As Mlodinow explains, "although we are much more complex in our behaviors than sheep and voles, people, too, are hardwired to certain unconscious social behaviors, a remnant of our animal past" (96). Given the relationship between oxytocin and vasopressin receptors and valued human social behavior (love, sociability, monogamy),
can you imagine a scenario in which it would be a good idea to alter a patient's hardwiring in this respect in order to encourage a desired behavior, like monogamy?
Some might say that all drugs alter someone's hardwiring, but what policy should govern when such alterations are permissable? Is it enough for the patient to desire such a treatment? Under what conditions can a patient's hardwiring be altered without their permission?
I can imagine a scenario in which it would be acceptable to “alter a patient's hardwiring” to produce a desired state of behavior. But with respect to monogamy? Not a chance, lets pick something that actually benefits our society. I think Christopher Hitchens should have added monogamy to his list of overrated things: “The four most overrated things in life are champagne, lobster, anal sex, and picnics.”
ReplyDeleteNo person's hardwiring should be altered without their permission; doing so is borderline evil. I'm a firm believer in personal will, and no one should be able to tell someone what they can (or can't) put in their own body; permission is what counts here. With that out of the way, we can surely put such re-hardwiring to good use in a number of ways; let's go through a few examples where we assume a person has given such a permission (and that's what counts):
One is scientific research. The more we experiment the more we find out; if we had patients willing to be experimented on freely, we can further our knowledge. This is what is called an ethical problem in research; just because someone wants to doesn't mean that they can. There are many legal hoops people have to jump through and some experimental cases are inexcusable no matter what. This is a great threat to the progress of our species in the form of scientific censorship.
After proper experimentation and understanding, we could then begin the re-wiring of people's hardwiring on a large scale, which can be especially beneficial in cases of neurological and chemical imbalances: true depression and bipolarism, anti-social disorders, and things of the likes. Imagine a person who is truly lonely and anti-social and all they wish is for the chance and ability to finally be someone they've wanted to their whole lives; someone who has loving friends, meaningful experiences. If they desire this, as likely all humans do, who are we to deprive them of such an opportunity? Imagine a day where you can walk into your doctor's office and get drink or pill that would make you fall deeper in love with your spouse or child, be more trusting of others, get over the fear of intense social situations; sounds pretty good, huh?
The same holds true for “all drugs”, if someone wants to shoot up meth or drink alcohol (both drugs and arguably equally dangerous) they should be able to do so without any harassment. As long as you're not causing harm to anyone, as I say, “do you.”
Chase,
DeleteI very much appreciate your thoughtful answer to this question. It is definitely a thought-provoking question! I completely agree that nothing like this should be done without a person's permission. But doesn't it seem a little dangerous to tamper with the way someone's mind works/is wired? I mean, the idea has the potential to help people a lot, but couldn't it also be used to alter someone's mind for bad purposes as well? If it actually worked safely in the first place?
Also, have you ever considered the idea that, maybe our problem is so severe that we need more than to be rewired? My personal conviction is that everything we do is stained by sin; that everything we do is, to whatever extent, out of selfishness, pride, etc., and that that is both the source of life's problems and an enormous offense to the all-powerful, sovereign God that created us for His glory. In addition, our sin will cause us to suffer just punishment forever after we die. I believe that what we need is not a rewiring of our minds by drugs or operations, but we need to repent to God of our sins (turn away from our sins and to God), and our lives and the lives of those around us will change dramatically as we learn to live to serve others, not ourselves, for the glory of the One who saved us.
Again, I really appreciate your thoughts on the subject. This is just something for you to consider.
Sincerely,
Brittany Jolly
Brittany,
DeleteIt's very clear that, based on your beliefs, you believe that tapering with “God's creations” is a bad thing. I'm afraid you're speaking solely from your personal beliefs, which will only get you so far. I personally don't hold any of the same beliefs that you've stated having, but I can truly see and understand where you're coming from. I do have to say, however, that my responses are based much more so on science and reason than belief – but that's another discussion for another time.
Yes, it could be completely dangerous to tamper with the brain's wiring, but overall, I wouldn't say it seems like so. I think we should be careful as to say it “seems” dangerous, that somewhat implies that it will always be dangerous no matter the use; when you yourself have agreed it has “the potential to help people a lot”. But enough with the rhetoric, let's move on.
