Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Genes for Aggression?
A new study by researchers at the National Institute of Mental Health has combined genomics with functional nuclear resonance imaging (fMRI) of brains to look for the roots of aggression. As I reported in my 2002 column "Born To Be Wild?," researchers found that children (especially boys) with a low activity version of the gene for monoamine oxydase-A (MAO-A) who were abused in childhood were more prone to violence. Boys with the high activity version of the MAO-A gene, even if abused, were much less violent and less likely to get into trouble with the law. MAO-A is an enzyme that breaks down serotonin in the brain.
The new research using fMRI looks at the brains of people who carry the two different versions of the gene. The researchers found:
A version of a gene previously linked to impulsive violence appears to weaken brain circuits that regulate impulses, emotional memory and thinking in humans, researchers at the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) have found. Brain scans revealed that people with this version--especially males--tended to have relatively smaller emotion-related brain structures, a hyperactive alarm center and under-active impulse control circuitry. The study identifies neural mechanisms by which this gene likely contributes to risk for violent and impulsive behavior through effects on the developing brain.
Males are more vulnerable because MAO-A genes are carried on the X chromosome. This means that men who get one X along with a Y chromosome receive only one version of the gene whereas women get two X chromosomes which gives them a much higher chance of inheriting at least one high activity (low violence) MAO-A gene.
Genes are not destiny, especially if we choose to counteract their possible negative effects. For instance, people with genes that predispose them to produce "bad" LDL cholesterol can thwart heart disease by exercising, eating a low fat diet and/or taking statin drugs. Similarly, people who find that they have inherited a low activity version of the MAO-A gene may some day choose to take a drug (which does not currently exist) that boosts the gene's activity in order to lower their chances of engaging in inappropriate violent behavior.
|3.22.06 @ 12:26PM|#
Things like "innapropriate rage," "depression," "ADD/ADHD," and other psychiatric "diseases" are direct results of living in a society that is so out of tune with our true natures. Once we cease our nature-raping (a big love of conservatives/libertarians), stop with the mindless consumerism (ditto), and get rid of the countless faceless beauracracies our society runs on and get back to nature, all of these "diseases" will miraculously disappear. Of course, by the time this happens, we will all probably be dead and the world irreparably fucked up due to the destruction we're causing it (the destruction that anti-environmentalists like Ron Bailey love to deny).
|3.22.06 @ 12:30PM|#
Wasn't there a finger analysis into aggression as well? Supposedly if a man's index finger was much shorter (as opposed to just shorter) than his ring finger he tended to be more aggressive. The study was done on hockey players not too long ago. No idea what the results found.
|3.22.06 @ 12:32PM|#
Fascinating, and thanks for posting that Ron.
andy, you sort of have a point, in that this natural variation of
genes may lead to behavior that's only considered "inappropriate"
in today's society. (Previously, perhaps these boys would have been
the warrior class?) But that brings up the question of whether we
should be knee-jerk treating these people with hormones to
"correct" that problem.
|3.22.06 @ 12:32PM|#
Yes, but what about appropriate violent behavior? :)
I think there�s a problem with some scientific thinking that these
sorts of broad things (�violence�) are so narrowly reducible. I�d
guess that any chemical management of one �impulse� caused adverse
reactions to some other area where that impulse actually provided
some good.
IN one case, my brother is severely schizophrenic, and the drugs
they�ve had him on at times produced side effects far worse than
the actual condition itself. Which connects to this recent piece in
the NYT, which says, �maybe medication isn�t the only way to deal
with things��
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/21/health/psychology/21schiz.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
|3.22.06 @ 12:40PM|#
Matt Ridley's book Nature via Nuture provides a pretty good description of some of the subtle relationships between predispositions in genes and the influence of social stimuli...I think he makes the case that many of the behaviours that are initially associated with specific genes are later found to be associated more weakly with these genes or to also be associated with other genes. In other words, once the headlines fade, we may find out we don;t know as much as we might think about the roles of specific genes in behaviour...figuring out the alphabet (decoding the genome) isn't quite the same as being able to read Shakespeare...and understand Hamlet's torment.
|3.22.06 @ 12:46PM|#
andy - you have a valid point, I think, but then you decide to
soften your point by making some silly statements.
