On Lamarkian and Darwinian Inequality: Rethinking social sturctures

Raise children like how monks raise Airbenders — we will achieve Lamarkian equality.

This article was first published in 26 October 2020.
It is made public for the first time here.
It describes hypothetical scenarios.
There is absolutely no intention of implementation of any ideas expressed.

Key Points:

• Two types of inequality are Lamarkian inequality and Darwinian inequality
• Solve Darwinian inequality by gene editing
• Solve Lamarkian inequality by raising our children like how monks raise Airbenders
• The new social structure purges inequality and eternally solves our manpower problems

Explaining Darwinian and Lamarkian Inequality

French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamark formulated the hereditary theory of evolution. He believed that any individual can modify its in-born traits with its own actions throughout its lifetime. He further argued that these characteristics acquired through the lifetime can be passed onto the offspring.

Evidence presented by Charles Darwin disproved this theory (other than the discovery of epigenetics). Darwin presented a much more pessimistic view on the evolutionary theory. He believed that an individual’s fate is decided upon the inherent trait he is born with. An individual born with favorable traits will be more likely to succeed in his respective environment. Darwin’s theory downplays the effects of individual effort and emphasizes our pre-determined phenotypes.

Darwin’s ideas are accepted as “the correct” theory of evolution by the scientific community. And rightfully so. Darwin’s theory has been proven with evidence. It is plausible to think that over millions of years, variations in individual phenotypes would result in shifts in allele frequencies for certain traits.

However, what we see in a complex human society is a hybrid of Lamark’s and Darwin’s theory.

In the following paragraphs, I would attempt to apply Lamark’s and Darwin’s theory of evolution to the context of a modern human society. It is important to note the fundamental difference in that the theory of evolution is applied over millions of years, while human society is measured over generations. While there is a significant timeframe difference, the two theories are still applicable to gain a better understanding of the functioning of the human society.

Singapore’s meritocratic system is built on the belief of the Lamarkian theory. On the surface, Singapore’s education system is blind to your social status, financial situation, etc. etc. The education system evaluates purely on concrete test scores — an indicator of one’s competency in a subject. What this means is that regardless of your starting position in life, if you are willing and able to work hard to improve on your educational competency, if at the point you take the exam, you are more competent than your peers, you will be successful.

Aptitude tests however, are built on Darwinian theory. Aptitude tests aims to measure what an individual is naturally good at. It evaluates one’s in-born strengths. As such, these tests are designed such that there is little one can do prepare for it. For example, the Law National Admissions Test (LNAT) was designed in a way that prior content-knowledge is not required for the test. It tests on specific reasoning and comprehension skills and looks for people who are more inclined towards those aspects. Make no mistake — aptitude tests are also meritocratic, it evaluates purely based on one’s skills and abilities and not one’s social status or background.

Based on Darwinian theory, each individual would naturally be more inclined to a certain profession. A person with good argumentative and reasoning skills will be more suited to become a lawyer. A person with good communication, critical thinking and memory skills will be more suited to become a doctor. A person with excellent hands-on technical skills will be more suited to become a craftsman. A person with good mathematical and analytical thinking skills will be more suited to become an engineer. Perhaps if we could have a worldwide database of every single person’s in-born skills and aptitude, we could then categorize people according to the professions that they would most likely be successful in.

But then we face a problem. Not all professions are paid the same. A lawyer earns more than a craftsman. A person who has in-born traits that sets him up to become a great lawyer will be more wealthy than a person who has in-born traits that sets him up to become a great craftsman. The question is then: How is this fair? How is it fair that some people are born with traits that will set them up to be more financially successful? An individual has no say in the traits that they are born with.

I call this Darwinian inequality. Darwinian inequality stems from two fundamental points:

1. Every individual is born with different strengths and aptitudes, and as a result, are suited for different professions
2. Pay distribution among professions are not equal

The solution to this unfairness, this Darwinian inequality is in fact the belief in the Lamarakian ideas. People want autonomy, people want control of their lives and people reject the fatalistic unfairness presented by the Darwinian theory. Instead, people hang onto the Lamarkian hope — the hope that with hard work, they are able to build on their in-born traits, to turn weaknesses into strengths. Education systems around the world affirms this Lamarkian hope. The education system is designed in a way that, as long as an individual works hard, he would be able to achieve better results. It is not uncommon to hear transformative stories of a struggling student deciding to work hard and then becoming a top student. The education system is largely knowledge-based, not aptitude based. And with hard work, knowledge can be acquired.

The education system promotes individual effort, and with this, it gives people the power to change their lives based on the actions they decide to take in their lifetimes. Hooray! Darwinian inequality is solved!

(Side note: in truth, the educational success depends on the hybrid of individual hard work and in-born aptitudes. Some people who naturally inclined towards a subject can do well without working hard. While others, without that aptitude, would have to work much harder to cover for that shortfall)

Not so fast.

