

Revolutionary Biology pt. 1: Nature vs. Nurture vs. Synthesis
Hopelessness and Biology
- Hopelessness about humanity's future, especially in social movements, often stems from a lack of understanding of human behavioral biology.
- This lack of grounding leads to crude hypotheses and assimilation of bad evolutionary theory, fueling despair.
Innate Reasoning and Biophobia
- Humans possess innate tendencies to reason about innateness and environmental influences, even without formal scientific training.
- Biophobia in radical politics hinders a full understanding of human potential due to a fear of biological determinism.
Process Hopelessness
- Acknowledge and process feelings of hopelessness, recognizing they can be rooted in trauma and depression, not logic.
- Accepting the "full scope" of horror allows for a clearer view of agency and possibilities.
Nature vs. nurture thinking simply makes no sense: an entity can only respond to its environment via evolved capacities. Nonetheless, this binary reasoning is persistently attractive to the human mind, and is present in the theoretical foundations of all the major political tendencies. In this episode, we explore the persistent harm to our politics caused by an inability to reason about biology, and the many forms our confusion takes, particularly focusing on the eternally recurrent assumption that the more unvarying a behavior is, the more “biological” it is. We examine the Cold War ideological conflicts that pushed theorists on both sides of nature-nurture controversies to rigid—and not infrequently absurd—extremes, and see how phenotypic plasticity is reasserting itself in biology after decades of suppression, replacing outdated forms of evolutionary theory that involve genes “for” behaviors and ignore the means by which traits develop. In so doing, we assert the biology of social revolution: a description of the human capacity for behavioral variability that exists because of, rather than in opposition to, evolution.