Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Mind alteration

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Would you be in favour of mind alteration by scientific means, such as if they could isolate genes that for example gave rise to violence or paedophilia and remove, supress or otherwise affect them?

Is the end result of such an operation the same person? What happens if the scientific method proves flawed, leaving people completely defenceless or unable to participate in normal society?

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What if the method was flawed?

    What if the method was perfect?

    Either way this is not something i approve of.

    The biggest question it raise's is who gets to decide what parts are desireable and what parts aren't? Does the subject get a say in what get removed and what doesn't?
    And finally : Does every-one get to go through this, or would it just be those that a small number of people deem to need it.

    Any-one that thinks this would be a good idea, or that it may work : all i can suggest is a quick read of Aldus Huxley's "a Brave New World".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sounds quite terrifying to me.
    We would start by removing 'killer' or 'paedophile' genes but we would end up eliminating all anti-social genes in the brain. Hooligans, yobbos, drinkers, thieves, adulterers and heavy drinkers would be targeted next. We would end up being programmed into being model citizens- no swearing, no cheating on your partner, no fighting, unable to feel rage, no drinking or taking drugs... Talk about the living dead.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What about if its only done to convicted criminals. Genetic modification would be a bit too late for them - maybe some sort of implant that releases or inibits certain chemicals.

    Sex offenders could lose most (or all) of the sex drive. Murderers could lose some of their aggression (if that is what caused them to murder), etc..

    Because these implants might be seen as a violation of human rights offenders would be given a choice, eg "either you spend ten years in prison and have the implant implanted, or you spend the rest of your life in prison".

    So offenders are actually cured.

    I don't think this is quite within our technology yet (otherwise they could use it to help "cure" diabetes with an insulin based implant), but I reckon its not far off.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not sure that this would be possible by those means. People assume that genes drive all aspects of our behaviour and physical appearance. The truth is a lot more complex, there is a fine line between inherited and learnt traits, both of which combine to produce a specific behaviour.

    Direct interference of the brain's chemistry/neurological processing is more likely, but even then the sheer complexity of the brain's functioning would make any changes non-specific to a particular behaviour.

    Nevertheless, given that it would be possible, I'd be against it for the simple reason that it artificially and involuntarily limits any induvidual subject to it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Lord of Little
    Nevertheless, given that it would be possible, I'd be against it for the simple reason that it artificially and involuntarily limits any induvidual subject to it.

    Prison and laws artificially and involuntarily limit any individuals subject to them, are you against them too?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    OK, hows this for an arguement :

    If a person does not have the option to do bad or wrong things then they really don't have the ability to do right.

    It follows that if a criminal has this treatment then they never have the oppertunity to show repentance for their crimes, or changes there ways, as the "treatment" would have changed them first.

    Without free-will we are not people.
    Without choice we have no free will.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Mist


    Prison and laws artificially and involuntarily limit any individuals subject to them, are you against them too?

    Well, the method you proposed (genetic engineering) would necessarily be an inheritable change, therefore any children of these subjects would be born with such changes already in place. Seems a bit too close to eugenics for my liking.

    Given that it's a specific non-genetic change applied only to convicted criminals, it would still be a major change in both the mind and body of the induvidual, surely an infringement of personal rights??

    Laws do not limit us in our behaviour, at any time we always have the choice of whether to follow them or not. Laws are (generally) set up to be advantageous to society as a whole. If, as in most cases, we wish to be social and civilised then they work to our advantage, if not then we face the penalty for breaking those laws. If we take away that choice we also take away free will and the willingness to be part of a greater whole.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not specifically in favour of the idea, I just posted to see the reaction, as some folk seem to favour locking people away for life or using capital punishment.

    So, to extend the idea, what if there was a reversible function to prevent convicted criminals from having children? Should this be applied to criminals? It's reversible so wrongly-convicted innocents would not be affected. We assume criminals cannot reverse the procedure themselves.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Preventing convicted criminals from having children is hardly a deterrant for the average young "street criminal". At 20 I certainly wouldn't have thought it a punishment.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But the world is crowded. Do we really need more criminals?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Mist
    But the world is crowded. Do we really need more criminals?

    Criminality isn't inheritable through the genes.

    If anything, it is the result of the social conditioning and values instilled in the child by the parent, as well as copied patterns of behaviour.

