The Unlikely Consequences of Genetic Engineering

I was listening to a TED talk: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/gregory_stock_to_upgrade_is_human.html on the car ride home today. Let me summarize before I comment on it.

Biotechnolgy will drive our lives soon. Because of advances in genomics/biotechnology we can unlock our biology and have designer babies, live a long time and do lots of crazy stuff. There will be things we agree with and things we wont. But that does not matter because if people have the power to do something crazy with our genes, it will happen somewhere. (Of course, I'm crudely summarizing a really eloquent, interesting talk. Also, I'm only taking the portions which are relevant to what I'm going to comment on).

People will have tremendous power in the future to alter DNA or manipulate DNA to their own purposes. That's god-like power.

How will we handle it?

The way I see it, humans will have to learn to be tame with power before all of this starts happening. We'll have to depend on people to do the right thing at all times, especially while they hold onto this power. Legislation and enforcement can't solve everything. People have to act on their own in a way that does not negatively affect the community.

The way I see it, genomics isn't the only area in which this matters. We have increasing amounts of control over the courses of our own lives. On the internet you can do whatever you want and say whatever you want. We have the ability to influence others with our dollars, technology and ideas in a way never before possible in human history. Beyond that, in America at least, it seems as if political institutions and policymakers are trying to enable individuals with more and more responsibility. And, political institutions are having more and more difficulty containing the behavior of their respective citizenries. In short, weak individuals are becoming more powerful. Individuals are able to disrupt the community in a really, really powerful way sometimes.

It's clear that we have to tame power in our society--espeically as weaker people become stronger--if we don't many disruptive forces will start to...well, disrupt. Which is great if mroe people are empowered, and there's great benefit to societal disruption (civil rights movement, anti-apartheid, etc.).

But, if individuals are becoming more powerful and able to disrupt, those individuals have to act in a way that preserves the welfare of others, if we don't, we'll slowly (or quickly) destroy ourselves. The way I see it, if we (individually or collectively) have too much hubris, we're doomed. We have so much power, to help ourselves or hurt ourselves. If we don't use that power wisely or are too arrogant to think we're vulnerable to abusing power we're doomed.

But how?

I think it's possible to tame great power, because I see pockets of people who tame their own power...who do the right thing and do not act out of fear but out of virtue. So, I know it's possible. The problem with widespread adoption of humility and virtue is a problem of scale, I think. How do you get large numbers of people to voluntarily do the right thing. How do you get large numbers or people to trust one another and tame their own power?

I had a professor once that would call this ability--the ability to tame ones power and do the right thing--leadership. I would agree, I believe leadership is simple...do the right thing and get others to, too. The army calls it "Be, Know, Do". But I digress, my firm belief in virtue/character-based leadership is a topic for another day.

I dream of the day that leadership will no longer reference an individual, but a group of individuals or larger groups than that, like countries. As in, one might say, not that the United States has leaders or is a leader, but that the the United States is leadership. The sky is blue, the people are leadership...you know, like an adjective.

I know we can do this--tame power. And with what power we will discover in the future...during my lifetime even, we'll have to.

Forgive the poor use of language/grammar...this was a hustle post, I was afraid to lose my thought if I didn't speed on through.

Innovation, Pressure and Leadership

I've been listening to a lot of material about innovation lately. There's one consensus thought: innovation takes discipline. It takes the management of inspiration and persistence, so they say. And, I agree. To be creative--to have good ideas which are valuable in people's lives--is useless if it happens randomly or only in sporadic surges of ideating. Innovation is valuable, if a problem-solver can produce an innovative by recalling a process, instead of just being dependent on unpredictable spurts of creativity. That process takes persistence.

I've also been living in a world where pressure rules. There's never enough time to complete a task in a manner that's comfortable. Everyone works in a hurry because it consumes less resources and prevents opportunities from extinguishing. Also, groups of people seem like they are hardly motivated without pressure.

The problem is, rushing doesn't produce innovation. I suppose it might--because competition might require innovation--but pressure seems unlikely to guarantee truly brilliant innovation because there's no opportunity for experimenting, exploration or risk-taking while under tight deadlines or immense pressure. I suppose innovation MIGHT happen, but in the random, sporadic way. Not the cultivated, systematic way. That cultivated innovation--through discipline--is the kind of innovation I'm after.

So, there are contrary forces here: the need to innovate and the pressures of organization(constraints of time, resources or anti-inspiring missions). So, in a way...maybe it's not typical to lean towards innovation. It's not rational to fly in the face of pressures and constraints. Maybe that's why it takes "leaders" to transform. Maybe that's why it takes the "crazies" to innovate.

