[Royce]

Read this book the other day, and it raises some interesting questions. Some of you might be familiar with this, but I was not, so please enlighten
me if this has been proven wrong in some way.

In few words it says that research has shown that crime, violence and addictive behavior is not a social problem, but a biological one.

This researcher called Meaney started a series of studies on the biological impact of childhood trauma. He already knew of studies that showed that
victims of physical or sexual abuse are more likely to take their own lives as adults. He`d also read papers that described how childhood abuse can
damage a person`s ability to handle stress. These results could be explained away by emotional trauma, of course, but Meaney wanted to know if
any biology was involved. How does the toxic impact of childhood abuse live on in a person? Why does it cause some to commit suicide? The answer might be hidden in the brains of the suicide victims.

Meaney had his eye on one particular molecule. The glucocorticoid receptor is one of the basic building blocks of our stress response system. It is a
protein that helps us control the hormones that cause stress: the more we have of the receptor, the better we are able to respond to stressful
situations and vice versa.

Experiments have been done with rodents. By disrupting the maternal bond between a female rat and her young, researchers had already shown that poor parenting can cause young rats to have fewer glucocorticoid receptors. And when they grow up , those same rats coped badly with stress.
Could the same apply to humans?

When the analysis was complete, Meaney saw an intriguing pattern. For the most part, the brains of suicide victims had similar receptor levels to those of people who had died in accidents. But in the samples of victims of childhood abuse, receptor levels were lower, just as with the rats.
When he homed in on the cause of the difference, things got even more interesting. Meaney discovered that the gene for the receptor was covered
by a chemical blanket that effectively silenced it. Exactly the same silencing mechanism as seen in the rats that suffered poor maternal care. The
implication was significant: An abusive childhood might turn the volume down on this vital stress-response gene, leaving the abused vulnerable to stress and perhaps suicidal impulses, later in life.

His focus was suicide, but epigenetics is revealing that a slew of behaviours, from depression and other mental illnesses to aggression and perhaps
 even crime , may be shaped by chemical imprints laid down in the cells of people who suffer traumatic childhoods.

If this is true, you inherit destructive behaviour. We have all seen the pattern where the father beats the child, because his father did it to him, and his father to him again and so on.

Thoughts on this?

[Madness]

I can only assume this is in-text research?

[Royce]

I can only assume this is in-text research?

Not sure what you mean by "in text research"

Meaney(a scientist) worked with a psychiatrist called Gustavo Turecki, who for several years had been collecting the brains of people who had committed suicide. Turecki also had detailed records of each of the donors lives.

Meaneys study was a landmark moment in the field of epigenetics.

[Madness]

Apologies, Royce, I definitely read that as Ghost in the Shell (and I was surprised it was a book).

I will look into this - I find this type of research interesting, if you haven't noticed.

[Royce]

Lol. I guess 9 out of 10 makes that mistake:)

I have noticed that there might be quite a few on this forum that will find this interesting.

It raises many interesting questions. If you inherit behaviour for for example, it seems wrong to punish someone for it.

[Callan S.]

Like a canary in a coal mine, isn't it more that the stress vulnerable person simply shows up the stresses in the society around them?

Does it really matter that it's inherited? Or does what really matters is how in 'society' we maintain FAKE resource scarcity, so as to cultivate desperation that then drives people to work?

And yes, some suffer more at that artificial desperation, I'll grant.

But I'm not sure the issue is to stop punishing them for crimes, even as we continue to punish them (and ourselves (I'm assuming none of us are mega rich)) with fake resource scarcity?

Remove the fake resource scarcity and I'm guessing the crimes (and, incidentally of course, their stress) goes away.

[Wilshire]

In few words it says that research has shown that crime, violence and addictive behavior is not a social problem, but a biological one.

Biological is a very broad category. I'm assuming you mean that its a learned behavior, specifically from our parents. In which case, that sounds like a social problem to me. From what you've said, it doesn't really sound like you are implying some kind of genetic inheritance, which is what I think of when "biological" is brought up.

Does it really matter that it's inherited? Or does what really matters is how in 'society' we maintain FAKE resource scarcity, so as to cultivate desperation that then drives people to work?

Was that mentioned in the research? I've not personally read it, but that kind of sounds unrelated (and like a crazy conspiracy theory to boot).

[Callan S.]

Was that mentioned in the research? I've not personally read it, but that kind of sounds unrelated (and like a crazy conspiracy theory to boot).

You big flatterer!

Look, a study say A causes B. I'm saying they are wrong, Z cause B. It's on topic to say research is wrong (whether one is right in saying it or unfortunately not right).