For one, do you really think it would help if
everyone on the planet "went back to nature"?
It'll kill most of us off, I'm sure. Maybe that's what you
want.
Secondly, with a strong economy and good wealth, you can do
whatever you want, including going "back to nature". Go take a
vacation horseback riding in the mountains, or swimming on a
beach.
|3.22.06 @ 1:09PM|#
WW, while you're at it, why don't you kick this server's
ass?
owdog:
"For one, do you really think it would help if everyone on the
planet "went back to nature"? It'll kill most of us off, I'm sure.
Maybe that's what you want."
Explain, exactly, how it would "kill most of us off."
"Go take a vacation horseback riding in the mountains, or swimming
on a beach."
This is only good for the actual time doing it, and maybe for a
brief time afterwards, but after enough time in our giant,
artificial and impersonal cities or our sprawling, sacchrine
suburbs, the symptoms begin to return.
GILMORE:
"?maybe medication isn?t the only way to deal with things??"
I wonder if your brother, or anyone else, would have developed
schizophrenia if we didn't live in a society so unhealthy to human
beings. Schizophrenia may just be the most extreme symptom of
this.
linguist:
"But that brings up the question of whether we should be knee-jerk
treating these people with hormones to "correct" that
problem."
Well, in the parameters of our society this may be an effective way
of treating these problems, but I look at it like this: If I'm
stuck in an Arctic blizzard, a warm cup of tea may warm me up
temporarily, but getting entirely out of this environment is a much
better solution.
L Ron Hubbard:
Thank you
|3.22.06 @ 1:15PM|#
I'm curious, Andy: given the psychiatric disorders you listed, I
can see how these would seem to be disorders only caused (or only
diagnosed) because of the way we live today. My take is that most
of these things probably have some adaptive advantage in the
history of our species. But then I also think there are some that,
maybe, don't. There are probably some genuine psychiatric diseases
that are in no way adapted and are in fact diseases. Schizophrenia
may be one.
Do you agree? Or is your problem with psychiatric diagnoses across
the board? Because schizophrenia would be just as much of problem
if we all did go "back to nature".
Juice Leskinen|3.22.06 @ 1:15PM|#
Whose to say wether there's a real correlation here? There might
just as well be some so far unknown genetical error that causes
both the before mentioned low activity and (via nature to nurture)
the tendency to violent behavior.
I recently asked a world class neuroscientist a similar question:
Whose to say wether the charasteristics of the neurasynaptic
connections in the brain of a depressed person are causing the
mental state rather than are the cause of the mental state or
wether the connection bertween the two is more complex?
If somebody answers this post in a very witty and snappy way and
makes me look like an idiot, I'll feel crappy. The crappy feeling
will manifest on the physical level as, say, tiredness and lack of
appetite. Such a physical state will again increase the mental down
hill and so on in a vicious circle. A cup of coffee and a jog would
increase my appetite and decrease the tiredness and thus boost my
mental state. But it would be mistake to presume that the tiredness
and lack of appetite are the primus motors behind all crappy
feelings.
Anyway, the neuroscientist's answer was that there's no consensus
on this issue and that he himself had no definite opinion on the
subject matter.
|3.22.06 @ 1:16PM|#
The irony quotient is sufficiently high here that I can never
tell if a post like andy's is serious or not. In any case, speaking
as an anti-environmentalist (which is not at all the same thing as
being anti-environment), I remain constantly astonished at people
who *do* make such comments seriously.
Personally, I've never raped nature in my entire life even if I did
make an ungentlemanly pass at it once or twice. And what the hell
would mindful consumerism be? Hunting for bargains?
