Nature V. Nurture | Wrongly Worded Argument

 

By definition nature is nurture. Not the other way around. A subcategorization of nurture is to nature. Without the environment, nature wouldn't be able to exist. Therefore, genes are a part of the environment too. It does not make sense to isolate the variable of genes because it is no different than isolating any other variable in the environment. I don't believe in free will, I believe we are controlled by our environment and we are only becoming aware of it by the day, or centuries rather because some species of human beings (denotation race, religion and cultural groups) have yet to catch onto this fact.

Not believing in free will is simply proof of the human species become aware of its surroundings. This is good because society can stop relying on morality as an explanation when it was never intended to serve as one. Rather to use morality to realize that the cause of Immorality isn't lack of self control but the need for it.

The good thing about science is that it's true weather or not you believe in it proving that there is science to disbelief. You can truly explain why someone is unable to comprehend scientific facts of why things occur, implying that there is a valid reason go all behavior including human behavior. Human behavior isn't special from dogs behavior, we both have a brain and are limited - aka: controlled - by it.

 

We are simply a part of the universe becoming aware of itself. Moreover, there was a recent study showcasing that the networks in the galaxy are awfully similar to the networks our brain neural networks form.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/we-are-the-environment_b_4870016

https://medium.com/@priyanka0207/we-are-a-part-of-environment-not-apart-from-environment-15f7f21c09d6

https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/are-humans-separate-from-nature/

we are controlled by our brain -> brain controlled by enviornment