ForumGarden

If it were possible to identify and alter or remove violent behavioral tendencies in people through genetics, would you be for it?

It's already possible, and yes I am for it

All people have the capacity for violence but, yes, I'm for ridding the world of all people.

:wah::wah:

All have the capacity, yes, but not all have the tendency to be violent. For example, my first reaction is often emotional and excited, and I personally would prefer to react differently, but due to my breed, thats not easy for me. Most sports, especially the violent variety like American football along with rugby, boxing, cage fighting and hockey would most likely have no fans (come to think of it, they wouldn't have any participants either). No wars!

Ahso!;1343513 wrote: :wah::wah:

All have the capacity, yes, but not all have the tendency to be violent. For example, my first reaction is often emotional and excited, and I personally would prefer to react differently, but due to my breed, thats not easy for me. Most sports, especially the violent one like American football along with rugby, boxing, cage fighting and hockey would most likely have no fans (come to think of it, they wouldn't have and participants either). No wars!Fans have to be just as violent as those they're willing to cheer on...

The difference being what people can live with in justifying their actions.

Just like how every fighter I know exclaims how personal it becomes when one enters the ring against them while they completely fail to realize they hadn't been forced in it to begin with. Justification comes first, choices second. It's entirely why everyone acts off of impulse in their initial response as opposed to doing so with emotion, the latter defines a lack of perspective

Ahso!;1343507 wrote: If it were possible to identify and alter or remove violent behavioral tendencies in people through genetics, would you be for it?


Everybody has the capacity to be violent the vast majority learn to control their tendency towards being violent. It's nature versus nurture isn't it. If we did do it somehow it would alter one of the very things that make us what we are.

gmc;1343517 wrote: Everybody has the capacity to be violent the vast majority learn to control their tendency towards being violent. It's nature versus nurture isn't it. If we did do it somehow it would alter one of the very things that make us what we are.True, but who is to say whether or not thats a good or bad thing, especially given that there is no creator, designer, puppet-master or what have you, and it was believed species survival was dependent on it?

I would say that politicians have committed the most violence.

OpenMind;1343536 wrote: I would say that politicians have committed the most violence.


They never commit, they only inspire, or set the stage for it.

Would it be okay with you to allow only the non-violent, non-aggressive to procreate. Thats kinda what we try to achieve with prison, to a certain degree, isn't it.

Ahso!;1343523 wrote: True, but who is to say whether or not thats a good or bad thing, especially given that there is no creator, designer, puppet-master or what have you, and it was believed species survival was dependent on it?


Don't quite get what you mean there. Violence is an option we all have at our disposal. We know how children are treated when very young can have a major impact on whether they are violent, as in capable of indiscriminate violence or unable to control themselves, as adults. As an adult in a confrontational situation I can choose to use violence or not, talk my way out of a situation or use violence if I have to. It's not what other people do or say that matters but how i choose to react to it. It's neither good or bad just he way things are. I need to have that capacity for violence to survive so if you were able to remove violent tendencies it would have to be for all for it to work. It's one we need to control but it's got to be there.

posted by ahso

Would it be okay with you to allow only the non-violent, non-aggressive to procreate. Thats kinda what we try to achieve with prison, to a certain degree, isn't it.


1) that's assuming that only violent people go to prison and the ones left outside are not.'

2) most people in prison are there for crimes against property burglary, stealing, drug dealing and the like, not for violent crimes against people.

gmc;1343623 wrote: Don't quite get what you mean there. Violence is an option we all have at our disposal. We know how children are treated when very young can have a major impact on whether they are violent, as in capable of indiscriminate violence or unable to control themselves, as adults. As an adult in a confrontational situation I can choose to use violence or not, talk my way out of a situation or use violence if I have to. It's not what other people do or say that matters but how i choose to react to it. It's neither good or bad just he way things are. I need to have that capacity for violence to survive so if you were able to remove violent tendencies it would have to be for all for it to work. It's one we need to control but it's got to be there.It is rapidly becoming evident that much of what we thought was due to upbringing is in fact genetic, such as what we refer to as ADD, ADHD, Aspergers, Bipolar and so on. Its part of our various breeds as an animal species. Not that upbringing doesn't count, it does, but the values are different than we thought they were.



gmc;1343623 wrote:

1) that's assuming that only violent people go to prison and the ones left outside are not.'

