Discussion on Lecture #3. Neuroethics

[GilZ]

Hi,

I just wanted to share some comments on lecture #3.

I found the discussion on Neuroethics quite engaging. All the cases we
discussed where very interesting. Mine were not that involved.
Actually I had written two because the firs one I wrote led me into
something kind of different. Let me elaborate. I wanted to write on
something which is more or less sought universally (if there exists
such a thing). So, I wanted my scenario to be about the search for
love. Since love is a feeling I modified it a little bit: What if
there were a drug that would allow us to find "the perfect one". My
rationale was that such a drug would be developed in response to the
rate of divorce and single parent families. So, this drug would allow
people to enhance their perception of people and facilitate raport,
which eventually could lead into enhancing relationships and living
together. That's were I stopped writing. First, I started thinking
about the implication of such a drug and how families would be built
around artificially enhanced "feelings". Then I thought that we kind
of have such a drug: alcohol. So, my idea may not add much to this
field.

Next, I started thinking about something else. I wanted to right about
something I would like to fix and that is kind of current. So, what
about fixing politicians (or some aspects of them)? One thing that
bothers me a lot is when politicians are asked to testify in front of
congress (or committees) and they suddenly "don't recall" events! I
have a hard time believing that. So, what if there were a drug that
ensures perfect memory and that is given to politicians? In this
scenario my questions would be: 1) should these individuals be given
such a drug knowing that they are going to engage in making important
decisions with public-wide implications? If so, should they be asked
or required to take them? and 2) should these individuals be tested
for this drug. And if so, how would the outcome of such test(s) change
the way they are judged?

These were my scenarios for last session. Any and all comments are
welcome.

Gilberto.

[Zack Mendenhall]

Hey Gil,

I am fascinated by the love-drug idea.
The following drug-information is drawn from my lay-man's brain to me, so I could be wrong!

The cognitive enhancement pill for love is in illegal circulation already, and comes in two flavors! The first is ecstasy, which produces a strong urge to bond with others, facilitated by a very low threshold for bonding (i.e. no need for courtship). The second is heroin which produces a strongly bonded feeling (with or without other bodies present) during the crescendo of the 'high', and as one comes down from the high, they feel tremendous grief, as if they've lost a strongly bonded partner (or object).

As an Evolutionary Psychologist, I've been exposed to massive amounts of information that has led me to a pseudo-conclusion on the nature of love and bonding: it's hard work worth doing, and the less work we invest in these bonds, the less we reap. So, I agree! A pill which elevates feelings of love would lead to relational (cultural?) lethargy, where our behaviors (motivated by a lack of love) to pursue the things that bring love to us (interesting careers and hobbies, ecstasy and heroin) fail to activate, leaving us contently snuggling on the couch while we starve to death; too in love to move. Just look at heroin addicts.

-Zack

[GilZ]

Hi Zack,

thanks for the post. It's interesting. I had thought of ecstasy and
heroin as social drugs, not love drugs but I guess the feeling of
wanting to fit is very similar to the feeling of wanting to be loved.

See you in class,

Gilberto.