It is evident that when we speak about human behavior, limiting our evaluations to biological mechanisms and genetic inheritance fails to encompass the more complicated mechanisms of environmental influences and the affects of learning in the process. In the debate of nurture versus nature, the thing that becomes apparent is that both participate in the production of an individual – although to what degree each does is debatable - and that both operate on distinctly different speeds. Where environments can alter in a comparatively short period of time genetic adaptation, to said environments, lags behind. One can argue that present behavioral patterns are the product of past environments that no longer apply today. Which would explain why some individuals feel a discordance between who they are and who they are asked to be and between what they are inclined to do and what they are allowed to. “For example, cultural information can be passed from parent to offspring (vertical transmission), between peers (horizontal) or from teacher to pupil (oblique), whereas genetic information is only ever transmitted vertically. One of the consequences of this is that it speeds up the pace of cultural evolution compared to genetic evolution.” Human Evolutionary Psychology – Louis Barrett, Robin Dunbar, John Lycett This could partly explain neurosis, sexual deviation and a variety of other human ailments, based on the assumption that present day human beings must repress and contain psychological inclinations that have been produced in relation to past environments and which are no longer tolerable or advantageous under the present circumstances. Freud warned us about the consequences of repression and suppression and about the redirected releases this can result in. It would also be helpful to note that some traits might be produces as an adaptation to a particular environment but their persistence through time may not be due to the same factors. That is, why a trait comes to be and why it continues to be might be due to different reasons. This could also result in the human tendency towards self-contradiction and the absurdity of modern living, in general. Malik argues, “…we humans have not simply been dropped into an alien environment. We created that environment….If the brain is ‘wired up’ to create modernity, why is it not wired up to cope with it?” making a good counterargument. Yet, in my mind, the creation has surpassed the creator. What started off as the product of the human mind in search for survival advantages in a hostile world, has taken on a life of its own. Institutions, cultures, societies have become entities in their own right, independent of the participants themselves. Entities made up of individual human beings but, oftentimes, in confrontation with them. Entities that now threaten the very concept of individuality. This natural universal tendency towards unification and assimilation is what forces a resistance to it, as a reaction creates an equal and opposite reaction. But the force and permanence of this resistance is determined by purely individual attributes. Where some adapt and consider the trade-off of independence and integrity for existence a fair one, others might consider it a price too high to pay, opting out of it completely or choosing to linger in the periphery. Here the evolutionary mechanisms of natural selection and fitness within particular environments can be witnessed most clearly. Those adapted to have a fitness advantage for environments that no longer exist, find it hard to participate in environments where the notion of fitness has been radically mutated and where their physical and intellectual traits are considered more a fault than a virtue. While those that have been fortunate or that possess the ‘right’ psychological predispositions to adapt to the current environment with little resistance or difficulty will flourish and prosper, creating a new batch of selected characteristics that will be passed down to individuals that may exist in circumstances where these same traits no longer offer advantage or that may lead to the diminishment of the individual altogether. Current human anxieties concerning this loss of control over ones creation or over ones self is exemplified in popular art through sci-fi imaginings of technology running amuck or artificial mechanoids dominating mankind by becoming conscious and willful. One can also see this caveat mirrored in creationist myths about a loss of paradise and in philosophical arguments concerning the death of God and the diminishment of mankind through slave morality and herd psychology. But the problem is a real one. What began as a means of protecting the individual has resulted in a civilization more concerned with the protection of itself, despite the individual. The basic mental and physical health of the species no longer matters but only in relation to its service to the ‘super-organism’, as Baudrillard would put it. Mental, physical, psychological deficiencies are tolerated and allowed to reproduce, just as long as they do not threaten or oppose the system itself. In fact, defects that were anathema in past environments are now desirable traits to be propagated and nurtured. Low self-esteem, an absence of spirit, mental dullness, gullibility, egocentrism, monetary ambition, greed, gluttony, an absence of free thought are some of the attributes beneficial to the current cultural infrastructure and, for this reason, they dominate the social scene. Stupidity and superficiality, were once punished with a quick death, but now they become characteristics that will ensure a harmonious assimilation and participation within the whole and so are rewarded with whatever comforts, our modern world deems essential and desirable. It is here that we will find the foundations of modern civilization. Here amongst the bourgeoisie. Communists were right to focus their wrath against this essential element of modern western civilization. If they wished to usurp the balances of power and redefine human inter-relations, this was a necessary step; where they erred was in placing the blame on the concept of ownership and to accuse it of being the root of all evil. Ownership and all the implications derived from it was certainly a human creation based on delusion and arrogance and it was certainly a concept essential to the creation of stable, multifarious societies, but it was only symptom of a far greater problem. The real culprit was the transcending drive of all imperfection to assimilate, to integrate and to unite, which has produced civilization, the ideals of god and love and that will, inevitably, lead to the extinction of individuality as we know it. You see, it all began with a farm….