Still, it has always struck me that the whole point of society and
civilization is to avoid nature's typically harsh treatment of its
inhabitants as much as possible and that this is a good thing.
After all, it is only natural for each of us to wish to survive,
reproduce and avoid pain and death as much as possible; thus, it
also strikes me that environmentalists in general are always
exhorting us to act in decidedly unnatural ways.
I expect at least one semi-reasoned retort arguing some silliness
about sustainability and so forth. The fact is, however, I care
next to nothing about future generations much beyond my great
grandchildren (should I ever have any) and even less about what
might or might not survive the extinction of my species. The fact,
also, is that no one else really does, either.
|3.22.06 @ 1:26PM|#
All I could think reading this was: Wow, didn't anyone else read
or see A Clockwork Orange?
Violence is neither bad nor good, it is the context in which
violence is used which determines its goodness or badness. Violence
in self-defense is good.
fyodor|3.22.06 @ 1:28PM|#
andy,
The earth likely couldn't support the current human population
without the use of technology to reap much more food yield out of
it than it would provide "naturally". That's why everyone returning
to nature would result in mass starvation and death. Well, one
reason. There'd be no modern medicine to treat disease
either.
If returning to nature temporarily only provides temporary respite,
perhaps the cure would be to make enough money to buy a large tract
of land and then live on it "naturally".
Re: I wonder if your brother, or anyone else, would have
developed schizophrenia if we didn't live in a society so unhealthy
to human beings. Schizophrenia may just be the most extreme symptom
of this. Interesting speculation, but as your wording
demonstrates that you know, it's entirely speculation.
|3.22.06 @ 1:30PM|#
"There are probably some genuine psychiatric diseases that are
in no way adapted and are in fact diseases. Schizophrenia may be
one."
I'm not so sure this is the case. One does not inherit
schizophrenia itself, only the probability of developing it. I
believe that many of the problems caused by modern society and
urban living only serve to increase this probablility (don't take
my word for it, either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia#Diagnostic_issues_and_controversies
"The fact is, however, I care next to nothing about future
generations much beyond my great grandchildren (should I ever have
any) and even less about what might or might not survive the
extinction of my species. The fact, also, is that no one else
really does, either."
Speak for yourself, Mr. "Being a selfish prick is cool if you're
honest about it."
"And what the hell would mindful consumerism be?"
Not using more than you really need.
"Still, it has always struck me that the whole point of society and
civilization is to avoid nature's typically harsh treatment of its
inhabitants as much as possible and that this is a good
thing."
Respecting nature and living in harmony with it are not mutually
exclusive with living a "comfortable life"
|3.22.06 @ 1:39PM|#
"This is only good for the actual time doing it, and maybe
for a brief time afterwards, but after enough time in our giant,
artificial and impersonal cities or our sprawling, sacchrine
suburbs, the symptoms begin to return."
So, tell me, how exactly is it that you get an internet connection
all the way out there in the
tundra/desert/savanna/jungle/forest/prairie?
And it would seem that if you were actually hewing to your
worldview, you'd be too busy doing things like checking your traps
to see if you'd snagged any rabbits or other small, edible
game.
Or failing that, digging for legumes.
|3.22.06 @ 1:43PM|#
"Interesting speculation, but as your wording demonstrates that
you know, it's entirely speculation."
Not necessarily, there are cultures out there that live far more in
harmony with nature than us and, while I've never looked into it
specifically, I'm sure a study could/has been done that compares
our rates of schizophrenia with theirs.
"The earth likely couldn't support the current human population
without the use of technology to reap much more food yield out of
it than it would provide "naturally". That's why everyone returning
to nature would result in mass starvation and death. Well, one
reason. There'd be no modern medicine to treat disease
either."
