Nature, Nurture, Artificial Impacts and Enhancements: Key Elements Framing Today's More Nuanced Philosophy of Identity
We can no longer ignore the effects of artificial factors on identity, nor can we let artificial factors be seen as invalidating the diversity that they may have, at least partially, "caused"
Before the mid-20th century, typically only “Nature” and “Nurture” were invoked to explain the diversity of humanity— our physical characteristics, personality, behavior patterns and psychology. But now, additionally, we understand that artificial factors (technology) can both damage and, potentially, enhance us.
Artificial harms, mostly mediated by environmental toxins, may damage us, stunt our physical growth and determine whether we carry certain disabilities. Artificial enhancements, such as cosmetic surgery, gender reassignment surgery and envisioned implants like Neuralink’s direct human-to-computer interface, may improve on the genetics that nature dealt us, or at least provide characteristics we feel better about. Science fiction provides an enormous range of ideas for human enhancement from strength and speed implants to chemically-boosted cognition to technologically-boosted senses and perception.
Further complicating the field of possibilities is that one person’s enhancement may be another person’s damage and vice versa— one person’s damage may be another person’s enhancement.
Who we are-- our identity-- is a product of both "how nature made us" (our genetic blueprints, if you will) and impacts the world has had on our developing minds and bodies since before we were born.
Whereas, historically, artificial impacts have mostly been random and harmful— accidents and injuries both physical and chemical— today we also have options to augment or enhance our bodies with implants, steroids, hormones, diet pills and cosmetic surgery. We can also choose to alter our mental and emotional landscapes with drugs of various kinds (some of these drugs are typically seen as enhancements while others are more often considered damaging).
In all cases, we deserve the freedom to live and express our core being as we consciously experience it or as we choose to modify ourselves to be and we deserve to be free from coercion by others or our environment to be something other than what we naturally are and/or choose to be.
There are no easy answers to questions like:
What is one's "birthright" with regard to freedom from toxic damage and the range of choices for self-modification?
What are our (a) inherent, (b) imposed or (c) chosen ways of being in the world and how do we value these three different sources of our defining personal characteristics?
How are we called to honor our lived experience of our own identity in terms of traits that we were “given” by “accident of birth” and that we have chosen to or learned to accept and love? How do such “given” traits compare to our chosen traits that require work to attain? Which traits are we most proud of? Which traits do we most want to be loved for?
How are we obliged to accommodate the natural and/or artificial aspects of others' identities?
This article is an attempt to break-down either-or thinking when it comes to identity traits. When so many questions are really best answered with “both-and” thinking, oversimplification can only lead to polarization and conflict. I will raise a lot of questions that I have no plans to answer anytime soon. I simply want to encourage everyone to live with better and more comprehensive questions, expand the dialog, and see what all of us can learn from it.
Damage or Diversity?
ASD Autism Spectrum Disorder and Neurodiversity
Is increasing incidence of autism an environmental harm or a greater expression of neurodiversity? Is it sometimes one and sometimes the other or is it more typically a complicated combination of both?
Many of us know and love neurodiverse individuals whose ASD traits often show up as gifts— gifts such as the ability to see and describe wonderful possibilities that are all but invisible to neuro-normies. When such gifts become part of what we know and love about a person, part of what they experience and love about themselves, how can it even matter if the “cause” of their differences is natural or artificial?
And, what if a “cure” is discovered or invented that makes it possible to restore (or convert) someone’s neurodiversity to neuronormalcy? Does their difference then become a choice? What about cases where ASD creates more serious hardships for autistic individuals and their caregivers? What about cases where cognition is so impacted that ability to choose in their own best interests is in doubt?
Either-or thinking would have those who see only environmental causes consider ASD as regrettable damage to be “cured” whenever possible and those who see only nature-and-nurture causes may consider ASD as a form of diversity always to be protected and valued. Both perspectives hold truth and uphold strongly-held and important values. Is there, perhaps, a larger perspective that includes the best of both of these viewpoints? Are there other examples of identity traits that also seem to straddle the fence of natural vs. artificial causes?
Endocrine disrupting chemistry and gender dysphoria
In a recent interview, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. expressed concerns about an endocrine disrupting chemical called atrazine which has been observed to completely change the sex of frogs that live in atrazine-contaminated water1. Kennedy openly wondered if endocrine disruptors in the environment might be contributing to a perceived rise in gender dysphoria. As one who has spent most of his adult life working as an environment attorney specializing in water pollution, Kennedy came by this question honestly, but was ill-prepared to frame this observation in a way that wouldn’t be mistaken as a threat to the validity of individual’s gender dysphoria.
