SPIRITUALITY and RELIGION

 At this time of special holidays, let's consider the role of religion in our lives.  (I have blogged about this two previous times:  September 19th 2012 and July 26th 2022.  Each time included other elements. )

Religion is a way of understanding life that addresses three questions:  What is the origin of life?  How does each human life originate?  And what happens when a life ends?  What is Death?  Although someday, detailed answers for each of these questions may be provided by scientific studies,  the conclusions will be tentative.  All science is about observing what is, and how it changes with time.  The "basic principles" are always expanded and modified.  The place where science and religion intersect is evolution.  This was recognized when Darwin first proposed his theory with the dramatic negative reactions that ensued.  

Evolution says that the process of life is constantly changing to adapt to the surrounding environment, and the selection of these changes occurs by the selection of the gene patterns of the organism.  Many examples are documented in the animal world; changes in behavior are influenced by genetic factors, often termed instincts.  Humans (and perhaps cetaceans) are a puzzle.  The human cerebral cortex has expanded dramatically compared to the rest of the brain,  and it appears to be able to "over ride" some instinctual predetermined patterns.  When we make decisions that do not follow instinctual patterns are the results adaptive?  How do we decide if and when our decisions are consistent with evolutionary adaptation,  and when they lead away from it?  There must be some basic perception of our role in the world and how it unfolds,  and this is typically called spirituality.  Spirituality is the way of perceiving actions or choices that takes into account the broadest adaptive significance of the decision.  

Anyone can have a spiritual perception of life choices,  but most people do not attempt this,  preferring to use the already available guidance provided by the cultural patterns of the society in which they live.  These cultural patterns are often called "religion", or something similar, and include a "moral code" of actions and choices designed to promote the welfare, and evolutionary survival of the group.  But the world changes,  and codes and actions that apply at one time and place may not be useful in another.

From time to time,  individuals arise who propose changes to the choices of behavior in life,  often embedding the changes in justifications of the "divine inspiration" or some other basis.  These are the spiritual leaders,  guides,  and false prophets that challenge the status quo,  and sometimes originate new cultural patterns, "religions".   These spiritual guidelines always address two fundamental issues: how to provide for birthing of new members of the society,  and how to prevent, if possible, the death of other members.  Most religions have an "origin myth" that proposes how life (or human life) first arose.  For centuries,  religions specified little about what happened after life ended,  and sometimes a belief that life continued and required supportive objects in burial was part of the story.  Christianity was notable for formulating a specific connection between the behavior of the current life,  and presumptive rewards or punishments in the future.  Hinduism, with reincarnation, is less clearly defined, supposing that one returns in a life form more or less desirable. 

Religions are modifiable cultural forms that provide relief from the many anxieties of life by offering the presence of a "divine being" who manages the unfolding of life, and a community of support for the common dangers and fears of everyday life.  Or some other form of anxiety reduction.  They are not "true" or "false" in the ordinary sense,  but "effective" or "ineffective" for performing their tasks.

This brings us back to the question of the coming holidays: Are current religious practices effective at supporting those who participate at this time of winter holidays?  Do people feel supported and valued by standing in line to score special gift discounts?  Are youth comforted by comparing their gifts with those of friends?  Do families emphasize social connection when celebrating holidays?  Do they even get together at all?  Does the separation of families magnify the sense of social isolation for many during the holidays?  Have our choices and patterns of celebration departed from the support of the social system and begun to degrade it?  

Each person must answer this question for him or herself.

INTELLIGENCE AND EVOLUTION

Natural selection is the basis of evolution,  a basic tenet of biology.  Natural selection occurs by genetic selection in mating individuals. This theory includes the evolution of the adaptive capacity of "intelligence".  Most investigations of "intelligence" explore how this feature of brain operations developed in the course of primate evolution.   The selection of genomes as "more fit" is not absolute but related to a specific environmental parameters,  and variations in genome are selected to optimize this "fit".  