2) most people in prison are there for crimes against property burglary, stealing, drug dealing and the like, not for violent crimes against people.yeah, we really need to cut that crap out.

vi·o·lence (v-lns)

n.

1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.

2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.

3. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.

4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.

5. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.

6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.

From the definition above, as it pertains to human behavior, I believe it would be a good thing for violence to be abolished. However, and unfortunately, humans would probably not recognize themselves and many would not know how to relate to another. We can only dream. JMO

Ahso!;1343553 wrote: Would it be okay with you to allow only the non-violent, non-aggressive to procreate. Thats kinda what we try to achieve with prison, to a certain degree, isn't it.


This would be an unnecessary violation of rights given that violence and aggression are not necessarily dependent on genes.

Let's say we do genetically alter violence out of every person in the country. Somebody somewhere is going to take advantage of the non-violent ones, possibly by (literally) raising a violent army to march in unopposed and take over. It's the gun control debate all over again.

Violence is not a problem. Cruelty is a far greater evil. How would you measure & screen for that?

Accountable;1343697 wrote: Let's say we do genetically alter violence out of every person in the country. Somebody somewhere is going to take advantage of the non-violent ones, possibly by (literally) raising a violent army to march in unopposed and take over. It's the gun control debate all over again.

Violence is not a problem. Cruelty is a far greater evil. How would you measure & screen for that?


Cruelty need not be violent or intimidating. Exclusion or banning, imprisonment, deprivation, teasing, etc.

Would genetic modification require constant refreshment. You could use this type of engineering to modify people for various purposes that would help them in their choice of career. Soldiers could actually benefit from modification of their bodies to induce advanced aggressive responses when required.

OpenMind;1343703 wrote: Cruelty need not be violent or intimidating. Exclusion or banning, imprisonment, deprivation, teasing, etc.Exactly. I'd put pre-crime punishment due to DNA analysis in that category as well.

It could be that aggressive/violent tendencies are due to hormonal signals in the body. Thats how humans figured out how to domesticate dogs (Wolves).

Back in the 1950's, Russia (then the Soviet Union) decided to attempt to domesticate the Red Fox by timing reproduction of the animal just prior to a hormone kicking in (on average of about 4 to 6 months of age) which changed the Fox from a docile state to an aggressive one. There were other unintentional and surprising consequences to the work such as floppy ears and curly tails in the physical sense and a seemingly lack of emotional maturity (remaining pup-like). That method of selective breeding took 5 generations to breed out the hormone and domesticate the Fox into what is now called the Silver Fox.

Today in Russia the technique for domesticating the Fox has changed from timing the onset of the hormone to simply allowing only the least aggressive Foxes to reproduce with one another. This method takes three generations on average. The Physical and emotional consequences are the same.

Granted, it would take a while to get used to seeing Humans walking around with floppy ears, curly tails and constantly licking each other, but hey, for the good of peace and harmony, don't you think it would be worth it? As far as the emotionality consequences go, so, everyone would be a republican, but at least they'd be harmless. I could live with that.

Kidding aside (okay, I wasn't kidding - you'll have to get over it), we're animals too and its easy to envision breeding away our aggressiveness and violence as well. Those traits and hormonal mechanisms obviously served us well in the wild to get us to where we are today, and since we've basically taken it upon ourselves to usurp the natural selection process by not allowing it to work as it always had up to recent times, we might as well face the fact that we know this stuff now and get around to the business to helping the process of allowing people to get comfortable in the reality that is now. Its probable IMO that it would happen eventually anyway.

Some wolves were bred and cross-bred and eventually domesticated. Other wolves remain wild. If the wild breed encounters the domesticated breed, there is little doubt of the outcome. The domesticates will submit or become food. Many won't be given the option.