We must first recognize the two fundamental aspects of Lamarkian theory of evolution:

1. With effort, traits can be acquired over one’s lifetime
2. Acquired traits can be passed onto offsprings

Both these points are problematic.

Point 1 — yes the ability to use hard work to impact one’s future provides hope against the pessimistic Darwinian emphasis of in-born traits. However, consider this: “With effort, traits can be acquired over one’s lifetime”, point 1 does not specify whose effort is at play. One’s individual effort is not the only factor at play here. External effort, external forces can also result in the acquisition of individual traits.

We then arrive at the explanation for income inequality and social immobility made by politicians: Individuals with more resources are able to get a head start in life, creating an uneven playing field for individuals with less resources. A person born into wealth will be better equipped to acquire traits. For example, a rich child would have access to the best educational resources, the best teachers etc. In modern times, parents are already arranging for tuition lessons for their child even before they enter Primary school. The poor do not have the luxury of arranging such lessons for their children. Individuals with more resources are able to expedite the acquisition of skills, and hence gain a competitive advantage. This competitive advantage then enables them to secure the highest paying jobs — leading to greater financial success.

Point 2: “Acquired traits can be passed onto offsprings”. After achieving financial success, these financially successful individual will then be able to pass on their wealth to their children. These children will then be able to use the wealth to expedite the acquisitions of traits, gaining a competitive advantage. The cycle continues. It is also important to note that the “passing of traits” is not limited to wealth. A parent which is more well educated, grounded by strong values and moral standing will also be able to pass on these values to their children. This is not to say that the rich have better values or moral standing. The point is that beyond wealth, there are many intangible assets which parents can pass onto their offspring. These “intangible assets” can either be positive or negative. Positive “intangible assets” sets the offspring for a greater chance for financial success. Negative “intangible assets” sets the offspring for a lower chance for financial success.

The question is: How is it fair? How is it fair that some are born into wealth while others are born into poverty? How is it fair that those with more resources (not by their own effort) are in a better position to succeed?

I call this Lamarkian inequality. By solving Darwinian inequality with the Lamarkian hope, we inadvertently create a new evil: Lamarkian inequality.

We now arrive at a position of considering the two evils. Which is worse? Which should we choose over the other?

Well, it seems that for the longest time, policymakers have strived to quell Lamarkian inequality. Bursaries, scholarships, progressive wage system, minimum wage system etc… All these are solutions to symptoms of the problem. Lamarkian and Darwinian inequality are like Ying and Yang. By quelling Lamarkian inequality, you will emphasise Darwinian inequality.

For the longest time, the government has emphasized the importance of pouring more resources to the poor. This ensures that the rich and the poor have equal starting points in life and they have an equal chance to succeed. The government aims to equalize the resources, the opportunities, regardless of social background and social status. But once you equalize all these variables, what then will differentiate an individual from the next? Well, the only thing the government cannot equalize are in-born traits. When all else is equalized, an individual’s in-born aptitudes and strengths will be the key reason why an individual is more successful than another. This is Darwinian inequality. And we can go back to the questions we asked before: How is it fair that some people are born with traits they will set them up to be more financially successful? An individual has no say in the traits that they are born with.

Perhaps the governments around the world believe that Lamarkian inequality is a bigger problem than Darwinian inequality because is a direct result of the educational systems created by humans. Humans are at fault for creating Lamarkian inequality while nature is at fault for creating Darwinian inequality. We can’t blame nature can we? So let’s blame the government.

In a democratic society, governments are elected by the people. If the people blame the Lamarkian inequality, then it makes sense for governments to address Lamarkian inequality. With governments decision to address Lamarkian inequality, it spurs numerous policies in an attempt to reduce the income gap of the people, attempts to equalize opportunities for all.

Perhaps I had just presented a false dichotomy in my above arguments. I refute my earlier point that resolving Lamarkian inequality necessarily leads to the creation of Darwinian inequality. Previously, I argued that by equalizing all opportunities and resources, the only factor leading to success is in-born traits, leading to Darwinian inequality. However, beyond in-born traits, there is another factor at play: hard work. Taking into account hard work and in-born talent, we arrive at a different perspective. Hard work serves as an avenue to balance out Darwinian inequalities. Those who are gifted with without talents that suit societal requirements are unlucky. But they can do something about it. They can work hard to remain competitive. Hard work now becomes a competitive advantage allowing even the talent-lacking to be able to secure higher paying jobs and financial success.