With the development of more complex behaviors and language, an associated "culture" accompanies humans from generation to generation,  and with the development of writing and more advanced methods of information storage,  it is possible to store and transmit this "culture" for the forsee-able future. "Culture" is not transmitted in the genome,  and the Lamarkian theory that behavior contributes to natural selection is rejected in evolutionary theory.  This leaves the question of whether (and how) "cultural knowledge" contributes to adaptation, and evolution.   Several theories of "cultural evolution" involving "memes" have been proposed.  It is not clear if changes in memes are efficiently selected for adaptive value.  Questions might be raised about whether one economic system is more adaptive because it is more "productive".  Does maximizing "productivity" represent the highest level of adaptive capacity,  or are other variables involved which must also be included?  Is "religion" an adaptive cognitive survival skill?  Given the extensive mass killings, historically associated with religions,  it is unclear how this promotes adaptive survival.  Is the dominance of one religion explained by "survival of the fittest"?

Science would seem to be the area of culture most clearly associated with adaptive value,  and many scientific achievements have contributed to prolonging human life.  But the relationship of science to evolution is growing more complex, and several recent achievements raise troubling questions about how evolution is influenced by scientific achievements.  These include: 1) nuclear weapons and radiation, 2) gene modifications and CRISPR, 3) cloning of organisms,  and 4) AI repurposing of cognitive activity.

Discoveries in the nuclear structure of matter are a prominent achievement of 20th century physics.  Separate from this investigation of basic knowledge,  nuclear fission and fusion reactions can release large amounts of energy, and were studied for use in creating weapons.  These weapons exist, have been used, and are relatively widely distributed in the developed countries.  Their use threatens the genetic integrity of those exposed,  and these genetic effects including later development of various cancers is well documented.  The risk of the widespread uncontrolled use of these weapons is an evolutionary threat, so it makes  sense to manage the control of their use.  Whether this is the current situation is unclear, and no formal system for preventing their unrestricted use exists,  and evidence for individual leaders with a poor reputation for appreciation of consequences who have threatened the use of these weapons raises serious questions.

There is a long history of genetic modification of plants and animals by selective breeding to improve the value of plants for human consumption, and animals as domestic assistance or for food.   This distorts the evolutionary viability of these organisms,  and usually makes the animals dependent on human management for survival.  More subtle genetic modifications are occurring as animals adapt to human urban environments.  Two more dramatic interventions are cloning and CRISPR.  In cloning,  animals (or humans) are reproduced from selected genetic material.  This is the extreme of "eugenics", not breeding for ideal offspring,  but cloning yourself to be the offspring!  The assumption that the clone would be identical to the original person takes into account only the genetic component,  and the role of environmental programming cannot be predicted in the same way and is unlikely to reproduce the same personal configuration.  The danger of cloning is its disregard for recombinant genetic variation.  Cloning an individual is the ultimate narcissistic statement that indicates the person is ideal, and no modifications in their genome are needed.  Cloning of animals (or plants) sometimes occurs in Nature,  but for more complex animals it does not,  as adaptive selection is prevented.  Most troublesome is CRISPR.  The ability to modify plants and animals by introducing genetic material by non-sexual selection methods ENTIRELY BYPASSES EVOLUTION in favor of "scientific" presumptions of better adaptive value.  Its use has been proposed for correcting single locus genome abnormalities in human illnesses,  where somatic cells can be modified,  and also proposed for as yet unachievable interventions in embryos.  The medical application seems humanitarian and does not automatically alter evolution.  But the urge to find genetic material that enhances human capacities,  and insert this to produce "ideal" embryos is a lurking danger.  Here again, bypassing the evolutionary process produces unknown non-evolutionary consequences.