I didn't say I was necessarily against the use of technology, it
just has to be within an environmentally sustainable context. And
I'm not advocating that we all leave the cities and camp out in
some forest immediately, just that reconsider our priorities, and
quickly.
As for the "no modern medicine," people in the Amazon have done
fine for millennia without "modern medicine." Of course, so many
arrogant Westerners refuse to look at their treatments as
legitimate. We could learn a lot from them, at least if we stopped
destroying acres and acres a minute of irreplacable biological
diversity. And we won't even get into the fact that so many of our
diseases are direct results of our lifestyle.
|3.22.06 @ 1:45PM|#
"Interesting speculation, but as your wording demonstrates that
you know, it's entirely speculation."
Not necessarily, there are cultures out there that live far more in
harmony with nature than us and, while I've never looked into it
specifically, I'm sure a study could/has been done that compares
our rates of schizophrenia with theirs.
"The earth likely couldn't support the current human population
without the use of technology to reap much more food yield out of
it than it would provide "naturally". That's why everyone returning
to nature would result in mass starvation and death. Well, one
reason. There'd be no modern medicine to treat disease
either."
I didn't say I was necessarily against the use of technology, it
just has to be within an environmentally sustainable context. And
I'm not advocating that we all leave the cities and camp out in
some forest immediately, just that reconsider our priorities, and
quickly.
As for the "no modern medicine," people in the Amazon have done
fine for millennia without "modern medicine." Of course, so many
arrogant Westerners refuse to look at their treatments as
legitimate. We could learn a lot from them, at least if we stopped
destroying acres and acres a minute of irreplacable biological
diversity. And we won't even get into the fact that so many of our
diseases are direct results of our lifestyle.
|3.22.06 @ 1:45PM|#
"Interesting speculation, but as your wording demonstrates that
you know, it's entirely speculation."
Not necessarily, there are cultures out there that live far more in
harmony with nature than us and, while I've never looked into it
specifically, I'm sure a study could/has been done that compares
our rates of schizophrenia with theirs.
"The earth likely couldn't support the current human population
without the use of technology to reap much more food yield out of
it than it would provide "naturally". That's why everyone returning
to nature would result in mass starvation and death. Well, one
reason. There'd be no modern medicine to treat disease
either."
I didn't say I was necessarily against the use of technology, it
just has to be within an environmentally sustainable context. And
I'm not advocating that we all leave the cities and camp out in
some forest immediately, just that reconsider our priorities, and
quickly.
As for the "no modern medicine," people in the Amazon have done
fine for millennia without "modern medicine." Of course, so many
arrogant Westerners refuse to look at their treatments as
legitimate. We could learn a lot from them, at least if we stopped
destroying acres and acres a minute of irreplacable biological
diversity. And we won't even get into the fact that so many of our
diseases are direct results of our lifestyle.
|3.22.06 @ 1:45PM|#
"Interesting speculation, but as your wording demonstrates that
you know, it's entirely speculation."
Not necessarily, there are cultures out there that live far more in
harmony with nature than us and, while I've never looked into it
specifically, I'm sure a study could/has been done that compares
our rates of schizophrenia with theirs.
"The earth likely couldn't support the current human population
without the use of technology to reap much more food yield out of
it than it would provide "naturally". That's why everyone returning
to nature would result in mass starvation and death. Well, one
reason. There'd be no modern medicine to treat disease
either."
I didn't say I was necessarily against the use of technology, it
just has to be within an environmentally sustainable context. And
I'm not advocating that we all leave the cities and camp out in
some forest immediately, just that reconsider our priorities, and
quickly.