I don't see an equivalent experiment with human animals going much differently.

Accountable;1343774 wrote: Some wolves were bred and cross-bred and eventually domesticated. Other wolves remain wild. If the wild breed encounters the domesticated breed, there is little doubt of the outcome. The domesticates will submit or become food. Many won't be given the option.

I don't see an equivalent experiment with human animals going much differently.I'm surprised you didn't jump all over me for the republican comment. I did that just for you, ya know.

I disagree with what you wrote because we have cognitive abilities. Its easy enough to deal with any mishaps or rogue elements using technology.

Ahso!;1343786 wrote: I'm surprised you jump all over me for the republican comment. I did that just for you, ya know.

I disagree with what you wrote because we have cognitive abilities. Its easy enough to deal with any mishaps or rogue elements using technology.I didn't "jump all over" you and didn't refer to your republican comment at all. Intelligence doesn't equate to wisdom, nor does it equate to lack of ambition. There is always the possibility that someone somewhere will raise a violent army, and since the rest of the world will not be violent, they will have no way to counter them.

Bring in the wolves.

Accountable;1343808 wrote: I didn't "jump all over" you and didn't refer to your republican comment at all. Intelligence doesn't equate to wisdom, nor does it equate to lack of ambition. There is always the possibility that someone somewhere will raise a violent army, and since the rest of the world will not be violent, they will have no way to counter them.

Bring in the wolves.Oops, I left out the word "didn't". I've been doing that a lot lately. corrected.

I don't see any such breeding being successful.

If you think cattle are non-violent, you have spent too little time around the farm.

Violence is a part of the mammalian make-up.

Absolute Docility would lead to extinction, I think.

Ahso!;1343812 wrote: Oops, I left out the word "didn't". I've been doing that a lot lately. corrected.
:wah: Been there myself. Actually I thought the republican jibe was pretty funny. I'd left that out, too.

LarsMac;1343835 wrote: I don't see any such breeding being successful.

If you think cattle are non-violent, you have spent too little time around the farm.

Violence is a part of the mammalian make-up.

Absolute Docility would lead to extinction, I think.I agree with you. My thought is to remove the reactionary or emotional part of it. I'd think its possible to do that without removing all emotion, only the ones that don't really serve us any longer. Domestic and child abuse that is reactionary? Gone. I read an interesting statistic the other day that there is zero reports of child abuse in lesbian households.

Of course we are not about to do anything like this. Hell, we won't even remove alcohol from the equation.

Ahso!;1343843 wrote: ...

Of course we are not about to do anything like this. Hell, we won't even remove alcohol from the equation.


Get between me and my beer, and you will SEE some violence!!

Seriously, you keep externalizing everything.

That will never find a solution.

LarsMac;1343850 wrote: Get between me and my beer, and you will SEE some violence!!

Seriously, you keep externalizing everything.

That will never find a solution.Explain, please. Do you mean like projecting?

Ahso!;1343843 wrote: I agree with you. My thought is to remove the reactionary or emotional part of it. I'd think its possible to do that without removing all emotion, only the ones that don't really serve us any longer. Domestic and child abuse that is reactionary? Gone. I read an interesting statistic the other day that there is zero reports of child abuse in lesbian households.

Of course we are not about to do anything like this. Hell, we won't even remove alcohol from the equation.
Yeh, liberty's a bitch, ain't it? :yh_wink

Accountable;1343853 wrote: Yeh, liberty's a bitch, ain't it? :yh_winkDefine liberty in this context, please.

Ahso!;1343854 wrote: Define liberty in this context, please.Freedom to drink. Freedom to be stupid. It's really underrated.

along-for-the-ride;1343658 wrote: vi·o·lence (v-lns)

n.

1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.

2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.

3. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.

4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.

5. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.

6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.

From the definition above, as it pertains to human behavior, I believe it would be a good thing for violence to be abolished. However, and unfortunately, humans would probably not recognize themselves and many would not know how to relate to another. We can only dream. JMO


Curious dictionary you have. Depends on the context, like openmind by those definitions i have never been violent.

vi·o·lence

   

–noun

1.

swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.

