Nature Vs. NurtureFollow

I'm sure you've all wondered this at some point and I thought it would be a good Idea to bring up the subject.For those of you who are Unaware of this common Arguement, It is the Conflict, it is the Arguement of whether it was the way we are treated during life that drives and Motivates us, or simply the way we were born. After having to do a long-winded essay on The famous Naturalist Jack London's The Call of the Wild and the references in the book of Nature Vs. Nurture. I picked Nature; but only to a certain degree. It was my Belief that it was our deepest primordial instincts that drove us to do many actions, but our Conscious mind that gave us a choice of whether or not to take those actions.

My Belief comes from the fear of any one of the two opinion's effect on Modern Society:

A: The Nurture Arguement is proven, and only certain couples are allowed to have and parent children, creating a Society with no Independence from its Government

or

B: The Nature agrguement is proven, and through DNA, scientists could track genes Such as "The Criminal Gene" that the Government could use to put People found with the Gene to be concentrated into certain areas, or even Executed before a Crime is commited.

Well that's my Opinion, what are your thoughts?






Edited, Sun Dec 26 18:13:23 2004 by Nabraben

STFU, Qooz.

Now, on to things that matter. Nature vs. Nurture.

The human animal is a product both of the baser impulses and of their environment. We are both nature and nurture.

Take 1000 children at birth and place them in enclosed environments with no contact with other human beings or each other. Feed them, clothe them, exercise them, educate them all by machine and never let them come into direct contact with another human being. After twenty years of this, have them all face a similar situation and you'll find that you still have 1000 individuals who respond differently from one another. They won't respond to what we consider a society norm, but they'll still be different in their reactions from one another.

So it's pretty easy to say that we are products of both our nature and our environment. The extent of which rules in an individual varies, but always remember this: we are born with our nature; so those who are never nurtured will have only that face to present to the world.

He capitalizes words that are important to his thought processes.

I believe the current scientific theory includes a little bit of both. We, as humans, have certain genes which can be triggered if certain conditions are met. It's sort of like one of those old "Clapper" machines: if you clap, a lightbulb turns on. In this case, the clap is the trigger, and the lightbulb turning on is a gene activating due to the external stimulus. The trigger constitutes the effect of "nurture," and the activation (or "turning on") of the gene, presumably inherited from one's parents, is the effect of "nature."

A real-life example... take someone who has an antisocial disorder. Then say that he/she was abused by his/her peers early in life. Because this person has a gene that triggers the urge to avoid social contact, his/her experiences triggered the gene and he/she now suffers from the disorder. If the person in question didn't have the gene, he/she wouldn't suffer the ill effects of it; and if he/she had the gene and was not abused by his/her peers, the gene would have never triggered and he/she would be socially well-ajusted.

I hope this helps; but more than that, I hope it all makes sense. I'm writing this on only a few hours of sleep, so please forgive any errors. :P

I tend toward the Nurture spectrum of the argument, if for no other reason than that Nature is the excuse that gives most people looking for one, license to act as they please. "I have no choice in the matter! I was just born this way!"

Brrzzzzzzzt!

Wrong answer. Personal responsibility, accountability, and self moderation are the hallmarks of human behavior that is learned. These are the standards to which humans are to strive.

Totem