So, I am in the middle of this debate with two friends of mine regarding genetics and the rise of great cultures. They are arguing that genetics, and specifically, genetic superiority trumps all other factors when determining the rise of great cultures. My argument is that genetic variation, which is random(ish), out-weighs the necessarily positive genetic developments for their argument to hold true, and thus that cultural traits such as peaceful religion/strong morality, prudent economic decisions (as a culture), and strong family/social structure is far more determinant of a great culture than genetics. Obviously, genetics plays a role, but in my narrative this role is reduced to random variations amongst individuals rather than a dominating factor in a civilization's success.
However... this article seems to disagree with me.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/08/1-in-200-men-direct-descendants-of-genghis-khan/#.Vk8RQXarTRZ
What say you?
No comments:
Post a Comment