An ideal equitable society contains the following characteristics:

1. Lamarkian equality
2. Darwinian equality
3. Opportunity for hard work

Solving Darwinian Inequality

However, ultimately, “hard work” is just a pacifier for the unfairness of Darwinian inequality. Hard work is not the solution. How is it fair that a person who is more gifted is able to work less and yet achieve the same financial success? The true solution to this Darwinian inequality comes from something more fundamental: genes. In fact, Lee Kuan Yew had tried to address the problem of Darwinian inequality by suggesting selective breeding and promoting eugenics. He started the Social Development Unit, a matchmaking service for highly educated men and women. This was followed by the Graduate Mothers’ Scheme, giving generous tax benefits to educated women if they had children. I quote from the article titled, “Did Mr Lee Kuan Yew create a Singapore in his own image?” written by the Straits Times:

“[Lee Kuan Yew] believed that just as selective breeding produced prize-winning offspring traits in hunting dogs and cattle, so pairing a very smart man with a very smart woman significantly raised the odds of breeding very smart children”

On a more scientific front, the rise of gene editing has provided a more expedient alternative to the arduous process of selective breeding. For example, in the Straits Times article titled: “Chinese parents test DNA to check if kids will become prodigies” shows an example on how specific traits can be identified from one’s genome. I quote Mr Jung, who tested his child’s DNA:

“Originally, I would like her to become a professional like a doctor or lawyer” “But once I looked into the results, it talked about how her memory is so bad. I switched my expectations because if I would like her to become a professional, she needs to study a lot and remember a lot.”

The rise of CRISPR, a method of genome editing indicates that perhaps in a few decades, human traits could be selectively and safety chosen. Maybe then everyone will be equally equipped with the traits that will enable them achieve their hopes and dreams and become whoever they want to be. However, it is important to note that despite recent advances in CRISPR such as the work by Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna for the 2020 Chemistry Nobel Prize, it is still a long way to go before it can be safely used in humans.

With advances in gene technologies, we now see a fundamental solution for Darwinian inequality. But what about Lamarkian inequality? The idea of achieving Lamarkian equality seems impossible. After all, how can we ever put a stop to the wealth transfer from the parents to their offspring? How can we ever prevent parents from giving “intangible assets” to their offspring? The answer is: we can’t. At least in the current societal structure. To achieve true Lamarkian equality, we need a revolution in our social structure, to rethink the process of a child’s upbringing. We need to equitize the upbringing of every child.

Solving Lamarkian Inequality

I propose a new radical social structure. We raise our children like how monks raise Airbenders in the show, “Avatar: The Last Airbender”.

In Avatar: The Last Airbender, Aang (the protagonist)’s parents were never mentioned. All airbending children lived together in a temple owned by monks. The monks raises each airbending child throughout their childhood. A common theory is that after each airbending child is born, the child is passed to the monks. The parents then go about their own personal lives.

By ensuring that every child is brought up in a centralized location, we can ensure that a basic necessities are always provided for, we can ensure a conductive environment for growing up, we can ensure a equal standards for education and the equal passing on “intangible assets” such as values and virtues. Some may argue it is impossible to provide equal educational standard for every child because some teachers are better than others. Well in the digital age, a single teacher can broadcast his lessons to millions and millions of children around the world. Questions and doubts raised by the student can be answered by a common AI machine learning algorithm. With technology, education standards can be equalized.

Some may argue that different people learn better in different ways and having one standardized education system would give a competitive advantage to those who learn better in that environment.

But such a scenario would never happen if we start on the premise that Darwinian equality is achieved. Each child can be genetically engineered to learn well in the environment designed for them.

As these children grow, they would reach a working age. Upon reaching the working age, they will leave these centralized upbringing institutions. Following which, basing completely on their acquired abilities, they will compete for jobs in the corporate world. Harder working individuals would have been able to acquire more skills and abilities throughout his lifetime. Therefore, they rightfully deserve a higher paying job and hence a more comfortable life.

In this system, we would have achieved both Darwinian and Lamarkian equality. All aspects of life would be equalized except for one factor: hard work.

We can even further this system to address the problem of declining fertility rate and the manpower crunch. We can make it a mandatory requirement that all males and females, at the age of 18, to donate a certain amount of sperms and eggs into a centralized bank. Genetic editing and quality control will be conducted to ensure Darwinian equality for all these sperms and eggs.

The Ministry of Manpower will then let these banks know how many new humans needs to be generated. These banks will then fertilize the required number of eggs with the sperms available. Upon fertilization, these embryos will be cultivated in artificial wombs until birth.

This radical new social structure possesses the following characteristics:

1. Babies will be produced from a completely artificial process. The source of the sperm and the egg is anonymous. The concept of “father” and “mother” will be abolished.
2. Upon birth, these children will be sent directly to the centralized upbringing institutions, where standardized and equal upbringing and educational standards are provided.
3. Upon reaching working age, these young workers will venture into the working world and compete for jobs
4. Individuals at working age would not need to worry about family or children (for those concepts will also be completely abolished). Instead, they will dedicate their entire efforts into working and generating value for the economy and ensuring progress for the human race.
5. These individuals will also periodically donate their gametes when required.

Other than the concepts listed, all other societal functions will remain. Entertainment, business, leisure etc. etc. aspects of human life will remain as usual. The free market remains. Individual of working age are free to spend on whatever they want with the money they have earned from their jobs.

Rethinking societal structure, and proposing a radically new societal structure, we solve the problem of inequality and inequity, as well as the problem of manpower shortage. We essentially sacrifice the freedom and liberty for the first 18 years of a person’s life for eternal equality and equity.