Genes, Polymorphisms, and the Making of Societies

A Genetic Perspective of the Divergence between East and West (Revised and Extended Edition)

Hippokratis Kiaris

• Publisher: Universal Publishers
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781627343466
• Topic: Biological Sciences
• Subtopic: Genetics & Genomics
• Index: Biological Sciences

Our genes determine to a large extent who we are and why we are different from others. In this book, Hippokratis Kiaris explores how various genetic polymorphisms in different ethnic populations may affect the development of distinct cultures and eventual

PART I

Introduction

Chapter 1

The Concept

The central notion of this book is based on a very simple idea—so simple that it can be considered as self-evident. If the genetic make-up of individuals, affects—if not dictates— their behavior, then shouldn’t this also affect collective decisions and actions, if examined at the level of groups of people that share certain genetic characteristics? Shouldn’t people that are genetically similar among each other exhibit similar trends in their decisions that have affected their culture and history? Such groups of people, with a genetically distinct identity, can be considered entire nations or even what we call races and ethnic groups. No matter how stringent the definition of homogeneity is, especially genetic homogeneity, it is really arbitrary and quantitative. In any case, though, it involves groups of people that genetically are more uniform than other people that belong to other “racial” populations. Therefore, it is conceivable that history, at least the part of it that reflects the outcome of certain decisions and reactions of human individuals, is also affected by the genetic identity of the people involved. In other words, different people would have made different choices that, in turn, would have created a different outcome to their history. If we take this a step even further, then instead of history we can extrapolate to whole cultures, that more collectively can describe the various manifestations of human intelligence and provide the frame at which choices are being made.

These are all applicable at the various levels of organization of such groups, from families in which the genetic relations are so apparent, to the anthropological bands and tribes and races—notwithstanding that there is not a scientific consensus regarding what, exactly, the human races are or how many (Molnar, 2005). This term historically was defined by using a combination of both biological and socio-cultural criteria. Regardless of whether Asian people can be classified into five or fifty groups, whether or not they represent a distinct and single “race” or many different races, it is clear that they are in principle more “identical” among each other and distinct as regards their physical characteristics when compared to European people, and vice versa. This is due to the existence of several features among them that largely reflect (and are reflected to) their genetic identity. Not that all Europeans can pass as Europeans by looking only at their physical appearance, or Asians for Asians. Many cases exist of individuals with intermediate (or mixed) characteristics that point to the fact that there is a continuum in the intensity of these features. Furthermore, it tells that it is not a single or only a few, but rather a combination of several different features that is used to describe different people. Thus, there are abundant grey zones that do not allow drawing strict barriers between distinct populations. In addition, for certain features the geographical localization may be tighter than that of others increasing the complexity of how different “races” are defined.

Quantity, or abundance in one group versus another is the key. Take curly hair for example. Thicker hair is harder to become curly, which explains why Chinese have straight hair. Variations in genes such as FGFR2 and EDAR, which are found more commonly in Europeans than in Chinese, are responsible for this difference (Fugimoto et al., 2009). Of course, Chinese with wavy hair or Europeans with straight hair are not impossible, just not very common. Generally speaking, traits that manifest in lower frequencies in certain groups while they are more common in other groups of people, or features that are stronger in the one group and milder in the other contribute to the differences we recognize today in different populations. This can be due to the occasionally extended interbreeding, the mixing up of genes of diverse populations, that could be intensified during specific historical periods between people of different ethnic groups. It could also be due to the fact that there is not a single genetic characteristic present in all people of the same population and absent from all others. Unless, of course, we are talking about a small, frequently isolated population. Take skin color as an example. Several genes contribute to the color of our skin, hair, and eyes that come in different “versions.” These different versions result in the production of particular pigments at various levels, that in turn, determine our color complex (Sulem et al., 2007). Interestingly enough, Asians and Europeans present these versions at different frequencies, which is why East Asian blue-eyed, blond people are that uncommon (Table 1). Thus, a single (and objective) criterion to classify an individual as a member of a specific race does not exist. It is all a matter of frequencies, ratios, and intensities—but we’ll come back to that later. We’ll see that characteristics, such as the epicanthic fold or the double eyelid, are considered typical for East Asians and are usually accompanied by light skin color.

