Reply to comment

Since diversity and telescoping levels of complexity are two of many characterizations of biological systems, is it really surprising that struggle with wrapping our minds around all that diversity entails? Some buzzwords that better helped me understand what we mean when we talk about diversity included integration, communication, efficiency, conflict, and value of difference. One troublesome part of talking about diversity seems to be that these words mean very different things when talking about local diversity (a group of cells, an individual organism) and global diversity (culture, society, civilization).

It bothered me that our conversation about how genetics relates to diversity ended so abruptly. I interested me that the class spent a great deal of time continuing to debate whether or not it was alright to get rid of various traits in a population. This outcome would lead to one similar to the NASA conundrum with one homogenous group and one heterogeneous group, one less diverse group and one more diverse group. Clearly, the Dreifus article suggests that the heterogeneous, more diverse (perhaps to a fault, as some would have it?) is more desirable because more things are creative in that circumstance. To me, the class’ ambivalence suggests that many of us were not convinced by the Dreifus article’s argument that higher diversity equals higher productivity and that outcome is always desirable.

This problem, however, readily leads to a train of though that I troubled me. I noticed that many people spent lots of time saying “What if…” and then listing some instance of intentional genetic engineering to create a different, perhaps more resistant, perhaps “better adapted” group of humans. Altering the genetic makeup of a germ cell line is defined as eugenics, no matter whether the intentionality behind it is paternalistic, empathetic, or malicious. This practice has been used in American Appalachia in the 1920s, in Europe during the Holocaust and the Bosnian war, and in Darfur, Sudan, just to name a few. These ponderings are not at all thought experiments. These experiments, a practice of systematic alteration of inherited characteristics, have happened repeatedly throughout the course of time.

I would imagine that we would all have very strong reactions to these named instances, and therefore I can’t help wonder about the seemingly ambivalent nature of the discussion in the classroom. In fact, I repeatedly heard people affirming lines of reasoning that were used to justify these atrocities. Rather than place a blanket judgment that conversations that lead to disturbing conclusions are just wrong, I’m interested in what about our brains enables us to compartmentalize two very similar topics. I’m by no means suggesting that talking about these topics is the same as acting on these topics, but where do you draw the line? Would the people who agreed that getting rid of various kinds of genetic diversity ever actually act on their conclusions? More than anything, this conversation seems to be an interesting study in how humans think. What enables some humans to become passionately, violently moved by hearing accounts of civil rights abuses, but also able to discuss them so emotionlessly, so casually in a classroom? Is it the label of “hard science” or “biology” or “neurology”? Is it the distance? Is it some structural characteristic of to brains? Has this characteristic been named or studied before and I’m just not aware of it?

To switch topics, I’d like to repeat a short anecdote that I alluded to in class. I know that any research on memory suggests that I’m certainly manipulating this memory as I contextualize it and recall it, but I think it still applies to this discussion. Last semester, I participated in a Praxis course called The Sociology of AIDS. I interned at a local underfunded, understaffed AIDS organization in Center City, and most of my colleagues were people who became addicted to heroin at a very young age. None of them went to college, few of them can currently support themselves, and most are living in transient housing. I characterize them by these striking differences instead of their many virtues to illustrate that their perspective has been affected by these experiences, and it isn’t a perspective I hear on this campus at all. As my friends can attest, that course was the most provocative, emotionally draining, difficult, frustrating, and also the most productive, creative, and innovative semester I’ve had at college yet. I share this simply to suggest that there can be some reconciliation between Dreifus’ and Jones’ articles. Yes, conversations between diverse participants can be extraordinarily hard, and bring up lots of uncomfortable feelings (Jones) but they can ultimately lead to a great deal of creativity and productivity (Dreifus).

To switch to a more sweeping assessment of our conversation on diversity, at the root of this all, there’s still this intent focus on efficiency that bothers me. As I think the articles made clear, diversity is not conducive to efficiency. Conversations about diversity can be messy, upsetting, roundabout, repetitious affairs with no concrete outcome except a greater understanding of where another is coming from and how that history affects his or her perception of reality. The idea of efficiency isn’t limited to more traditional takes on diversity, like discussions, forums, and symposia that focus on diversity of race, religion, and class. The example of eugenics is also very much an example of increasing efficiency. If embryos were screened to prevent, say, Schizophrenia, excepting an empathetic, paternalistic motivation, much of the impetus is in the interest of efficiency. The lines of reasoning might be these: that eliminating this brain type would waste fewer resources on ineffective treatments, that it would summarily increase the number of productive people, and conversely reduce the percentage of counterproductive people. I see this idea of efficiency as central to a discussion of diversity since right now, I think that American society tends to stress the importance of both, even though they are often at extreme odds. Why do these two values conflict? Must they? Is this conflict something that emerges from individual brains (personality), or something that emerges from many of them (capitalism)? How does our other discussion about disability relate to new ideas of neurodiversity?