As for the "no modern medicine," people in the Amazon have done
fine for millennia without "modern medicine." Of course, so many
arrogant Westerners refuse to look at their treatments as
legitimate. We could learn a lot from them, at least if we stopped
destroying acres and acres a minute of irreplacable biological
diversity. And we won't even get into the fact that so many of our
diseases are direct results of our lifestyle.
|3.22.06 @ 1:48PM|#
Your logic is thus: If somebody does give a shit about, say, the Baltic Sea, he should act 'naturally' like the fishes swimming in it. Fishes are selfish bastards who sometimes even eat their own offspring, so clearly these Baltic Sea loving hippies are illogical morons. Some projecting in process here, maybe?
|3.22.06 @ 1:48PM|#
Your logic is thus: If somebody does give a shit about, say, the Baltic Sea, he should act 'naturally' like the fishes swimming in it. Fishes are selfish bastards who sometimes even eat their own offspring, so clearly these Baltic Sea loving hippies are illogical morons. Some projecting in process here, maybe?
|3.22.06 @ 1:49PM|#
and so, andy, are your prescriptions for how others should live
prescriptions for yourself (shall I assume you are posting your
comments from the wild using only enough energy to satisfy your
'need')?
Or are you just another human contributor to global warming?
|3.22.06 @ 1:49PM|#
and so, andy, are your prescriptions for how others should live
prescriptions for yourself (shall I assume you are posting your
comments from the wild using only enough energy to satisfy your
'need')?
Or are you just another human contributor to global warming?
|3.22.06 @ 1:49PM|#
Not necessarily, there are cultures out there that live far
more in harmony with nature than us
Uh-oh. I feel a Noble Savage argument coming...
|3.22.06 @ 1:49PM|#
andy - fyodor already answered your question for me. Another
point would be, if we all went "back to nature" I guarantee the hug
masses having to strike out into the wilderness to get food,
shelter, etc would certainly fuck the planet up but good until the
herd got thinned out by the mechanisms described by fyodor.
As to mindful consumerism - do you practise what you preach? You've
never thrown food away? Do you own a car? Do you have more than,
say, 4 or 5 sets of clothes?
Look, I'm in some argreement with you. I grew up in a rural
setting, rode horses all the time, ran around out in the woods
climbing trees, you know, living in nature. Now I'm a city person
and I think some things got "masked" by being so active (like ADHD,
for one) that I know have to face. I do that by trying to stay
active, and I have so many choices about how to do that, it's
great.
Now I'm rambling, but I think what I'm really trying to say is
"chill out" and tone it down a little and maybe people will listen
to you instead of rolling their eyes at you.
|3.22.06 @ 1:55PM|#
Didn't some genetic study show that ADD/ADHD corresponds to a gene that's been around since the Paleolithic and may be an adaptation to the hunter-gatherer way of life, which was inherently fast-paced and chaotic? Or am I just spinning my wheels and trying to look smart?
|3.22.06 @ 2:01PM|#
Genes are not destiny, especially if we choose to counteract
their possible negative effects.
Wouldn't terminating these fetuses be the most cost-effective way
to counteract the negative effects?
No more new drugs, please. My health insurance bill is large enough
already, thank you.
|3.22.06 @ 2:02PM|#
Isn't one problem with discussions like this that it's
impossible to determine what is "natural" for humans? Given that
one thing humans do with some enthusiams is build big, impersonal
cities in big, impersonal civilizations, I think one could
reasonable assume this is as natural for us as digging holes is for
rabbits. I'm therefore uncomfortable with the idea that if we give
up living in cities we'll end mental illness. While some mental
illnesses may very well be nothing more than natural variations
that are now disfavored by the environment, others have no apparent
use under any circumstances. (Can anyone tell me what good
hallucinations or debilitating depression would have been to a
hunter - gatherer?)
