Imagine a world where the traits we inherit from our parents aren't as dominant as we've long believed—could this shake up everything we think about equality and society? That's the provocative core of a recent debate swirling around genetics, politics, and policy, one that's got experts and everyday folks scratching their heads. But here's where it gets controversial: what if our assumptions about heredity are wildly overstated, potentially blinding us to other forces shaping our lives? Stick around as we unpack this, including some surprising twists in housing policy and international climate politics, and see why it might just change how you view the world.
Let's dive into the housing arena first. Zohran Mamdani, a notable figure in New York politics, recently unveiled his housing transition team on Monday (as spotlighted in this tweet: https://x.com/DavidFBrand/status/1993039589510898123). Among the standout members are Paul Williams, hailing from the Center for Public Enterprise; Carlina Rivera, a bold advocate for YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) principles during her time on the City Council; and perhaps the most thrilling addition, Annemarie Gray, who leads Open New York, the city's leading YIMBY group. This lineup suggests to me that Mamdani might be waking up to the limitations of his flashy promise to 'freeze rents'—which only applies to a small portion of New York's housing under rent stabilization laws. To truly honor the intent behind that pledge and aid the bulk of residents, he's probably realizing he needs to push harder for increasing housing supply. It's a smart pivot, really, because without more homes, rents stay high regardless of freezes. Think about it: in cities like San Francisco, where housing shortages are rampant, similar policies have led to skyrocketing prices, proving that supply-side solutions are key to affordability.
And this is the part most people miss: the subtle shift in political strategy that could redefine urban living. But not everyone agrees—some critics argue that rent controls are a necessary short-term fix, sparking a debate: Should we prioritize supply or protections? I'd love to hear your take in the comments.
Shifting gears to global politics, Zagarna raised an insightful point in this Substack thread (https://open.substack.com/pub/matthewyglesias/p/sunday-thread-mailbag-de7?utmcampaign=comment-list-share-cta&utmmedium=web&comments=true&commentId=180460693). They observe a stark contrast in climate change attitudes between Australia and the U.S. Down Under, even right-wing parties face backlash for retreating from ambitious net-zero goals set by figures like Scott Morrison, with some politicians losing seats to moderates who centered their campaigns on climate action. In contrast, American Democrats often shy away from tough emissions targets, fearing voter backlash. Zagarna's theory? Australians have been jolted awake—remember the devastating 2020 wildfires?—realizing climate change is more about economic impacts, like higher costs for housing and food, than a culture war. They wonder if the U.S. movement erred by framing it as an 'extinction threat' instead.
I consulted an expert on Australian politics, who confirmed climate issues are less divisive there. During the Biden administration, wealthier Democrats prioritized climate over working-class concerns like jobs and wages, but in Australia, affluent voters are a swing group courted by both sides. This makes the right less hostile to action than U.S. Republicans. Yet, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's initiatives, such as EV subsidies and emissions rules, are milder than Democrats' proposals, and there's no push to stop coal mining or exports. Australian Labor views climate as practical pollution reduction, leveraging resources like sunshine for renewables, while still profiting from global coal demand for national benefit. Adapting this to U.S. oil and gas could be wise—balance environmental steps with economic realities.
But here's where it gets controversial: Is the U.S. climate strategy too apocalyptic, alienating moderates, while Australia's pragmatic approach wins broader support? This raises questions about messaging. For beginners, it's like comparing two diets: one extreme and unsustainable, the other balanced and effective. Examples abound—think how Germany's Energiewende transition blended renewables with industrial needs, versus some U.S. states' all-or-nothing bans. What do you think: Should climate activism focus on doom or dollars? Share your views below—it could start a lively conversation.
Finally, Eric chimed in with a fascinating query (https://www.slowboring.com/p/sunday-thread-mailbag-de7/comment/180473731) about a paper on 'missing heritability.' In short, it suggests twin studies overestimated heritability by about twofold (around 30-40% instead of 60-70%). Should we revise our beliefs? For newcomers, let's break it down simply: We've known traits pass from parents to kids via genes for ages, but details were murky. Twin studies compared identical (genetically the same) and fraternal (half-shared genes) twins on traits like depression risk. If identical twins match more closely, genetics seem key—right? But were they similar due to genes or shared upbringing?
Modern DNA sequencing and genome-wide association studies (GWAS) often show lower heritability than twin data, hence the 'missing' piece. Debates rage, but evidence leans toward twin studies inflating numbers. Sasha Gusev's article (https://theinfinitesimal.substack.com/p/the-missing-heritability-question) dives deeper if you're curious.
I'm not drastically changing my stance, thanks to Kathryn Paige Harden's book 'The Genetic Lottery: Why DNA Matters for Social Equality' (check my interview here: https://www.slowboring.com/p/interview-with-kathryn-paige-harden). As a GWAS advocate, she sees twin estimates as upper limits, not truths. This links to broader discourse: Gusev, who often debates conservatives online, argues true heritability is lower than they claim.
And this is the part most people miss: How underestimating environmental factors could fuel inequality debates. Consider examples like education—genes might play a role, but schools and opportunities matter hugely. But controversy looms: If heritability is inflated, does that undermine genetic explanations for disparities, or just complicate policy? For instance, does this mean we should invest more in nurture over nature? Beginners, picture it as baking a cake—genes provide ingredients, but environment is the oven. What are the implications for social equality? Do you side with twin studies' optimism or GWAS's skepticism? Drop your thoughts in the comments—let's debate!