I do have quite an admiration for the leadership that entrepreneurs can provide, they relentlessly do what is most difficult. And, those whose creativity lies in creative processes instead of creative talent...those are the people that I'd bet my marbles on.

What was Gandhi's intent?

It's not just the social justice crowd that adheres to or at least proclaims that one must "be the change they wish to see in the world". Lots of people advance this idea. But, I wonder, what exactly did Gandhi mean when he said this?

Most of the idea is simple enough "[blank] the change you wish to see in the world", that's pretty straight forward. But what exactly did he mean when he said "be"? I wonder, what was the nature of this imperative. Was it a suggestion, a compulsion to action or simply a state of mind or spirit to be in? Let me explain.

I think there's two ways to interpret the verb in the quotation. The more common understanding, I suspect, is a call to arms by Gandhi. He meant for us to go out and do things in the world. To live the change we wish to see by performing deeds and actions. He meant for us to focus on our actions, strongly. This is a command of the deepest sort--to be--make agitation and action your existence. He meant for us to transform the world through service.

Or did he?

Did Gandhi put character in front of action in his advice? Perhaps Gandhi, when using the verb "be", deliberately did NOT provide a call to arms and instead urged people at an individual level to live more virtuously. In other words, maybe "be" meant to have more character. His advice could have been to live better more noble lives and change the world by living an example that others could follow.

Surely, many will understandably complain about my analysis because Gandhi obviously meant to do both or his idea could reasonably be extended to include both interpretations. But, his primary motivation is what concerns me because it seems to underpin his philosophy on change...what's in the drivers seat, changing institutions or changing people? Again, a complicated question because the two are symbiotic actors.

Which interpretation would Gandhi advocate for?

I bring this up because of some reading I've been doing--The US Army Leadership Field Manual. The Army believes the following: Be, Know, Do. This roughly means, have character, have competence, combine the two through action. For the Army, the two interpretations outlined above are different ideas (Be and Do). I wonder if Gandhi felt the same way.

Nevertheless, this quote has lost so much value when people recite it. I really believe that motivational speakers and the like say it without thinking really critically about what it means. As I hope to have demonstrated above, it can mean radically different things.

K.I.S.S - Keep it simple, stupid.

I don't know when or where I came across this acronym (K.I.S.S: Keep it simple, stupid), probably in a business book. But it makes a lot of sense.

I suspect that questions about how one should live life, is one that rests on the minds of many. You know, variations on "How to live a meaningful life?" or "What does it mean to be a good person?", all that jazz. Ideas about "figuring out life", you know what forms of expression these ideas take.

I used to think questions like this were pretty complicated, and hard to understand and in turn hard to figure out. But, I'm not so sure anymore. It might be pretty simple. I mean, it's easy to find answers to how to live a good life, it's almost painfully obvious. And, maybe this is easy for someone who has had a privileged upbringing to say...I acknowledge that. But let's assume these for the privileged, even though I think it's still pretty simple regardless of background.

Be nice. Make good friends. Don't lie. Learn. Diet and exercise. Play. Spend time outside. Adhere to the golden rule. Show respect. Don't be too selfish. Work hard. Have a reasonably good attitude. These are only a few examples. The list goes on, but I'm sure it's not too hard too add many many more ideas. We all know how this list goes. It's like fishing in a barrel to list them out.

So, what are the forces that hold people back from living by these simple ideas?

Well it seems like there are 3 things than can happen.

1. Lack of action - Knowing something and doing something are different. In other words, apathy and/or laziness. Simple enough.

2. Aversion to risk - It's hard to be bold, and transforming ones behavior/attitude requires a sufficient amount of risk. In other words, fear holds people back.

3. Pleasure - Some people seem like they over-aggress and take advantage of the folks who keep it simple. For example, why diet and exercise if lyposuction is an option? Why not cheat if you get the same results but can "have fun" with all the time is saved. In other words, hedonism gets in the way.

For the record, I find keeping it simple and doing the "simple things" pleasurable.

I think points 1 and 2 are not a big deal, those are leadership problems. People can be coached through apathy and fear. But, I can't figure out how to deal with the pursuit of pleasure, especially the short-term, less costly pleasures.

Although, I don't think it's "natural" to be hedonistic and pleasure seeking... so, would it really be that hard to coach others out of being scrupulously and viciously utilitarian? I guess I don't see the state of nature exactly as Hobbes did.

Nontheless, hedonism is more difficult because it's not a leadership problem, it's a deeply individual choice I think...something that leadership alone can't intervene in. It requires...as Joey says...for everyone to be "leaders". It requires a culture building and culture changing.

Which get's me to a question that I often consider: what does it take to reform, recreate or reaffirm a culture?

How does one combat hedonism? Or even leverage it for virtue instead of selfishness?