In this case, we don't even have to wonder whether completely
redoing civilization would solve this problem, because there is a
simple solution available to us. What Mr. Bailey described in this
case is a genetic marker for a condition that can produce
antisocial behavior if it is present in a certain environment. The
gene doesn't make everyone who has it unmanagebly violent; abused
boys with the gene are generally worse than those without it. We
don't need to worry about the side effects of removing any child
from the presence of someone who beats the kid, and from the
article quoted that is more likely to prevent the kid from becoming
violent later in life than giving some drug that hasn't been
invented yet.
|3.22.06 @ 2:03PM|#
Isn't one problem with discussions like this that it's
impossible to determine what is "natural" for humans? Given that
one thing humans do with some enthusiams is build big, impersonal
cities in big, impersonal civilizations, I think one could
reasonable assume this is as natural for us as digging holes is for
rabbits. I'm therefore uncomfortable with the idea that if we give
up living in cities we'll end mental illness. While some mental
illnesses may very well be nothing more than natural variations
that are now disfavored by the environment, others have no apparent
use under any circumstances. (Can anyone tell me what good
hallucinations or debilitating depression would have been to a
hunter - gatherer?)
In this case, we don't even have to wonder whether completely
redoing civilization would solve this problem, because there is a
simple solution available to us. What Mr. Bailey described in this
case is a genetic marker for a condition that can produce
antisocial behavior if it is present in a certain environment. The
gene doesn't make everyone who has it unmanagebly violent; abused
boys with the gene are generally worse than those without it. We
don't need to worry about the side effects of removing any child
from the presence of someone who beats the kid, and from the
article quoted that is more likely to prevent the kid from becoming
violent later in life than giving some drug that hasn't been
invented yet.
|3.22.06 @ 2:03PM|#
Isn't one problem with discussions like this that it's
impossible to determine what is "natural" for humans? Given that
one thing humans do with some enthusiams is build big, impersonal
cities in big, impersonal civilizations, I think one could
reasonable assume this is as natural for us as digging holes is for
rabbits. I'm therefore uncomfortable with the idea that if we give
up living in cities we'll end mental illness. While some mental
illnesses may very well be nothing more than natural variations
that are now disfavored by the environment, others have no apparent
use under any circumstances. (Can anyone tell me what good
hallucinations or debilitating depression would have been to a
hunter - gatherer?)
In this case, we don't even have to wonder whether completely
redoing civilization would solve this problem, because there is a
simple solution available to us. What Mr. Bailey described in this
case is a genetic marker for a condition that can produce
antisocial behavior if it is present in a certain environment. The
gene doesn't make everyone who has it unmanagebly violent; abused
boys with the gene are generally worse than those without it. We
don't need to worry about the side effects of removing any child
from the presence of someone who beats the kid, and from the
article quoted that is more likely to prevent the kid from becoming
violent later in life than giving some drug that hasn't been
invented yet.
|3.22.06 @ 2:07PM|#
Geotech, there is a guy by the name of Tom Hartman, iirc, who
has advanced that theory.
He's got some interesting thoughts on dealing with ADD.
Unfortunately, he's a New-Age crystal-kissing shmuck.
fyodor|3.22.06 @ 2:07PM|#
happyjuggler,
True enough, given only black / white circumstances. However,
there's a lot of gray areas in life. I'm kinda sensitive to this
issue right now cause a friend of mine who has a bit of that
violent impulse control difficulty is currently worried about a
jail sentence stemming from smashing a beer bottle over someone's
head -- AFTER said person started punching him in the face. The few
witnesses were either people my friend didn't know or friends of
his adversary. My friend would have benefitted from being able to
exercise better control, even if it was ostensibly in self-defense,
cause now he's in big trouble. Where exactly to draw the "blame" in
this scenario is hard to say. Might have to go co-sign a bond to
bail the dude out later today....
|3.22.06 @ 2:10PM|#
Geotech, there is a guy by the name of Tom Hartman, iirc, who
has advanced that theory.
He's got some interesting thoughts on dealing with ADD.
Unfortunately, he's a New-Age crystal-kissing shmuck.
|3.22.06 @ 2:38PM|#
The comment about the unlogical hippie bashing was intended for
Mr Ridgely, but never mind that. I'm just as uneasy with the other
type of extreme that Andy represents, and it really is a bit
paradoxical to use this sophisticated technology for advocating
such an ideology.
