Evolution of Behavior

The following is basically a pure guess. After guessing, I state what "should" be. In other words, I'm spouting unsupported opinions. Enjoy!Whether people exercise a "conscious choice" (i.e. free will) or if they are determined to do something (your simplified "genetic behavior"), people are responsible for themselves. People who "involuntarily" do things are still held accountable. They're punished less harshly, usually considered "patients" rather than "criminals." This is due to our ideas of "normal" and "free will."In other words, if you kill somebody "by choice" or "by being driven to do it," both behaviors are not allowed by our society. And this is how it should be. An organism needs to be responsible for itself, if we are to maintain a useful definition of 'self' in the face of reductionism. (so I say)--This fits in with the question of "genetic behavior." Behavior is an interaction of "environment" with "organism." Part of the "organism" is "genetics". The interaction between the two determines behavior.Some behaviors may be 'more heavily' genetic (i.e. current conditions in the environment / body system trigger gene transcription under 'normal' conditions, which then changes the environment / body system. This change can lead to behavior. These 'conditions can be 'common' or 'uncommon' (and I think this is a major way slightly-more-lay-than-me people often think about if a behavior is 'genetic')Then there are behaviors that probably don't depend on current genetic transcription at all. However, since the current state of the body depended on previous genetic transcription (for example, long-term potentiation / memory in the brain), I don't see it's "different."So, to summarize... I don't think it's a question of "genetic behavior" or not. All behavior is intertwined with genetic transcription. The question is simply, in what way. This is a simple piece of reductionism. Organisms need to be responsible for their actions, not their 'thoughts' or 'intentions.'Ben