No idea what to think about this. But it's interesting!
http://gizmodo.com/5891917/racism+curing-pills-are-apparently-a-thing-now
http://gizmodo.com/5891917/racism+curing-pills-are-apparently-a-thing-now
Are you a RACIST? There's a pill for that...
- Thread starter Bill Mattocks
- Start date
Brave New World.
Well, with a sample size of only 36, it doesn't really matter anyway. It's not like this counts as real science...
OP
- Thread Starter
- #5
Imagine the philosophical questions. Let's say it works and works on everyone. Now, racism is a bad thing, and I think most decent people agree with that. And it can certainly be argued that it's a public health and safety issue; after all people are hurt and even killed for racial reasons (which is why we have 'hate crime' laws on the books). Just like putting fluoride in the water supply cuts down on tooth decay, this pill would cut down or eliminate racially-motivated crimes. Our society could be safer, more harmonious, and happier in general.
However, let's be clear; this is a mind-control drug. It affects the way people think and feel and react, right? The question, then, would be whether or not a free society could require citizens to take it (or put it in the water supply, etc). Don't people have the right to think whatever they want, even to be racist? As long as they do not commit crimes, aren't people allowed to hate others for any reason at all, even their skin color, ethnicity, national origin, etc?
I could see the arguments both ways.
Group One: I am against this drug. Racists are bad, but government mind control is worse.
Group Two: I am for this drug. It only affects racists, so if you are not a racist, your mind is not controlled.
Group One: I am not for racism, but I am for freedom.
Group Two: This drug only affects racists, so if you do not support it, you support racism.
That would be one HELL of a national argument, and I suspect it would break down along party lines pretty quickly.
However, let's be clear; this is a mind-control drug. It affects the way people think and feel and react, right? The question, then, would be whether or not a free society could require citizens to take it (or put it in the water supply, etc). Don't people have the right to think whatever they want, even to be racist? As long as they do not commit crimes, aren't people allowed to hate others for any reason at all, even their skin color, ethnicity, national origin, etc?
I could see the arguments both ways.
Group One: I am against this drug. Racists are bad, but government mind control is worse.
Group Two: I am for this drug. It only affects racists, so if you are not a racist, your mind is not controlled.
Group One: I am not for racism, but I am for freedom.
Group Two: This drug only affects racists, so if you do not support it, you support racism.
That would be one HELL of a national argument, and I suspect it would break down along party lines pretty quickly.
Something powerful for me was watching that documentary about the Human Genome Project. Essentially if you go far enough back in time we are all descendents of the same two people from Africa.
As far as I am concerned their is just the Human Race, all the rest is cultural.
As far as I am concerned their is just the Human Race, all the rest is cultural.
It was probably Cambridge students who are in a class all of their own. They come in all colours and creeds but are all very very rich, a lot are aristocratic and/or come from families and dynasties of power.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #8
Imagine for a moment it did, and where that could take us as a society...just a thought experiment.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #9
True enough, but hatred based on skin color exists, we call it racism. We can't deny it exists just because genetically we are all descended from the same people.
No argument here.
I can't point to a study but I have read that racism exists in the animal world too. For example timber wolves will often refuse a black wolf or a white wolf membership into the pack. I guess to a timber wolf the height of perfection is that gray color. I wonder if humans have some similar mechanism.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #12
Well, imagine that it does have a biological component (as the linked article represents) and it can be 'cured' by a pill. What are the ramifications?
Although my answer about the Cambridge students was a bit tongue in cheek, there's truth in that where all are equally rich or at least all equally wealthy there is very little racism, there is little unrest or hatred in the better off areas where everyone is perceived as equal because they all have the same amount of wealth. Perhaps rather than taking a pill, making sure that social conditions are the same for everyone might be a better answer. When some perceive social conditions are better for some then the envy, jealosy etc kick in that when you get the hatred.
Probably nowhere, since I think it likely that genetics has little or nothing to do with racism. This "study" (scientific integrity obliges me to put the quote marks around the word) is cute, and will grab a few headlines (and some cash) for Oxford, but that is all.
Because of the way they work, beta blockers are known to reduce the perception of stress and anxiety. That means the MASSIVE sample of 18 people in the "study" group may have been just a little more relaxed and well disposed towards the world in general. You'd get the same effect (likely to an even greater extent) by giving them anxiolytics, hypnotics, narcotics, mild sedatives, and any other drug that induces various degrees of euphoria.
I suspect even at Cambridge hierarchies exist and so do jealousies. Even amongst the elite these things are true, it's just human nature.
Even in Socialist and Communist countries hierarchies exist, you still have an elite class of people and all the rest.
I would like to live in world without racism but I think the human race is going to have to grow to a much higher level of existence before it happens.
Bill for me at least the ramifications are unknowable. For some reason I keep thinking back to the film Serenity. They put something in the air to prevent violent behavior. Most people just went to sleep and never woke up and a small percentage became flesh eating monsters. I realize that it's a work of fiction but this is a "thought" experiment so it seems admissible.
A conclusion that relies on the unsupported assumption that their refusal to accept the other wolf is based on fur color rather than any number of other possibilities.
I didn't say there wasn't hierarchies and jealousies, I was saying there were less which is true. The reason I said they were Cambridge students is because of the rivalry between them and Oxford, both elite universities with rich colleges and students but each seeing the other as less than they are.
cdunn
2nd Black Belt
Full study.
All thought has a biological component, and therefore, can theoretically be altered to greater or lesser degrees by pharmacology. Right now, we have an interesting thought on our hand, but we have to be pretty careful about it. It is tinkering with fear, outgroup, and ingroup selection. We do not know what other dials it may twist... which can be worse. Like most pharmacological solutions, it is not a matter of 'input chemical, output result A', there is also result b, c, d, e, and f to deal with, and we know from rate experimentation that the mental effects of propranolol are different at the chronic and acute levels.
That said, I cannot find that there is an ethical way to say that we should all be taking this pill involuntarily, even if it works.
All thought has a biological component, and therefore, can theoretically be altered to greater or lesser degrees by pharmacology. Right now, we have an interesting thought on our hand, but we have to be pretty careful about it. It is tinkering with fear, outgroup, and ingroup selection. We do not know what other dials it may twist... which can be worse. Like most pharmacological solutions, it is not a matter of 'input chemical, output result A', there is also result b, c, d, e, and f to deal with, and we know from rate experimentation that the mental effects of propranolol are different at the chronic and acute levels.
That said, I cannot find that there is an ethical way to say that we should all be taking this pill involuntarily, even if it works.
Oh well, scientists predict in about 400 years we will all be cafe o'le....
They also said that the recessive gene for blue eyes would vanish eventually, but they didn't account for sexual attraction.