As often happens when I dive into a topic to write about it, I happened upon a brief documentary about endocrine disrupting chemicals that I think is so important that I urge everyone to watch it now, before even reading the rest of this article!2 Dr. Shanna Swan, After Skool on Endocrine Disruptors. As Dr. Swan points out, there is a big difference between objective biological reality and sexual preference. We don’t have ways to observe or detect preferences in the animal kingdom, so what we know about biological effects has no known bearing on what we call “preference”. Dr. Swan’s point is that we should not use knowledge about endocrine disruptors in a way that could be dismissive of trans peoples’ lived experience and sense of self. I think it is important to place much more emphasis on that point because it is such a hot button in our current polarized political landscape. This is essential if we wish to have a more comprehensive dialog that includes both protection from environmental harms and protection of personal freedom as core values in our society. It is essential if we week to heal the divisions in our culture by stating our arguments in the context of bigger pictures.
Merchants of Doubt— Cards and Playbooks
In her book “Merchants of Doubt” (and her documentary by the same name), Naomi Oreskes describes patterns of misinformation used by tobacco “scientists” who fought against the smoking-cancer link and how some of them went on to become professional global warming deniers using many of the same disinformation techniques. Suffice it to say that people who generate propaganda for industry have no shame or scruples and will say anything that they believe will be helpful to the bottom lines of their clients. Most predictably, they will deny any harmful effects of their clients’ products for as long as possible.
I am absolutely not saying that this is the motivation for those who are denying a vaccine-autism link or a link between endocrine disrupting chemicals and gender dysphoria. I actually believe the inclination to deny such potential links and champion the causes of neuro- and gender-diversity has emerged organically from advocates for these marginalized groups.
What I am saying is that these conversations aren’t happening in a vacuum and, given the depths that industry propagandists have stooped to in the past, it is only prudent to expect that they are observing this dialog and filing a page away in their playbook that outlines how to abuse concepts of diversity to protect their clients from product liability. If, for example, some future food additive were linked to bipolar disorder, the industry propagandists might find it valuable to paint the environmental scientists’ narrative as intolerant of neuro-diversity and dismissive of bipolar peoples’ gifts and their value to society.
We should simply be aware that such people and such motivations/temptations exist and that such propaganda tactics are likely to be attempted at some point in our lifetimes. We would be wise to be cautious about future claims asserting natural diversity instead of what appears to be evidence of environmental harm, especially if the claims are coming from practitioners working in the public relations industry.
Enter Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Environmental Attorney
In his 30 June 2023 Salon Commentary “RFK Jr.'s anti-vaxx views also reinforce damaging autism stereotypes”, Matthew Rozsa3, presents an example of a narrow viewpoint that can deeply polarize people, exacerbate division and shutdown dialog. In Rozsa’s view, no possibility of vaccines causing autism is admitted, so no debate on that point is tolerated, in spite of the well-documented testimony of a CDC whistleblower in the documentary “VAXXED”4 and other sources that argue for more serious consideration of a possible link. Rozsa’s perspective admits no significant vaccine injuries so there is no reason not to vaccinate and, because vaccines are assumed to be genuinely beneficial, raising doubts about vaccines can only increase vaccine hesitancy and deprive people of the presumed benefits. But, possibly worse than that, the presumedly false contention that vaccines can cause autism gives rise to a characterization of autistic people as vaccine-injured, damaged, less than others instead of examples of the normal diversity of people who are valued as much as their neurotypical counterparts. Vaccine harms are presumed negligible.
In summary, Rozsa leaves no room to question whether any of the vaccines might cause autism, no room to question if autism might sometimes arise from environmental toxins and not genetic causes, no room for vaccine skepticism to be a net benefit and no room for the phenomenon of “overnight autism” reported by thousands of parents within 24 hours of their child receiving the MMR vaccine.
If we are ever to heal the political divide in America, we need to make room for real conversations to occur. Such conversations would have to countenance the possibility of a vaccine-autism link if only for the purpose of discussing it and “putting it to bed”. Such conversations may also have to find a way to embrace both the possibility of environmental toxins as causal factors for ASD, and not impose a stigma of ASD being a “damaged condition”, but rather preserve, fully, the dignity and value that is inherent in the genetic-causes model as well as the equality inherent in the renaming of those with ASD as “neuro-diverse”.
With Dr. Peter Hotez declining an offer of $2.6 million to his favorite charity in exchange for participating in a conversation with Kennedy on Joe Rogan’s podcast, we shouldn’t hold our breath, waiting for the kinds of conversations that are needed.
