How Free? Well . . .

The four panelists at our last event more or less agreed that humans retain a great deal of free will in the face of genetic determinism. The question is, how much?

Humans can’t fly. Well, they can fly in planes or helicopters or a variety of other machines, but we can’t fly as birds do – just us and the clouds. Alright, that’s so obvious it’s trivial, so why do I bring it up? Because we have no free will over whether we fly. Humans can’t choose. We can’t say, “honey, I think I’ll just wing my way into work today, bypass all that nasty traffic.” We just can’t. Our genes tell us ‘no’.

On the other hand, humans at the grocery store can choose whether to purchase orange juice or apple juice. Our genes don’t really force us to pick one or other. That is, we’re free to choose. Free to pick up the apple, then change our mind, put it down and buy the orange. Your genes don’t interfere.

All of our behavior runs on a spectrum between these two extremes. Our genes most definitely determine some of our behavior while other behavior seems pretty open to free will and individual choice. But even many of those behaviors which generally seem heavily subject to free will still contain limits. Humans have free will over whether to run or walk to the market, but not absolute free will over how fast – some humans have a slight inherited superiority in running speed (remember, everything is genetic, the twin studies prove that). Humans have a range of ability with regards to how fast we run and, though we can train that ability and drastically improve our speed, there are genetic limits.

Another example, intelligence, is also partly inherited (using the term rather loosely to indicate general knowledge, exam scores, aptitude, etc.). Smarter parents tend to have smarter kids. But if smart kids don’t go to school, they still fail the exam.

Hard work and study, a product of our free choice to do so, can lift those of us who weren’t born quite as smart past those who were. But if the smartest kid on the block studies as hard as everyone else, chances are that he/she will score the best on the exam. We’re genetically limited in this way – people can’t be as intelligent as they want. You were born with a potential range of abilities and you can fulfill or ignore those abilities as you wish, but you can’t surpass your inborn potential. No matter how hard I try or how hard I will, I can’t be as smart as Einstein was. And that’s a limit that free will just can’t breach.

So what happens as science begins to uncover these limits? Humans can’t do everything, and there are many things of which some of us are genetically capable and some of us genetically incapable. And here’s the crux: say we perform genetic testing during in-vitro fertilization and discover that one embryo is genetically capable of slightly greater intelligence (not that this embryo necessarily will be of greater intelligence since “traditional” influences and free will have a significant effect, but that it has a greater potential to achieve superior intelligence). All else being equal, are we justified in choosing that embryo over all the others? Or is that discrimination?

Well, which is it? We are free to make this choice, but is it dscrimination of the worst sort or a thoughtful choice to enhance a child’s chances? The consequences of free will demand that we choose, we can’t just leave it to our genetic fate – after all, we’re human, and (mostly) free.

 

 

Eric