2.

rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence.

3.

an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.

4.

a violent act or proceeding.

5.

rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.

6.

damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration: to do editorial violence to a text.




Like most males I have played violent sports, they're very popular. Doesn't mean those that play them are violent people in their everyday lives or have a particular disposition to use violence on other people in normal behaviour.

If push comes to shove I am capable of violence in self defence - it's just to me it is a last resort.

posted by ahso

It is rapidly becoming evident that much of what we thought was due to upbringing is in fact genetic, such as what we refer to as ADD, ADHD, Aspergers, Bipolar and so on. Its part of our various breeds as an animal species. Not that upbringing doesn't count, it does, but the values are different than we thought they were.




Also environmental factors as well, there is clear evidence that food additives affect behaviour as well. We really don't know enough to even think about going down this route and besides that who gets to decide whose genetics need changing?

To some people questioning authority is enough to classify people as a danger to society.

posted by ahso

I'm surprised you didn't jump all over me for the republican comment. I did that just for you, ya know.

I disagree with what you wrote because we have cognitive abilities. Its easy enough to deal with any mishaps or rogue elements using technology.


If you selected for intelligence would that not gradually eliminate republicans anyway?

Since war itself is a form of unnatural selection, it would be interesting to see the long term effects on hormone levels of a population in a state of constant war. I could imagine a case in both directions where the populations could become less violent, or more violent.

yaaarrrgg;1343928 wrote: Since war itself is a form of unnatural selection, it would be interesting to see the long term effects on hormone levels of a population in a state of constant war. I could imagine a case in both directions where the populations could become less violent, or more violent.I read this earlier today.

The dramatic decline of the modern man - Nonfiction - Salon.com

Ahso!;1343930 wrote: I read this earlier today.

The dramatic decline of the modern man - Nonfiction - Salon.com


That's interesting... I wonder if long term a lot of the early instincts will be lost. These instincts/characterists were geared for survival in an older environoment that may not even exist anymore. People in the U.S. are going to have to adapt to city living, chemical pollutants, and junk food.

yaaarrrgg;1343932 wrote: That's interesting... I wonder if long term a lot of the early instincts will be lost. These instincts/characterists were geared for survival in an older environoment that may not even exist anymore. People in the U.S. are going to have to adapt to city living, chemical pollutants, and junk food. :)America and Americans are certainly giving it their best shot, aren't they.

Even though natural selection has been interfered with among our species, its ferociously at work within each member. There ain't no stopping god, is there.

As can be seen, a previous emotive post of mine has been deleted. I have also been given an infraction as I apparently threatened a member or a guest. I have expressed dismay at the reason given as in that post, I'd stated that I find the idea of violence appalling, I do not feel violence, I have never expressed violence.

Go figure.

Sorry to learn you've received an infraction, I don't recall reading anything you posted to be offensive. Its probably temporary, don't let it chase you away, you're a vital member of this forum.

Ahso!;1344080 wrote: Sorry to learn you've received an infraction, I don't recall reading anything you posted to be offensive. Its probably temporary, don't let it chase you away, you're a vital member of this forum.


Thank you, Ahso.

I can assure you that I have no plans to run away unless I'm chased with a stick. The infraction sort of scores a point in my favour. A very subtle one.

OpenMind;1344071 wrote: As can be seen, a previous emotive post of mine has been deleted. I have also been given an infraction as I apparently threatened a member or a guest. I have expressed dismay at the reason given as in that post, I'd stated that I find the idea of violence appalling, I do not feel violence, I have never expressed violence.

Go figure.
You've made no threat in this thread.

Accountable;1344086 wrote: You've made no threat in this thread.


Thank you Accountable.

Perhaps we'd better forget it now as I wouldn't want to see the thread closed down because of it. I still have a full copy of the post which I pasted to my PC after I'd posted it here. Complete with spelling mistakes too.