A gene, meme or arts spot for fiction
Dr Dean Hamer, director of gene structure and regulation unit at U.S.
National Cancer Institute, wrote a book about the 'God Gene', trying to
identify a gene responsible for religious beliefs. He was attacked by
Barbara J King, Professor of Anthropology, University of Oklahoma, who
said that "Hamer needs to find a gene for recognizing fiction
masquerading as science". This made me think that there could be a gene
responsible for fiction and other works of art.
Could there be different genes in the human constitution, enabling
some people to create fiction, others to paint or compose music? Or
could there be an Arts Spot in the brain? After all scientists like
Vilayanur Ramachandran from the University of California, San Diego have
been searching for a 'God Spot' in the brain which controls religious
faith. If so why not an Arts Spot?
On the subject of music, David Huron, Professor of Music, Ohio State
University, suggests that a "Music Gene" would have in existed very
early in the history of mankind, as the oldest known musical instrument
the "Divje baby flute", carved out of a bone, is 40,000 years old.
The thirst for knowledge and to find explanations for anything and
everything is a part of human nature, which is probably the influence of
another gene. Only some of this knowledge is useful to mankind, while
some can be used to harm ourselves and others.
The US government ran a Human Genome Project (HGP), to identify the
20,000 to 25,000 genes in human DNA, spending US$ 2.7 billion. Genes
hold the information to build and maintain the cells in our bodies and
pass genetic traits to our children. The HGP study poses many questions,
due to the threat of misuse or exploitation of the data gathered. One of
the goals of the HGP is to transfer "related technologies" to the
private sector. What if a scientist or a business organization patents
the creativity gene, and what if they claim royalty or patent rights for
any novel, a painting or a song created by a person carrying this gene?
Currently over three million genome-related patent applications have
been filed.
At the same time other scientists are trying to map the brain, to
find which part of the brain is responsible for each action or emotion.
Neuroesthetics is a new term coined in 2002 for the scientific study of
the neural bases for the contemplation and creation of a work of art.
University of Arizona neuroscientist Charles Higgins says "the idea
of monitoring and influencing consciousness with a physical neural
interphase is the most plausible". He was commenting on the sci-fi
thriller, 'Source Code', where a computer program enables one person to
cross over into another man's mind. There is on-going research to
develop equipment for mind reading. This could enable someone to steal a
new creative idea from an artiste and get away with it, because the
victim would not be able to establish a claim.
Man is developing technology to enable the human brain to control his
computers and his machines. He would soon be able to communicate on
social networks like twitter or facebook, directly by the brain. This
technology perhaps could be used by others, to hack into the human
brain, like they hack into computer systems today. Then the hackers
could take over our brains and our lives.
If genes are not responsible for creative works of fiction, art or
music, then perhaps 'Memes' are responsible. Richard Dawkins used the
term 'Meme' in his 1976 book 'The Selfish Gene', to mean a contagious
information pattern that replicates by symbiotically infecting human
minds and altering their behavior, causing them to propagate the
pattern. Meme Central defines the meme as "the basic building blocks of
our minds and culture, in the same way that genes are the basic building
blocks of biological life." Genes leap from body to body, while memes
leap from brain to brain.
According to Liane M Gabora, a research fellow at UCLA, memes, unlike
genes, do not come packaged with instructions for replication. The brain
plays with the memes, suggesting that creativity is strategic - not
random. All these developments bring up a horrifying vision that in the
very near future artistic creativity will be monitored and controlled by
scientists, and their instruments, in their laboratories. Whether they
are called Memes or Genes or Spots in the brain, scientists are trying
to interfere with nature and with human freedom, in the name of
progress.
If we can Genetically Modify plants today, there is no doubt that
scientists in the near future could Genetically Modify human beings too.
( a genetically modified human embryo has already been created by
researchers at Cornell in 2007, which they claim was destroyed after a
few days). They could soon be making military personnel to fight our
wars, and cricketers to win our matches. Further manipulation could make
the human being to be pre-programmed to create what the scientists, or
those who are paying the scientists, wanted. Needless to say, they could
also make creative writers, poets, artists or musicians.
What would be the fate of creative arts in the future?
[email protected]
|