Response To Mack's Climbing The Ladder of Success

In a recent post, Blogger Mack proposed that economic inequality between classes could be a much bigger hit to a country than we realize. From a review by Pickett and Wilkinson of the book The Spirit Level, Mack quotes, "Though Sweden and Japan have low levels of economic inequality for different reasons - the former redistributes wealth, while in the latter case, the playing field is more level from the start, with a smaller range of incomes - both have relatively low crime rates and happier, healthier citizens."

From a capitalist point of view, one could argue that the individual's ability to grow beyond his or her peers in an upper class is a comforting reminder that they live in a culture that rewards hard work and ingenuity. But at the same time, the jealousy created by divided classes could contribute to the higher crime rates, and less happy, less healthy citizens as compared to countries like Sweden and Japan. When looking back on humans from a long-term anthropological standpoint, both sides of the argument are better understood.

For a long period of growth when humans were tight-knit groups of hunter gatherers, the socioeconomic structure was completely focused around the survival of the group as a whole. And these groups could be anywhere from twenty or thirty individuals up through about a hundred and twenty or thirty people, but rarely more than that. So for a lot of our most recent cultural growth and cognitive evolution, we had been naturally selected to survive best as a tribe - a relatively small group of equals, where everybody knows and trusts each other, and everyone's efforts contribute to the well-being of everybody else. There wasn't really any class system, and because it was successful for such a long period of time, humans became accustomed and happy with this structure. It's the same as people today feeling happy and rewarded when they feel part of a team, an organization, or group of friends that has a collective success. It's that same part of our ancient brains that would rejoice and sing and dance after successful hunt that fed the tribe.

It makes sense then, that a more socioeconomically equal country like Sweden or Japan would foster less crime, and happier and healthier citizens. But the flip side of it all is just as ancient - competition between neighboring tribes. Tribes were constantly inventing new tools and technologies, discovering new resources, and working to exploit these advancements in order to out perform the other tribes around them. Basically, if your tribe figured out a better way to hunt or collect water or something than the tribes around them, they'd ultimately obtain a monopoly on the resource. And this division in socioeconomic power from tribe to tribe, would foster greater potential for survival and success for the tribe on top - prehistoric capitalism. So as we progressed into larger tribes, cultures, and now are a globally connected system of nations, we still fall prey to our ancient tribal qualities. Deciding where you stand between socialism or capitalism is ultimately deciding who is part of your tribe and who is not, and who you feel includes you as part of their tribe and who does not.

Horizontal Evolution

In this article, a team of scientists outline a new theory of horizontal evolution. And it makes us all ask ourselves, what the hell is that? Well the traditional view of genetic evolution through natural selection, which these scientists are calling vertical evolution, falls under the Darwinian view of "survival of the fittest." Essentially, everyone inherits their genes from their parents, and then pass them on to their kids, and whatever genes in whatever organisms help that species survive best will continue to proliferate the gene pool (and vice versa with genes that aren't fit for survival). But these scientists have found evidence of horizontal gene transfer, meaning the inheritance of genes from one organism to another. But they can explain this much better than I can . . .

In the past few years, a host of genome studies have demonstrated that DNA flows readily between the chromosomes of microbes and the external world. Typically around 10 per cent of the genes in many bacterial genomes seem to have been acquired from other organisms in this way, though the proportion can be several times that. So an individual microbe may have access to the genes found in the entire microbial population around it, including those of other microbe species. "It's natural to wonder if the very concept of an organism in isolation is still valid at this level," says Goldenfeld.

No, this does not mean that by making out with someone you can inherit their genes. In fact, it is still very unlikely that organisms as complex as mammals exchange genetic information with each other. But, considering the prevalence of this genetic transfer between small microbes that scientists have discovered, it is not unlikely that much of the early evolution of single-celled organisms billions of years ago was due to horizontal evolution. And now many scientists are wondering if and how small microbes can influence our genetic codes today - could a virus be considered horizontal evolution? A virus is a small microbe, it enters your blood stream, and it takes over host cells to do its bidding (i.e. implants genetic code within the cell containing information to create more of itself and often also proteins that lead to the observable biological effects of the virus). If you think of your cells as other microbes, how different is this process from that described by scientists in the study?

And at what point do you draw the line between a virus and horizontal evolution? If a virus changes you biologically, and your genes are the blueprints for your biology, is the dividing line just a frame of reference? Obviously you're entire genetic code isn't changing, but what about the infected cells? Which makes us go back to the kssing thing, if you get mono from someone, is that horizontal evolution? Is changing your body temperature, decreasing your energy, and inflaming your throat signs of genetic change in many of your cells? If you say "no, you can take medicine and get healthy again," who's to say the medicine isn't just another microbe exchanging genes with those infected cells?

Please don't take me out of context in thinking that I believe we're all constantly evolving with every bacterium we come in contact with, but at the same time don't discount the possibility that we sometimes might. And remember that if this kind of thing is happening, it's likely not with complicated and specialized genes for individual organisms. You can't get a virus that makes you grow more arms, or at least I highly doubt it. The kinds of genetic information exchanged could only be the kinds of information that the microbes contain to begin with - and I doubt there's a virus out there with anything more drastic than the ability to replicate and produce some simple proteins.