I can, however, understand why you might think it seems like a bad idea (personal beliefs aside) – and at this point in time, it probably would be, but that's due to nothing more than our ignorance of the subject. As I pointed out, we should only begin rewiring “after proper experimentation and understanding”, that's the key here; human understanding is a function of scientific experimentation. So, beliefs aside, if we fully understood the wiring and how re rewire it, as I said in my first reply, what would be bad about helping someone to function better?
You're totally right, however, in the fact that it could be used for bad purposes as well. But so could a fork, you know what I mean? If we shouldn't do something because it has harmful potential, we'd never get anywhere. This is also why I pointed out going into a doctors office or something, and additionally some very strong regulation, so you know it's not being used for evil.
“Also, have you ever considered the idea that, maybe our problem is so severe that we need more than to be rewired?”
Now I'm in no way proposing that everyone needs to be rewired, of course we don't, but there are some cases (specifically the ones I pointed out) that it would be beneficial. I don't think we have a “problem” at all, along the lines that you suggest. The human race is getting more ethical and compassionate – a trend that has continued for centuries now – all on our own. In addition, data is available that shows people don't need to be God-fearing to live good and prosperous lives as you suggest – it actually suggests quite the opposite. As I stated above, though, this falls into that “another discussion for another time” category, which I'd be happy to meet and discuss with you anytime.
CT
Chase,
DeleteI suppose that what scares me about the idea is that if it were to fail, the experiments could leave the subjects dangerously worse off than where they started. But you are exactly right in that our ignorance of the subject plays heavily into what we see as possible or not! It definitely deserves to be researched, because if it works, then it could be like chemotherapy for cancer - something I hadn't thought of until just now.
"But so could a fork" - you're exactly right, anything could potentially be used wrongfully. With enough regulation, the risk would be greatly reduced. Unfortunately, there would still, most likely, be people that tried to do it secretly and for evil. After enough research, one could more accurately determine if the risks were worth the benefits.
I disagree that "the human race is getting more ethical and compassionate...all on our own". Certainly there are things that the human race is doing that are good...I won't say that everything is inherently bad, they are just tainted by our sin. I would definitely love the opportunity to discuss this further with you.
Brittany Jolly
Brittany,
DeleteHonestly, it kind of scares me too – it's a very heavy topic. This would be one of the most dramatic and revolutionary set of experiments ever done and, you're right, things could go very wrong – but let me try to put that in a different light. Yes, while we're in the experimental stages of our hardwire-altering knowledge, there would most likely be mistakes leaving subjects worse off. It is here we must speak in terms of “risk vs reward”; the risk being messing some people up, the reward would be to bring healing and happiness to countless people for the rest of history. I think the reward greatly outweighs the reward, especially considering the “rule” I (we) established above – “we assume a person has given such a permission”.
“..it could be like chemotherapy for cancer – something I hadn't thought of until just now.” Yes, just like that, chemotherapy is an excellent analogy!
Concerning your last paragraph, I can see where you're coming from. It's kind of a strange thought that things are getting much better, but they really are. Consider this:
Early in our history we were nomadic tribes fighting for basic necessities, plagued by bloodshed. Throughout our history we've banded together to create villages, city states, nations, civilization, society and so on. In the last couple of hundred of years we've seen the world-wide abolishment of slavery, civil rights, women's rights, safety nets for the poor, rules of war, treaties, foreign aid. This is not to mention that just about all violent crime is on the decline, and has been for decades. That's some pretty good progress towards ethics and compassion if you ask me. This is just the tip of the iceberg, of course, and I suggest taking the time to check it all out.
“I would definitely love the opportunity to discuss this further with you.”
Awesome! feel free to “friend” me on Facebook and we'll go from there.
CT
I’m a fan of monogamy, and do consider it to be beneficial to our society, unlike Chase. This is probably because like Kayla, I’m a Christian and consider us all to be living in a fallen world because of sin. But, because the focus of this question is more about the ethics of experimenting with a person’s “hard wiring”, I’m going to stick with that. Do I believe that it’s ethically right to alter someone’s so called “hard wiring” to get a desired behavior? No I do not. But I can imagine a scenario where it would be useful: pedophilia. Surely we can all agree that sexually abusing children is abhorrent, and should be stopped. In the past, this kind of behavior was discouraged through castration and such. We’ve grown a bit less chop happy and now such acts are punishable by prison terms and being labeled a sex offender. Which is all great, but if a doctor could chemically alter said offender, with (or without) his permission, to no long have those urges resulting in the acts, is it still be right to do so?