    To be honest I think the only way to tackle the problem is a major re-structuring of social views. Seems like there are those who are willing to contribute to society and instill those same values to their children, and those who want all the benefits of a civilised society but none of the responsibilities, who also instill the same values in their children.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    yup, thats it.

    Society is to blame, right?
    That is, at the same time, 100% true and 100% usless.

    Society needs to change, but if that change is forced upon it the change will almost certainly be for the worse. People freedoms are at stake, and people value them more than they might think.


    At the end of the day the only way for society to improve is through education. This does not nessecarily mean just the school system, but the experriences and views that children come into contact with throughout their journey into adulthood.
    Things like media, schooling, lifestyle, diet and home life all affect how a person will grow up, and all need to be considerd.

    Unfortunatly this means that things are not likly to improve greatly in mine or your lifetime. This view is reinforced when i look at a lot of the people who are having children at the moment. :(

    I guess the overall message i'm trying to get across is THINK BEFORE YOU HAVE KIDS, i mean, i'm not trying to tell you how to live, or tell you what to buy (and you put up with that daily), i'm just suggesting a way we may NOT SUFFOCATE THE PLANET with people that don't have socail responsibility or GIVE A FUCK ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE. Really it's not too big a message for most people to get, but they still think that because they can have children, and have a right to have children, and even feel its natural to have children that they ABSOLUTLY HAVE TO HAVE CHILDEREN.

    >phew!<
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by cokephreak
    OK, hows this for an arguement :

    If a person does not have the option to do bad or wrong things then they really don't have the ability to do right.

    It follows that if a criminal has this treatment then they never have the oppertunity to show repentance for their crimes, or changes there ways, as the "treatment" would have changed them first.

    Without free-will we are not people.
    Without choice we have no free will.

    Perhaps the idea I presented was too black and white.

    Think of this way, although we have a free choice, many things constrain this choice, for example upbringing, genes, environment, even what we eat (which is why most people don't walk around naked). We still have free choice - "influenced" by these factors (which is why we don't all behave the same).

    What I am suggesting is not completely blocking someone's ability to commit crimes (which would be, I suspect, impossible) but by either reducing, or increasing certain chemicals, "influencing" very strongly someone's choice over whether to kill, rape, etc. They would still be the same person - just changed by an influence, just as our own experiences change and influence us.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by cokephreak

    Any-one that thinks this would be a good idea, or that it may work : all i can suggest is a quick read of Aldus Huxley's "a Brave New World".

    Dammit I was going to say that.

    In that case perhaps I can direct you towards " A Clockwork Orange"

    Perhaps some sort of hormonal injection could be affective in certain sex offenders and I'm not against that as it could be viewed as solving a medical problem.

    But mind alteration??? no way.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by cokephreak
    Without free-will we are not people.
    Without choice we have no free will.

    No, we are people regardless of whether or not we have free will. The former is a fact of life, that we are people. The latter is an independent phenomenon. You might not like the idea of not having free will, but that's not a proof that it exists -- just emotionality.

    There are some consequences to the non-existence of free will, though, chief among them non-culpability. If there is no free will there can be not 'guilt,' since any 'offender' could have had no 'choice' but to 'offend.' That is not to say (s)he is not responsible, but it does demolish any contention of culpability.

    Consequences of non-culpability? Well, it means that retributive punishment is logically unjustified. The only justifiable punishments are those that either rehabilitate the offender or reduce the likelihood of future offences by him/her or others, or both.

    To answer the original question, though... would I support mind-altering punishments? In theory, yes. In practice, no. Governments cannot be trusted to decide what constitutes a model citizen and then enforce that standard.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by cokephreak
    Any-one that thinks this would be a good idea, or that it may work : all i can suggest is a quick read of Aldus Huxley's "a Brave New World".

    I was going to say that as well..........

    Not being a scientist I don't know how likely all this is, but all I know is that book scared me so much and consequently I would say 'no' to the idea of anything like this.

    *makes mental note to read 'A Clockwork Orange' very soon*
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by cornflake girl

    *makes mental note to read 'A Clockwork Orange' very soon*

    ...and watch the film...

    It's quite interesting. Though the ideas in there are slightly different to genetically altering people, the end result is probably similar. The government's position on it (in the film) is interesting too, and has a certain degree of believability.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MacKenZie : What are you argueing?

    To me it seems you are saying

    1) There is no such thing as free will
    2) without free will you cannot attribute guilt / blame
    3)without guilt /blame you cannot fairly punish
    4)in theory you are for mind alteration.