Robert Kennedy Jr. is, more than any other politician I’ve observed, nuanced in his views. He praises Americans for seeing the tragedy in Ukraine and wanting to help in the fight while, at the same time, he charges that the objective of the war has been hijacked to be used for regime change in Russia instead of merely defending Ukrainians. He asserts that peace could easily be achieved by negotiations if the regime change objective were dropped. On immigration, Kennedy intends to restrict illegal immigration, which sounds good to conservatives, while increasing legal immigration, which sounds good to liberals. He also intends to curb U.S. interventions in South and Latin America to reduce the economic desperation that is a source of pressure to immigrate to the United States. This sounds good to both conservatives and liberals, even as it touches on the taboo subject of U.S. covert operations.
So, when Kennedy talks about a potential link between atrazine and gender dysphoria, it would be unwise to assume that he is also endorsing the kind of transphobia that often seems to be a package deal with internet commentators who focus intently on endocrine disruptors in the environment. Keep listening to Kennedy and it will become clear that he also supports trans rights very much. Nuance can be a liability. Anything that causes it to take more time to explain a candidates’ position can be a liability, but Kennedy isn’t just repeating talking points from “both sides” to try to be everything to everybody— he genuinely gets and appreciates the complexity of the issues and he acknowledges that “both sides” have a piece of the puzzle that, together, make a big picture with realistic solutions that people from most of the political spectrum can unite behind.
So, yes, being nuanced takes time and effort, but I think it’s what America needs now and it’s worth the trouble.
A Philosophy that Transcends the Diversity vs. Damage Paradigm:
First and foremost— everyone deserves the right to live and express who they really are in the world and be accepted and respected as they are. Secondly, our bodies belong to no one but ourselves and we can make choices about how to care for them or improve and enhance them, within the limits of our collective abilities. Thirdly, each individual’s self-determination (maybe that’s a better word than “choice”) is sacred in the spiritual sense, in the political sense and probably in other ways we’ll think of later.
If we learn there is a scientific basis to suppose that a chemical tends to influence an individual’s sense of themselves in a certain way, it is not for us to decide if their sense of self is real or valid. That is a choice or determination for that individual alone to make.
The best analogy I can think of is still problematic (but shouldn’t be). We know, for example, that drugs (chemicals) exist that tend to enable a subjective experience of a divine presence. Sometimes, such psychedelic drugs are called “entheogens” (God-generating). Almost all Westerners take what I consider to be a chauvinistic perspective that such drug-mediated experiences of divinity are not “real” because they were “caused” by a chemical. I consider all such suppositions as no more valid than the supposition that Galileo’s moons of Jupiter were not real because they were “caused” by a telescope. We have no evidence, pro- or con-, that drug-induced (or should I say drug-mediated) visions are real in some transcendent way or unreal in any objective sense. Absent solid case histories of observed consistencies of experiences between multiple observers (which are actually claimed in some disciplines) all we can really say about a drug-mediated vision is that “it is what it is”— nothing more, nothing less.
All of which is just to say that it doesn’t matter if one’s gender identity traits have been influenced by environmental chemicals or not. One gets to choose or determine for themselves if their subjective experience of their gender identity is aligned with the core of their being or not. And, of course, I want to be clear I don’t mean “choice” in the old sense— as if being gay or different in other ways was a conscious choice. I mean choice in a new way that includes the experience of there being no “choice” and no doubt involved— my identity is experienced as who I am or was before I ever started making choices— or how “nature” made me. What I mean is that such a determination is, if not the individual’s “choice”, certainly not the choice of anyone else to impose on them based on their opinions, no matter how “objectively-based” they believe they are.
Even though endocrine disrupting chemicals5 can physically impact the development of our bodies' sexual characterstics, we don’t yet know if some cases of gender dysphoria could be environmentally “caused” while others represent natural diversity that’s typically been discouraged or suppressed by society up until recently. It is possible that individual cases might sometimes be environmental, sometimes natural, and sometimes a little of both. But, in the realm of self-determination, no actual or suspected "cause" has any bearing on the individuals' right to accept or modify their identity as they perceive and define it.
Linking chemicals to inhibited development of male and female reproductive systems doesn't mean that one doesn't honor, respect or value LGBTQ people and their rights. Chemistry doesn't invalidate peoples' emotions, rights, choices, preferences, etc. All of that is still real and valid... and we might want to think about cleaning up the environment too-- not because we assume these are the causes of trans people or that we want to reduce that, but because people have a right to develop without toxins in their environment.
