In the Arugment section, Shenk talks about two individuals:
Da Vinci and Michelangelo. Leonardo Da Vinci was a man of many talents and excelled
in several fields from science to art. Michelangelo was the great sculptor of
his time and for a while lived in Florence along with Da Vinci. Since both of
them were exceptionally great men, with personalities and attitudes to match
that greatness, a tense rivalry existed between the two men. Shenk attributed
the success of these two men to the culture of innovation in Europe during the
12th century. He said that “every
culture must strive to foster values that bring out the best in its people”
(146). Using this and Greek culture, Shenk claimed that what made these
cultures great was the fact that competition was at the center of their
culture.
In evolutionary
biology, we know that competition and the environment is what drives changes in
the gene pool. But competition in nature tends to be for food, shelter, survival,
and reproduction. In modern day society, is Shenk correct to say that
competition is what great societies need? Why or why not? If not, what should
be done to promote a great society? If so, what need to be done to promote
competition? Can cultural changes affect our genetics and gene pool? How? (144-
154)
Alvin Varghese (alvin.varghese@hotmail.com)
According to Shenk’s GxE theory, genes interact with the environment, and I think competition is clearly a part of the “environment” factor. Whether it’s to court a female to reproduce or be the most famous artist in town, competition has always been a part of life. I think for humans, Shenk isn’t incorrect in saying that societies today need competition to advance. This is because even though at one point, humans competed for the same things animals do (food, territory, etc.) when one basic necessity is met there is room to advance in other elements, such as the arts, through more competition. From this point, competition in a society does foster human innovation, creating the “geniuses” we know today such as Leonardo DaVinci or Michaelangelo. All of these great people in society “learn from on another, share with one another, and constantly compare and compete with one another for affection, accomplishment, and resources” (Shenk 146).
ReplyDeleteI don’t think there are specific things one has to do necessarily in order to promote competition because I think societies and cultures naturally provide the setting for competition. During every “age” in history, there is something that a society demands, and as long as people have their basic necessities set, they will strive to make certain accomplishments; this is where “cultural differences matter enormously” (Shenk 146). The Islamic Renaissance sparked advances in agriculture, economics and law while the France Revolution created dramatic changes to cuisine and the U.S. with its education, holds fifteen top-rated universities in the world. Regardless of the kinds of achievements made, a lot of the process involves competition.
We know that agonistic behavior in male vertebrates sometimes lead to “the evolution of alternative male mating behavior and morphology” (Campbell 1137). However, for humans, I don’t think societal/cultural changes can actually affect our genetics or gene pools. For the most part, in modern society, our rivalries are ideological. They can change how we think as people, indicating a paradigm shift, but I don’t think we physically adapt to these changes in any way. Many biologists and social scientists note that in our species, “biological evolution of Homo sapiens was usurped by socio-cultural evolution” (“science & society”). Therefore, I don’t think any amount of cultural competition can really affect our genetics.
http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v9/n1s/full/embor200835.html