life.
It might be better to have a population with various amounts of stress tolerance, as we have now, in order to balance desire/progress against complacency/stagnation. If you took the responsibility of genetically programing a member of the next generation, what would you choose?