Table 1. Frequency of alleles determining hair, eye and skin pigmentation in Europeans and East Asians
	Population frequency (%)
	EUR	EAS
rs1805008 C	94	100
rs1540771 C	49	72
rs1042602 C	63	100
rs1393350 A	24	0
rs12896399 T	43	35
rs1667394 T	76	27
rs12821256 C	12	0

At the same time, though, we have also seen individuals that belong to Western populations who have considerably darker-than-average color skin types, accompanied by pronounced double eyelids, characteristics that are considered more “typical” for African and East Asian people respectively. Frequently, notwithstanding not exclusively, in the world of show-biz, such exceptions and deviations from the mainstream characteristics are more common than in the average population, which probably implies the attraction, the appeal these “minority” traits elicit—a fact that possesses apparent implications in providing certain mating advantages!

Notions related to the genetic classification and the eventual categorization of the various “races” emerge when traits are discussed. Those are of course wrong scientifically and are completely outside my intentions. Even when we subsequently describe examples of certain genetic features that superficially may be taken as disadvantages, we have to keep in mind that those should be judged as such only within the certain context that they have appeared and stabilized in a given population. Certain examples point to the fact that even disease-related genes, such as those responsible for the development of sickle cell anemia and Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency, have an eventual role in conferring resistance against infectious diseases. Thus, what can be viewed as a disadvantage in the first instance is certainly an advantage at a different environment. Many more are the cases of genes that, while not responsible per se, can modulate the development or the severity of specific diseases and have a different prevalence among people of different origin.

Obviously, since even in cases that involve pathological conditions the distinction between “harmful” and “beneficial” is not clear-cut, when we talk about behavioral traits, the whole picture becomes even more complicated. It is much more difficult to classify a characteristic as purely advantageous or disadvantageous for the individual that bears it when we focus on characteristics that affect human behavior and personality. For example, novelty-seeking is a behavioral trait related to the tendency for increased risk-taking and exploratory excitability. This trait, historically, might have produced a positive influence in individuals, since it might have facilitated progress and advancement. It is noteworthy to mention that it has also been related, genetically and behaviorally, with increased incidences of drug addiction. Does this remind you of Western people (or people of European descent) and their civilizations? How about the observation that the specific polymorphism that is related to this trait is quite uncommon in Asians?

As we will see in subsequent chapters, recent complex analyses and genetic modeling suggest that these polymorphisms, such as those related to novelty-seeking, are likely associated with the migratory patterns of human populations, providing a direct hint on how genetics might affect the history of certain people. And not co-incidentally, speaking about the migratory pattern of behavior, the easier (or more efficient) adaptation into a new environment is intrinsically linked to novelty-seeking behavior. We will discuss all of these issues in much greater detail in subsequent chapters, along with other analogous traits. Thus, what is positive in a specific view can be negative in another. The level of complexity increases even more by the observation that certain genetic traits, depending on the exact conditions that are being studied, may affect a variety of behavioral trends and patterns, and what we see and record is actually the collective outcome of all these behavioral variables.

Another issue that may arise throughout this book is related to the concept of “free will.” In that sense, genetically speaking, the unavoidable question is this: How free is our will if we are actually hardwired, or at least predisposed, against certain behaviors, choices, and reactions that differ among individuals? Genetics though provide just the frame. How our specific responses will be formulated depends on several other factors as well, that collectively we classify under the wide term of environment. However, no matter what the correct answer may be and whether the actual balance is shifted towards nature or nurture, our only rational option in life, both as individual persons and as members of a larger group or community, is to keep on trying to extract the best out of what we have. Within this context, as individual persons we experience the option for a will that is really free.