AI is the ability to combine and integrate human cultural production to produce new cultural "products".  Since all human culture bypasses evolutionary selection,  it is not clear how this particular modification poses risk other than more direct cultural interventions.  In a recent opinion, Karp  has compared the development of nuclear technology to AI. (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/25/opinion/karp-palantir-artificial-intelligence.html)  To understand the danger of AI,  one must understand that human cultural products are created by individuals.  Each person receives training from others about basic cultural memes and how to use them to participate in the social system in which he/she is embedded.  The evolutionary impact on culture depends on how cultural elements appeal to and manage the  motivations of individuals.  When this impact is mal-adaptive, the long term result is a contraction, or elimination of the culture.  Economic rewards,  sexual selection, and social support are all linked to appropriate performance of cultural behavior.  (The failure to consistently conform is usually considered "mental illness".) In more complex societies,  bureaucratic entities,  governments, corporations, etc, are given legal existence to have power to enforce and reward cultural performances.  These artificial entities may demand cultural behaviors that are mal-adaptive (that interfere with evolution).  When evolution is effective,  mal-adaptive behavior of these "artificial organisms" results is eventually selected out.   What makes robotics/AI so threatening is the possibility of creating entities that perform actions with a significant level of human intellectual capacity,  but are not regulated by human motivations. What then are they responsive to?  The current fear is that they are responsive to corporations that are not empathic to the needs of the larger society.  This is the (alleged) effect of social media corporations and other technological developments that have emerged in recent years.  But it is unclear if they are disregarding the larger society, or responding to conflicting influences  with different political interests.  (An intelligent governmental response in this country appears to be impossible due to the current technological ignorance of the political leadership.)  The danger of AI is that human intellectual capacities can be mimicked by computational devices that humans will be unable to discriminate from interacting with another human, and so will be unaware of being manipulated by some entity.  The evolutionary extreme would be humans  manipulated to "fall in love with" pornographic AI productions which distract them from human reproduction and materially alter the ability of evolution to influence natural selection.  (How much this already occurs in dating sites is unknown.)

So long as intelligence is closely linked with human motivations in individuals susceptible to social and sexual selection,   it is indirectly influenced by evolution,  including its "cultural" component.  Any intellectual activity that bypasses the evolutionary selection process threatens to alter evolutionary processes with unknown consequences!

TOWARD RESPONSIBLE HUMAN GENOME EDITS

 Are we ready to perform genome edits?  Hynes et al have written a commentary in JAMA 

 Genome editing (link) which discusses this procedure.
See also
Nature series
 Editing ethics

The procedure is in its very early stages but already raises major issues of bioethics.

Enhancement:  "A controversial aspect of genome editing concerns its potential use for modifying physical traits and capacities beyond those typical of adequate health. For example, using somatic genome editing to improve musculature in patients with muscular dystrophy would be considered a restorative treatment, whereas using the same intervention for individuals with no known pathology and average capabilities would be considered “enhancement.” Currently, the potential benefits of applications for enhancement are unlikely to outweigh the risks, and the report recommends that such uses should not be approved at this time. With additional research, risks will probably diminish, and it will become increasingly important to have public engagement and input on howto weigh the purported benefit of any enhancement against risks and to explore the social implications, both real and feared, as governance policies develop."
Science fiction stories about spies with super-powers already clog the media.  And athletics has been plagued by biological manipulations of hormones, etc to improve athletic performance.  The idea of doing this procedure to produce a cadre of warriors or athletes is concerning,  as well as the implication that only some of the edits would be useful and the other manipulated individuals "wasted" with no realistic consent.

 Editing for Treatment or Prevention of Disease or Disability
"A ... potential application of human genome editing involves alteration of germ line cells to prevent serious disease or disability. Germ line editing has been conducted successfully in animals, but major technical issues must be overcome to use this in humans."
Although this procedure seems morally more straightforward,  it is based on the assumption that one or a small number of edits to defective alleles would produce significant change.  Diseases with single locus dominant or recessive features exist but are much rarer than the broad categories of diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, etc that represent the major sources of illness,  and are polygenetic.  This focuses the value on a small number of instances with high cost and challenges.  And it does not address the other potential role of these alleles and how altering them might be detrimental.