Yes, the whole noble savage thing is a huge myth, but there is no
need to go to the other extreme and only dwell on, say, the
cannibalism and torture the Amerindians practised, or the clearly
materialistic tendencies in their culture or any other
hunter-gatherer societies. All generalations suck. Hollywood
started with clearly racistic stereotypes of blacks and then at
some point the policy changed into another type of lie: Suddenly
the black characters are usually denied of all negative
charasteristics. They remain sidekicks, though.
Still back to the environmental issue: Having personally witnessed
an absolutely unique ecosystem (the Baltic Sea) being raped in
front of my very eyes from 1975 to 2006 I can't help but feel that
somebody has violated my property rights. Not one cubic meter of it
is mine legally, but... Well, I don't suppose anybody here will
understand this.
|3.22.06 @ 2:51PM|#
Before this crap server ate my message a couple of hours ago, it
read:
"Yeah andy, we need to let go of these psychiatric "diseases" and
get back to enjoying more earth-centered diseases, such as cholera,
small pox, dysentery, plague..."
But that's all water under the bridge now, I guess.
And Fyodor, I'm not going to get jumped if I hang out with you this
Friday at the Denver get-together, am I? Best of luck to your
friend.
|3.22.06 @ 3:10PM|#
Things like "innapropriate rage," "depression," "ADD/ADHD,"
and other psychiatric "diseases" are direct results of living in a
society that is so out of tune with our true natures.
Probably true. Mass murder is also natural and not the result of a
mental illness.
Genes for Aggression?
Since humans are agressive animals, obviously so.
Genes for differing levels of aggression? About as obvious as genes
for differing heights and body sizes. Population sameness tends not
to be an "environmentally stable strategy."
Interesting article:
http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/ArchiveFolder/Research%20Group/Publications/Mad/Madhouse.html
"Darwin in the Madhouse:
Evolutionary Psychology and the Classification of Mental
Disorders"
dhex|3.22.06 @ 3:36PM|#
"As for the "no modern medicine," people in the Amazon have done
fine for millennia without "modern medicine." "
except for the whole lower life expectancy, constant warfare,
inability to defend onself from outside cultures thing, you're
totally right.
"nature" is a great idea that unfortunately does not actually exist
in nature.
|3.22.06 @ 5:46PM|#
I will try again (for the 4th time)
This research is not needed: it has been long established that with
a tape measure and some large calipers, a person's intelligence and
tendency towards violence --among other things-- can be readily
known
fyodor|3.22.06 @ 6:01PM|#
michael Palin,
I understand you very well. During my transition from
state-liberalism to libertarianism, I embraced a property-rights
exception for "the natural world," which I felt was in a sense
partly owned by everyone, kind of in a joint manner with the legal
owner, somewhat akin to the way children legally belong to their
parents or guardians but society at large can still place limits on
what the parent/guardian can do. My rationalization was that no one
made the natural world. Owners of property have a right to the
fruits of whatever part of the natural world they mix with their
own efforts, but they don't have an absolute ownership to how that
part of the natural world gets to be used because on its own, no
one made it. Or so I theorized. I would hesitate to advocate such a
notion now, but part of me is still at least open to it. At the
very least it does sadden me to see or know of beautiful places
soiled. The most fair way to deal with the issue is to pool
resources to buy beautiful parcels of land to presrve their beauty.
Perhaps if environmentalists were less enamored with centrally
planned solutions, there'd be more support for preserving natural
beauty through voluntary transactions.
fyodor|3.22.06 @ 6:05PM|#
B.P.,
On my friend's behalf, thanks. He'll probably have to live down
such jokes for some time, but for now, they're the least of his
worries!
|3.22.06 @ 7:32PM|#
andy:
Speak for yourself, Mr. "Being a selfish prick is cool if
you're honest about it."
