Is this that idea again that we are genetically/biologically determined, robots controlled by genes so to speak?
Of course not. Psychobiological behavioral inclinations are just as changeable as an imprint through upbringing (from which people are known to also suffer) or through culture. The latter formative influences are no more determinative than genes are (Richard Dawkins, The Extended Phenotype).
So we should be determined by others, by programs that control us, as if we had no free will?
The program metaphor that has been/is popularly used in biology is misleading and should not be used. It attributes an irrefutable power to genes. Now, in times of learning software and AI, however, it is more comprehensible again. The comparison still lags (Richard Dawkins, The Extended Phenotype). Of course, one can philosophize about free will. In a way, it is actually an illusion, according to neurobiologist Gerhard Roth. But what we want is not the result of purely psycho- or neurobiological factors. But this free will is not entirely free
Should we now behave as it is laid down in “nature”?
No. This is called normative biologism. Some biologists (e.g. Konrad Lorenz) have argued in this way. What is adaptive (i.e. adapted) can be interpreted as morally analogous behavior. Adaptive behavior is not community-oriented per se. Therefore, biological behavioral adaptations are completely unsuitable as norm-generating instances (Eckart Voland. Genese und Geltung – Das Legitimationsdilemma der Evolutionären Ethik und ein Vorschlag zu seiner Überwindung)
Isn’t someone here again looking for a justification for inequality, sexism and racism?
Science is often misinterpreted and used for one’s own purposes. From writers (William Holdings Lord of the Flies), filmmakers (Stanley Kubik’s A Space Odyssey) to “managers, consultants or politicians posing with arms crossed and lips pressed together: no kidding, alpha me, bad world” (Richard Conniff. Ape in the Corner Office). Understanding social developments and their causes does not mean approving them. Here, too, a much-cited term is misleading. Selfish genes imply that ruthlessness, exploitation, and selfishness are natural. However, genes are neither selfish, nor can a justification for selfish behavior be derived from nature. One could reply that the egoist cooperates. People develop values and give meaning to their lives through social discourse.