Toward a Philosophy of Identity That’s a Fusion of Nature, Nurture and Artificial Factors
For me, I would propose we begin, philosophically, with the ideas that, firstly, an individual has the right to be conceived in and to develop and grow in an environment free of artificial toxins, to the greatest extent possible, and, secondly, everyone has the right to both express and be accepted as their inner, experienced nature that they feel called to express in the world, as long as such expression doesn't materially harm others. Thirdly, everyone has the right to choose to change-- both to heal past harms and to modify their characteristics to suit their sense of their own way of being in the world provided reasonably safe techniques exist, no others are harmed and informed consent is observed.
I see such a philosophy as taking decades for society to fully process as ethicists, philosophers, doctors, psychologists, legal scholars and others fully explore the nature of identify in an advanced technological society even as technology makes new identity choices possible. Already some suggest that AI might be granted the same legal rights as "natural persons" (I only mention AI briefly in case some readers still doubt that the complexity of the identity questions we are faced with defy all possibility of easy answers for some time to come).
In conclusion, it is my fervent wish that everyone have the patience, wisdom and compassion to work through these questions together with mutual respect and dignity. I believe Robert Kennedy Jr. exemplifies an ideal leader in his ability to seek out and gather the most important information pertaining to all sides of an issue and to integrate that knowledge fairly, utilizing the help of some of the best minds of our times in his quest for optimal policy. His ability and style when it comes to appreciating and working with the complexities of today’s issues are a breath of fresh air, in my opinion.
Syngenta Harassed the Scientist Who Exposed Risks of its Herbicide Atrazine
RFK Jr.'s anti-vaxx views also reinforce damaging autism stereotypes, advocates say , Matthew Rozsa, Salon, 30 Jun 2023, accessed 7 July 2023.
VAXXED: From Cover-up to Catastrophe , 2016 documentary, Andrew Wakefield, Del Bigtree iMDB
We’ve known for over 30 years that endocrine disruptors in our environment are having harmful effects on brains, metabolisms and reproductive systems. Our Stolen Future: Are We Threatening Our Fertility, Intelligence and Survival? A Scientific Detective Story, by Theo Colborn, 1996
Martin, this is a wise and broad view of some of the most contentious issues of our day, and I think your perspective has the potential to pull us together across the partisan divides that (I believe) were intentionally planted by powerful elites whose method is to "divide and conquer".
I'd like to add one more dimension to your already-complex analysis, and that is the issue of socialization. Public education is broadly (not universally) considered to be a good. Education can't be separated from telling a story of the people, how we got here, what are appropriate ways to contribute to the commonwealth, what are acceptable behaviors in personal relationships and in public.
One extreme view (Jainism) is that people are born good and they will naturally behave decently toward one another. Rules and socialization toward those rules are at best unnecessary and at worst a framework that dares us to be as selfish as we can get away with. https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2023/07/law-versus-justice.html#more-236929
Another extreme (Hobbes) is that it is our nature to be selfish and to act in disregard of the harm we might do to others, and that there can be no civilization, indeed no peace, without laying down laws and training young people to obey them. I would say that this latter is the predominant Western tradition, and that its culmination is the philosophy of Edward Bernays, who believed that public attitudes and even public perceptions of what is true should be managed to make inherently selfish individuals into good citizens. Karl Popper might argue that Bernays was just reiterating the conclusion of Plato’s Republic.
Certainly we are shaped by our education and by the media environment in which we entertain and inform ourselves. What we see in the 21st Century is media managed according to the philosophy that manipulating the public with lies and with fear is virtuous so long as it contributes to a smooth-functioning commonweal. Stated this way, this rationale would have few adherents; but, of course, the Powers that Shouldn’t Be are not telling us what they’re doing, they’re just censoring people who support the wrong political candidate or who cite data that make people doubt the global warming narrative or who relate their personal experience with vaccines that might lead others to “hesitancy”.
So, I would like to add to your list of challenges this one: We as a society must decide how we wish to educate our children and how we communicate in public, so as to lay the foundation for a harmonious society while respecting individual rights and encouraging enough dissent to keep us honest and to allow for scientific and social progress.
I’m an evolutionary biologist, so it’s natural for me to see a precedent for this in natural selection, what David Sloan Wilson calls “multilevel selection”. We are evolved to take care of our own needs and those of our families, and also to care about others more broadly. We are heirs to “biophilia” which crosses species boundaries and inspires us to love life in all its forms.
Excellent writing and compassionate analysis of a core source of todays political polarity. I agree with the “both-and” way of thinking and find my own answers to todays debates to be nuanced as you describe. I follow you on Twitter and you are an inspiration as far as responses presented in a civil spirit of genuine communication. My Irish temper (nature lol) interferes sometimes but when I do pause, I often ask myself, how would Martin respond? Please keep up your good work.