I shall. Indeed, I did! People claim to care about humanity or
nature or future generations, but it's mostly hogwash. You can't
really care about people you don't know however much you might gain
some sort of emotional benefit from wishing them well
abstractly.
"And what the hell would mindful consumerism be?"
Not using more than you really need.
No, really, that won't do at all. After all, someone will come
around and point out that you really didn't need to use whatever
trivial electrical energy, etc., it took to engage in this thread.
Eventually we get down to just who is to decide what you or I
"really need," and beyond trying to persuade someone to act
voluntarily we end up simply imposing our preference sets on
others. "Mindless consumerism" just translates to buying stuff you
don't like.
"Still, it has always struck me that the whole point of society
and civilization is to avoid nature's typically harsh treatment of
its inhabitants as much as possible and that this is a good
thing."
Respecting nature and living in harmony with it are not
mutually exclusive with living a "comfortable life"
Respecting nature is fine. For example, one should always be
respectful of the dangers of nature. Living in harmony with nature,
on the other hand, is absurd insofar as the phrase has any
cognitive content in the first place. But nature just is what it
is. And, as such, we're just another part of it.
Mr. Palin:
Your logic is thus: If somebody does give a shit about, say,
the Baltic Sea, he should act 'naturally' like the fishes swimming
in it. Fishes are selfish bastards who sometimes even eat their own
offspring, so clearly these Baltic Sea loving hippies are illogical
morons. Some projecting in process here, maybe?
I think not. Obviously, it would be unnatural for people to act
like fish because, well duh!, we are not fish. But fish are neither
selfish or unselfish, they are merely acting like fish. We, too,
are merely acting like human beings, using our biological
advantages to facilitate our survival, reproduction, etc. Insofar
as there are any moral issues involved, they arise among people and
not between people, on the one hand, and nature, on the
other.
As for the Baltic Sea and such, I think the operative phrase of
your comment was "I feel." I sympathize, but we can't go around
giving priority to your or my feelings (let alone andy's) when
other legitimate interests are concerned. All other factors being
equal, I would prefer preserving rather than dispoiling nature, but
all other factors are not equal. People need food and shelter and
energy, etc., and very few (andy included) would voluntarily opt to
go native in the Amazon, so trade-offs must be made.
Are they always made well? Of course not. But the solution is not
to stop making them and it is certainly not to embrace some
knee-jerk enviro-fundamentalism like, well, like some
people I could mention.
M. Simon|3.23.06 @ 11:49AM|#
fyodor,
Yep. We must remove the soil from all the beautiful places.
Or perhaps you know of a vendor for unsoiled soil?
|3.23.06 @ 10:02PM|#
About the Amazonian people... there has actually been some
research by those "crystal-gazing schmucks" applying shamanic
techniques inspired by tribal Amazonian people to treat mental
"illness" ranging from Depression to Attention Deficit with some
success without drug intervention. Of course, it's not that hard to
best the 30% success rate of SSRI's.
Increased life expectancy vs. native populations probably has
little to do with the stimulants they give kids to keep them docile
in the classroom and more to do with nutrition and
immunization.
At any rate, though they have been given to 3 times as many kids in
the last 5 years, the drugs haven't been given to anybody long
enough to determine long-term side effects, much less the impact
they will yield on the evolution of the species.
As for genes as the trigger for mental illness, the labeling of
ADD/ADHD and similar states is so incredibly subjective, it makes
it nearly impossible to determine causality. How do you establish a
control group?
There is also an argument from the realm of media study which finds
a parallel between literacy and mental states. The ubiquitousness
of this digital world we now swim in finds language more and more
shifted into the realm of the glyph, icon and smiley, away from
rhetoric, linguistics and grammar. This could be a much more
elemental, cultural explanation for the seeming epidemic of the
short attention span with greater repercussions than mere
biological tendency.
But don't ask me. I'm reading old paper books by the fire in my
teepee. [please "hear" the sarcasm]
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245