ReplyDeleteThat’s a quandary, and I’m thankful I don’t have to decide that for anyone. Because I do consider it wrong to alter someone’s brain or “heart”, (I believe that is God’s job). On the other hand, I would want to do whatever necessary to protect innocent people. That line of thought makes me think of lobotomies, and their prevalence in the 1940’s and 50’s. At that time, “experts” considered drilling into someone’s frontal lobe a panacea for mental illness. And, granted, doing it did “calm” the “patients” down from fits. We now know that lobotomies are not a proper way to treat schizophrenia, anxiety, or depression, and I wonder if doctors today were to attempt to fiddle with a person’s “hardwiring” would be looked back on with the disgust we place on Moniz, Burckhardt, and Freeman. Interestingly, at the time no one stopped these doctors from drilling holes in people’s heads, nor did they believe they were in the wrong. Legally they were not; they had medical licenses and the patients’ permission or the permission of their families. I believe messing with “wiring” has the potential to follow that dangerous path and could have horrible consequences.
I think ethically there is no way a person’s “hard wiring” should ever be messed with, the risk is simply too great. Concerning treatments to physical, impairing ailments, especially mental illnesses there is also no easy answer. I would hope that a policy of sound judgment would be used when prescribing such powerful drugs, but I know that is not always the case. It’s a real toughie, and trying to conceive some type of universal policy of “governing” for these concerns would be even tougher if not impossible, because this kind of thing varies so greatly from individual to individual. It's interesting that for as much ground breaking has been done in the recent history of studying the subconscious and conscious, these are still relevant and complex questions.
-Kristina Mayfield
If someone were to alter the “hardwiring” of say, Ted Bundy, and he became a kindly manager of a local bakery that was entirely trustworthy, and he spent his days ensuring his town got the best pastries anyone ever had, I would say this would be an example of a good use of that particular skill. Likewise if someone were to have altered Stalin’s mind and made him a simple goat farmer contented with the simple pleasures of life this would also be a good use of it in my opinion. Like others on this blog I am a Christian and my personal belief is that we as a people are sinful by nature and do in fact require a “hardwiring” to attain the mentality we should have, though this change can be found only through Christ.
ReplyDeleteTell Jordan
As a person's mind is a direct product of the chemical goings-on inside their head, I think that “altering a person's hardwiring” is definitely an approach that gets results. A person's mental state can stray from the norm for a myriad of reasons, many of which are outside the reach of therapy and counseling. In cases of severe depression and some conditions that fall on the autism spectrum, for example, I believe that prescriptive methods are some of the best forms of treatment available. In some specific instances these conditions may demand that they be treated without express consent from the patient in question, like that of my brother. My younger brother is nearly seventeen and is a very low-functioning autistic. Without medication his life would be more of an uphill battle than it already is, leaving him mostly unable to sleep or engage people socially. As he can't communicate his consent for his treatment, my parents had to do so for him in what was ultimately a pretty easy decision. As a result, he is able to interact on mostly a gesture-based level with people he hasn't even met before and even consider other people's senses of personal space, a considerable feat for someone on his level of the autistic spectrum. His condition definitely builds a case for the forced manipulation of a person's behavior, but often times the decision is not so clear-cut.
ReplyDeleteHomophobia and disinformation led to the creation of “conversion camps” in America in the 1950's, a time when such an institution was considered necessary by swathes of the American public. Youths were often sent without their consent to live in facilities designed to scare the homosexuality out of them, be it with shock therapy or coerced confessions of sin or impurity. This treatment could be backed up with supposedly tested and proven medical literature in a time when the first edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-I) explicitly classified homosexuality as a mental disorder. While it may be easy to scrutinize people from half a century ago for letting societal norms dictate their medical practices to such a degree, it is important to consider what people fifty years from now will think of the way we treat schizophrenic, bipolar, and dissociative identity disorders. I think that societal factors need to placed on the backburner when considering when it is proper to treat someone without their consent, and that behaviors that we deem desirable may not be crucial to the point of altering a person's brain chemistry.