Keeping these issues in mind, my whole point is that different people respond or are more likely to respond, differently against similar stimuli, and that these responses are likely more common among people that are more similar genetically. The latter is quite likely to occur with people that belong to a group or population with similar (or more homogenous) genetic imprint. Thus, if against the same stimulus or during an encounter, A people are more possible to elicit a type-K response while B people are likely to elicit a type-L response, then A and B people are likely to take consecutively different decisions through historical time: The A people will repeatedly respond with a K-type response while the B people respond with an L-type response. And, importantly, the genetically similar offspring of these people will continue to make similar decisions whenever they face similar challenges, thus exhibiting an apparent consistency in the building of their culture and norms. These decisions eventually will be reflected in their collective history. If, for example, this K-response is to retreat and negotiate when they deal with offensive actions, while the L-response involves confrontation and “fight back” decisions, then it is quite likely that A people will be less prone to warrior-type cultures than B people. We can also imagine that another genetically regulated trait exists that makes A people more co-operative than B people. It is conceivable in that case to expect that the A people will develop cultures and societies at which their individual members will exhibit increased interdependency than the B people. Thus, their cultures will be more “collective,” when compared to those of the B people, who in turn will have a tendency toward individualistic cultures.

Imagine now, another hypothetical example in which populations consist of a mixture of A and B people at different ratios. Such is the case for all “real” populations in which genes come at different versions. Each has different frequencies in the various groups of people. To properly operate, societies need both leaders and followers, novelty seekers, and those who are reluctant to change. Additionally, they require individuals who relentlessly follow instructions and routines, as well as rebels who do not. Instead, when the entire process becomes dysfunctional, they are the ones who think innovatively and provide resolutions. Kastoriadis (1964)1 suggests this when describing the worker’s role in production of goods but can be readily applied to the operation of the society as a whole as well: “… the worker experiences the absurdity of a system seeking to turn him into an automaton, but obliged to call on his inventiveness and initiative to correct its own mistakes”. However, what are the consequences of having people with these personality traits in different ratios in society? The complexity increases, even more, when we consider that it is actually a combination of traits that produce the outcomes of potential interest.

Of course, the unbiased question is whether such genetically regulated traits exist that can affect those types of cultural and historical decisions. This is a main focus of this book, and we will try to address it as we move forward.

Consistently with these, it is not only the socio-economical environment, the geography, the natural phenomena, the occurrence of certain disasters and diseases or other exogenous factors that have affected and will continue to affect the history of humans, but also the genetic signature of the people. Therefore, in any attempt to explain human history, the genetic profile of the corresponding people should also be taken into consideration, along with the other conventional, exogenous factors. Even if this is not feasible technically as yet, it is rather likely that in the near future and to a certain extent will be. And in that case, we can even go one step further; besides explaining the past, we might also be able to “predict” the future. This may sound like a science-fiction scenario right now, but if we were able to “measure” behavioral tendencies and the genetic structures of given societies, then the prediction of possible outcomes against specific conditions could be made. Since retrospectively we can explain various outcomes of history, then why not be able to predict them? The “complexity” factor is, of course, a chief parameter. Yet, the chaos th...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title
• Full Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• Preface of 1st Edition
• PART I: Introduction
• Chapter 1: The Concept
• Chapter 2: Genes, Polymorphisms, and Genetic Heterogeneity
• Chapter 3: Biological Anthropology and the Distribution of Human Populations As We Know Them Today
• Chapter 4: The Rise of Personal Genomics
• Chapter 5: Greeks versus Chinese: The Prototypic Behaviors
• Chapter 6: Population Trends versus Individual Traits
• PART II: Personality Traits at the Population Level
• Chapter 7: Exploratory Activity and Novelty-Seeking: The Case of Dopamine Receptor D4
• Chapter 8: Serotonin Transporter and the Emergence of Collectivism
• Chapter 9: COMT, Altruism, and the Evolution of the “Warrior versus Worrier” Strategies
• Chapter 10: Leaders and Followers
• Chapter 11: Eastern versus Western Traits Are “En Bloc”
• PART III: Perspectives
• Chapter 12: On the Fluctuations and Oscillations of Behavioral Trends
• Chapter 13: Trends
• Chapter 14: Isaac Asimov’s Psychohistory and the Prediction of History
• Epilogue
• References
• Notes