There is no such thing as an innate tendency towards subversion and exploitation. The very concepts of subversion and exploitation are abstract notions that can't be dictated solely by someones genetics.

I'd argue the ability to deceive effectively is very innate, and if the most successful of a group are those who can do this well, it puts selection pressure on the group for that trait to become dominant, but beyond that such arguments could certainly be more culturally based. It wouldn't be an all or nothing, of course, and it wouldn't be universally applicable.

Inherent moral deficiency not only requires measurable, universal, objective morality.

After that, you require that genetic determinism to create a given level of morality, which removes the very concept of moral agency.

I'm not big on moral relativism, myself. I think theft, murder, and rape are objectively wrong, at least within the context western culture. It would lend to moral unsuitability to western culture, though if moral relativism is your bag, that doesn't mean they aren't better suited to a different culture that's of equal value.

Anyway, I understand your concern, but these ideas are some of the most heavily censored in the world. Academic attempts to discredit them never really worked over the last 60 years, so they've resorted to banishment of scientists who look into such fields over ethical concerns here in the last 15 or so. There's a reason free speech havens tends to attract such discussion, since you don't need a free speech haven to talk about cat pictures (yet?).

E: just a study that does seem to show that lying is at least a partly heritable trait https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4852200/

most behavior has a genetic trait, it seems.

There is no such thing as an innate tendency towards subversion and exploitation. The very concepts of subversion and exploitation are abstract notions that can't be dictated solely by someones genetics.

I'd argue the ability to deceive effectively is very innate, and if the most successful of a group are those who can do this well, it puts selection pressure on the group for that trait to become dominant, but beyond that such arguments could certainly be more culturally based. It wouldn't be an all or nothing, of course, and it wouldn't be universally applicable.

Inherent moral deficiency not only requires measurable, universal, objective morality.

After that, you require that genetic determinism to create a given level of morality, which removes the very concept of moral agency.

I'm not big on moral relativism, myself. I think theft, murder, and rape are objectively wrong, at least within the context western culture. It would lend to moral unsuitability to western culture, though if moral relativism is your bag, that doesn't mean they aren't better suited to a different culture that's of equal value.

Anyway, I understand your concern, but these ideas are some of the most heavily censored in the world. Academic attempts to discredit them never really worked over the last 60 years, so they've resorted to banishment of scientists who look into such fields over ethical concerns here in the last 15 or so. There's a reason free speech havens tends to attract such discussion, since you don't need a free speech haven to talk about cat pictures (yet?).