    Assuming 1) is true then 2 & 3 follow logically, but then 4 is out of place.

    What have i missed?


    Big J : Yes, I am not completly agianst infulencing people against commiting crimes. I think (at the moment) that influence should come from time spent in prison, community service, councelling etc etc.
    Directly effecting some-ones mind or personality is too enforcing though. After having such a thing done the persons ability to repent would be greatly deminished, as they have so little choice in the matter.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I believe it would be a good treatment for persistent offenders, and people would have their free will, unless the treatment somehow went wrong. They would still be the same person-a better one.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by cornflake girl

    *makes mental note to read 'A Clockwork Orange' very soon* [/B]
    Originally posted by Mist


    ...and watch the film...


    You'll get a lot more out of the book than the film tho (as is usually the way)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru

    Silverberg

    They would still be the same person-a better one.


    If that is the case then why doesn't everybody have it aswell?

    While we're at it we can wipe out greed, jealousy and hatred, yeah?

    How else can we make people better? give people the compusion not to drop litter? To help old ladies over the road?
    To vote labour and join the army?

    Wow! what a wonderful world that would be, and no-one would mind because everybody would be telling them that they are now better people.


    Seriously, i'm more in favour of capital punishment than i am of this. At least with capital punishment you let people die as themselves.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think there could be two safeguards to this procedure:

    1) They have the choice, either they voluntarily accept this chemical "influencing" procedure, or they spend the rest of their lives in prison (or until they are safe - see 2)

    2) Surely the principal should be that perpetrators of serious crimes are only let out of prison, when their (estimated) risk of re-offending is the same as, or less than, an "average" normal citizen. If this can be achieved through counselling, etc all well and good - otherwise its their choice.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by cokephreak
    MacKenZie : What are you argueing?

    To me it seems you are saying

    1) There is no such thing as free will
    2) without free will you cannot attribute guilt / blame
    3)without guilt /blame you cannot fairly punish
    4)in theory you are for mind alteration.

    Assuming 1) is true then 2 & 3 follow logically, but then 4 is out of place.

    What have i missed?

    You missed the fact that I did not make assertion (1). However, I did say that (2) follows from (1). I did not say that (3) follows from (1) or (2). I did say that it follows from (2) (and hence from (1)) that retributive punishment is not logically justified, that punishment has to be rehabilitative and/or a deterrent.

    I did say (4), but tempered it with practical opposition. Let me expand on why. It's simple: [perfect] mind alteration would enable the production of a [perfectly] reformed offender. It would be the ultimate rehabilitation tool. Given that the prospect of having one's mind 'wiped' or personality 'replaced' is a somewhat scary one, it also has considerable deterrent value. However, as I said, I do not trust anyone capable of getting into government to come up with and enforce their own ideas of what a 'perfect citizen' is.

    Do you yet concede that human beings are not 'people' if 'free will' does not exist?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by MacKenZie



    Do you yet concede that human beings are not 'people' if 'free will' does not exist?

    Human beings are people regardless of the free will. One could say that a new born baby doesn't have much free will, but it's still a person.

    Mind alteration would not necessarily dictate the removal of free will in any case, the constraints of the free will would simply be more firmly imposed than by the law.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Big J
    1) They have the choice, either they voluntarily accept this chemical "influencing" procedure, or they spend the rest of their lives in prison.

    This is a good idea in theory, but some people may end up being forced into having the treatment without fully understanding what it is. If someone said "This will mean you can get out of jail, you'll be a better person and won't reoffend" they might take them at their word and agree, without understanding the implications. However, if this has really serious far-reaching consequences on their mental state, it shouldn't be used unless people are fully aware of what is happening. (sorry this isn't very clear......)

    Or what about political prisoners or prisoners of conscience? If this technique is available, it is also possible that it could be used by oppressive regimes to "silence" those who disagree with them.

    Sorry, messing about with people's minds is just too damn dangerous for my liking.

    (Edited because my 'a' key doesn't work properly.)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Mist


    Human beings are people regardless of the free will. One could say that a new born baby doesn't have much free will, but it's still a person.

    Mind alteration would not necessarily dictate the removal of free will in any case, the constraints of the free will would simply be more firmly imposed than by the law.

    OOOPPPPSSSSSS!!

    Major typo there! :o

    That should have read "Do you yet concede that human beings are still people whether or not they have free will."
Sign In or Register to comment.