"Nonetheless, this line of research is of interest because there are thousands of inherited diseases caused by mutations in single genes. When no other reasonable alternatives are available, editing germ line cells could reduce the burden of disease for a child and allow prospective parents to have genetically related offspring without the risk of transmitting disease-causing mutations to their children. Because germ line editing would result in genetic changes that could be inherited by the next generation, it raises greater concerns about safety, informed consent, and unintended effects. It has also been argued that germ line gene editing crosses an ethical line, and there are concerns about equity of access and the potential effect on individuals with disabilities. Given these technical and societal concerns, the committee concludes that there is need for caution in any move toward germ line editing, but that caution does not mean prohibition."


"Although one day it may be technically safe to use genome editing for enhancement, societies, professional organizations, and governmental agencies still may choose not to approve such applications because they violate certain core principles such as respect for persons, equity, and fairness. Moreover, it is important to emphasize that many of the traits, such as intelligence, that are commonly discussed in the media as potential targets for enhancement, are complex and thus very unlikely to be readily modified by genome editing."

"The report recommends that clinical trials of germ line editing might become permissible but only after
much more research to meet appropriate risk/benefit standards for authorizing such trials.Even then, germline editing should be permitted only for compelling reasons and under strict oversight. In the United States, authorities are currently unable to consider proposals for this clinical research because of a prohibition on use of federal funds by the US Food and Drug Administration to review “research in which a human embryo is intentionally created or modified to include a heritable genetic modification.” Similar prohibitions exist in many other countries. There is a risk that if established bodies are not permitted to regulate this field, it might develop outside societal norms, leading to applications that are not scientifically valid or that violate core ethical principles. The committee defined a set of stringent criteria under which heritable germ line editing might be permissible if US restrictions are lifted
or if countries without legal prohibitions proceed with this line of research.."

While a noble sentiment, this report fails to acknowledge that the economic, military, and political advantage will drive the research despite ethical concerns,  as it drove cloning animals and eventually reportedly a human infant.  This procedure may be added to the list of proliferation of nuclear weapons, "hacking into vital infrastructure systems", "exploitation of outer space", and the other scientific boundaries of development which the earth as a unified political has so far been unable to join together to manage and regulate safely.

"Urging public education and engagement to assess and apply societal values to the risks and benefits of genome editing technologies disregards the powerful drive of money and power to overwhelm public boundaries. For somatic genome editing for treatment of disease, the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee currently provides a forum for public engagement. While the report recommends against using somatic cell editing for enhancement at present, continued transparent and inclusive public engagement and education through multiple forums are needed to assess whether there is evolution of societal views on this issue over time. With respect to heritable germ line editing, broad participation and input by the public, along with ongoing reassessment of both health and societal benefits and risks, should be a precondition for moving any clinical trials forward."

The example of genetically modified foods is an example of the failure of public opinion as a regulatory process.  The development of these foods to enhance potability and ease production has potential value.  The complex risks in the genetic engagement of these altered species with non-altered crops remains unresearched because it has no financial value to the producing companies.  Their only concern is to prevent cross-pollination of their patented crops.  Concerns about the impact of consumption of these products is also speculative.  Short term trials do not indicate immediate negative effects of consumption,  but food is consumed for a lifetime, and so the long term potential of these modifications will only be understood by complex, expensive population studies which will be opposed and hampered whenever possible by the producers until the patents run out.

"The thrust of the report’s recommendations is to maximize the benefits to human health of any applications of genome editing. While heritable germ line editing is currently not feasible and probably will not be for several years, it is possible to foresee paths whereby it may become a realistic possibility. It is incumbent on society to take advantage of the opportunity to promote public engagement on the societal issues to inform regulatory decisions if and when that possibility becomes a reality. The committee’s recommendations on heritable germ line editing constitute a progression from the category of “never” to the category of “maybe, but only if …” but with no applications for enhancement—the goal would be healthy infants, not “designer babies.”"

It is hard to imagine a more naive, unfortunate assessment of the risks and complexities of this profound process, and that it's exploitation will be accelerated unless major world intervention at the level of managing biological or nuclear weapons is arranged.  (We are not so great at managing them either.)