Biological reasons for Indian social problems

I impressed the Socio sir by telling him a possible biological explanation for social problems in India. Researched a bit, and found that although this is true, there is a counter mechanism, so things are supposed to equalize. The entire thing is not a failure, but it would be futile to follow it any further. This is the thing in its rawest form, the way in which I presented it to the prof.


[paragraph outlining the main aspects of evolution, and describing how evolution functions]

After Darwin proposed this theory of natural selection in his book “origin of species”, he discounted his profound contribution to the spheres of science and philosophy by claiming that once the theory was proposed, “All the labor lies in the application of the theory.” This application is going on till date. Although he wanted to, Darwin was careful about applying his theory of evolution to man, but intellectuals who could read between the lines understood that most of Darwin’s work was aimed at investigating the origin of man in particular, not of species. This created a storm amongst the orthodox believers, and Darwin was not branded a heretic and burnt only because the world was in the age of reason, and Darwin had few, but sufficient followers to keep his theory alive till it was finally accepted in mainstream science.
Nevertheless, this acceptance has been stretched only up to the extent of granting a common origin for all species, and when it comes to man, at the most agreeing to the fact that man descended from ape-like ancestors. However, maybe it is against the dignity of our kind, but we hardly ever look upon ourselves as just another species, forced to the same genetic urges as others. There has been a clear division between man and ALL other organisms for no particular reason.

[paragraph explaining how animals have all the characteristics that have previously been thought of as unique to man]

[The following paragraph will be explained in more detail]
The attitude that man is unique from other animals has created a genetic barrier, and therefore we fail to study ourselves as genetically programmed animals. A genetic approach has been discounted in mainstream sociology. We, as a species, seem to think that something inherent in our genes is an integral part of us, and therefore cannot be corrected. We chose to ignore whatever evidences crop up, showing man to be genetically programmed to be aggressive, commit murder, rape and other such antisocial tendencies. This has had the unfortunate effect of making us look for solutions in the wrong directions. This is roughly analogous to taking an injection for Rabies and pretending that you have gotten rid of Cancer. This article hopes to suggest a new approach to tackle social problems, so that they are tackled better. This article aspires to show that there is a biological reason for glaring social issues, that are incorrectly attributed to the culture of the local society.

[paragraph outlining the extent of the influence of genes on the behavior of man]
Here, the extent of the influence of genes on human behavior will be discussed, with reference to reared-apart twin studies that prove conclusively that people of the same genetic make up raised in contrasting cultures (even across continents) grow up to be similar individuals. The similarity between identical twins is not paranormal, but genetic. One example from the Minnesota twins study would be that of a set of obsessively clean twins, one who claims he got it from his obsessively clean adoptive mother, and the other claiming to have got it because he wanted to counter the ill-effects of his untidy adoptive mother.

[All following paragraphs will be explained in more detail]
First, we must understand and accept the purpose of man in the biological context. In his book, the selfish gene, Richard Dawkins convincingly argues that all animals (indirectly implying the inclusion of man) are merely “vehicles” or “clothes” for their genes. The real players are not we, as individuals, but the genes that shape us. Our only real purpose is to ensure that the genes propagate. That is what life is all about. Life has evolved, and exists, only because the genes continue to propagate through new individuals. We, as individuals are insignificant compared to the long journey through time that our genes have been making, and will continue to make for the foreseeable future. Natural selection ensures that the gene drives us, the individuals, to propagate them. Maximum individual contribution to the gene pool – in other words, begetting the most progeny, and to ensure that they in turn beget the most progeny is the primary purpose of all mankind. From this point of view, certain glaring social problems like the suppression of women, and female infanticide make sense. While not implying such acts to be justified, the fact that this approach will help solve the problem better is the point that is trying to be made.

Gender suppression:
The worth of each female is lesser than the worth of each male in the biological context simply because males can beget more children than females. Females are capable of getting impregnated only twice a month, and once they are impregnated, they cannot contribute to the gene pool for at least ten more months. The Male on the other hand has a glaringly contrasting capability for procreation, with millions of sperm cells existing in each ejaculation.
(Because of this, polygamy, infidelity and such problems emerge, leading to gender suppression)
Amongst animals like lions or gorillas, there is one alpha male and this male is solely responsible for inseminating all the females in the tribe. Lions kill cubs that have no possibility of being their own. Such behavior must have existed in the early evolution of man, and must have survived as a remnant trend of polygamy.

Favoritism for first born.
This also explains why there is favoritism for the first born male All the resources of the parent are concentrated on one child, so that the male child is brought up in such a way so as to have the maximum contribution in the gene pool later on. People, however, continue to propagate well beyond the first child so that it increases their chances of continued propagation of their genes.

Female infanticide
Both parents prefer male children because of the greater reproductive capacity of the male child. This brings about the burning issue of female infanticide. Female infanticide makes sense to both, the mother and the father, as the female child is not likely to procreate s much as a male child. Why should the parents waste their resources on bringing up a female child when the male child can make a much greater contribution to the gene pool, or at least, has the potential to do so? The male child has much better chances of spreading the genes of the parents, and therefore are evolutionarily preferred to female children.

Social stratification
[Marxian, Weberian, and other lesser known models for social stratification briefly discussed]
Evolved from the biological “pecking order” in which all creatures organize themselves into a natural hierarchy.

Also will be covered after further research, but along a similar line of thought
-Seasonal marriages, seasonal customs like festivals and fasts in the Indian culture
-Possibility that culture itself is transferred via genes
-Crime and genes
-Incest and intercousin marriages
-Evolutionary angle to dowry, how girl child is ensured of resources, and it is, in fact, a security
-Casteism (different from stratification)
-Anamolies (Like lower strata has more population)