As to why it's wrong, okay, that might be a different subject. But I think it's wrong and I've said my piece (I'll start another thread on the other subject if there's interest, unless Royce wants to include it here)

[Royce]

Biological is a very broad category. I'm assuming you mean that its a learned behavior, specifically from our parents. In which case, that sounds like a social problem to me. From what you've said, it doesn't really sound like you are implying some kind of genetic inheritance, which is what I think of when "biological" is brought up.

Well, that it is learned behavior is the social science stance on the matter I guess. What this particular study seem to imply is that if you were abused as
a child, you will produce less of these receptors that help you to handle stress as an adult.

I think the point is that people with a low level of these receptors, will have kids who are also born with low levels of these receptors. So they may
struggle as adults without having been abused by their parents. So we have generations of people who inherit these low levels and they might cope
badly with stress without there being a particular social reason for it.

They used rodents in this study, and even if we have certain physiological and behavioral similarities with mice or rats, there are lots of differences too. Personally I have problems with this kind of study. Rodents are not humans.

The main problem is that we cannot research the living brain:).

Personally I think that it is a bit of both really, both social and biological.

Does it really matter that it's inherited? Or does what really matters is how in 'society' we maintain FAKE resource scarcity, so as to cultivate desperation that then drives people to work?

Well, it might lead the focus more on treating each individual as a person with a genuine problem, rather then rounding them all up and calling them
"criminals", and fokus only on the social side of things. What if generation after generation of inheritance are causing these social problems? Should
we not try to understand the problem at its root rather than treating the symptoms, like crime?

Remove the fake resource scarcity and I'm guessing the crimes (and, incidentally of course, their stress) goes away.

If it is inherited, and that is of course still just speculation, would they not still cope badly with stress even though their surroundings are balanced?
If their receptor levels are low, as I understand it, they will cope badly no matter what.

As to why it's wrong, okay, that might be a different subject. But I think it's wrong and I've said my piece (I'll start another thread on the other subject if there's interest, unless Royce wants to include it here)

If you feel it is relevant you can post it here Callan. Everything brought to the table are much appreciated

[Wilshire]

The main problem is that we cannot research the living brain:).

Personally I think that it is a bit of both really, both social and biological.

Yes the fact that we cannot see the brain as it develops we don't ever have an opportunity to point to something and say "look, here, this is the cause" and know if its nature (i.e inherited) or nurture (social/learned behavior).
Because of that, I think its very hard to conclusively separate the two sides, and agree that its likely both.

[Callan S.]

If it is inherited, and that is of course still just speculation, would they not still cope badly with stress even though their surroundings are balanced?
If their receptor levels are low, as I understand it, they will cope badly no matter what.

It depends on how extreme the effect is that you are talking about?

It's a scaling thing. I'd agree at the extreme end they'll have trouble coping even with an eden like life (Mimara, anyone? Hope a ref to the books is okay!).

However, I imagine they will still cope better with an eden like life than a resource deprived on - and if they have children, they will apply less stress upon those children. Who in turn will cope better with an eden like life - and so on.

I'm just saying I think that 'It's not their fault, so don't lock them up!' is just giving them a free pass, but without actually tackling what drove them to acts that we lock folk up for. It cures the symptom, not the desease.

If you feel it is relevant you can post it here Callan. Everything brought to the table are much appreciated

I'll try and keep it short - I think with even fairly obsolete technologies right now we could sustain lives without any of us having to work nearly as hard as we do right now. We could spend more time playing in parks with our children or whatever. However, those who have benefited from the invention of those technologies first and foremost have no interest in giving anyone else an easy time. And government is still modeled on monarchy, which itself had no interest in letting peasants laze away the afternoon. So although supposedly all this technology is 'for the benefit of mankind!', they choose to avoid solving resource scarcity with it and instead maintain it. Because it's a handy whip to keep us working for them. I choose to think they decide this, rather than being too dim witted to understand what's going on/have no choice in the matter. I'll grant, probably some are just too dim witted to know it and even they buy into the idea that that's how it has to be. But most know it doesn't have to be this way, but keep it this way. Because they are winning and they need pieces for their grand chess boards.

[Royce]

It depends on how extreme the effect is that you are talking about?

I think more research on this is needed to answer that question.

About your rant: This is how the western empire works right? The idea of huge profits and economic power fits well with the human ego.

Out of sight out of mind. Why care about people you never meet or interact with? You do not feel it either way.

If only we could actually feel the global injustice, it would cease to exist. How do we achieve that? That might be a new topic soon

[The Great Scald]

If only we could actually feel the global injustice, it would cease to exist. How do we achieve that?

What would even be the point of achieving that?

Nature isn't fair or egalitarian. I can think of several dozen more worthy things than "correcting global injustices."

 

[Royce]

Nature isn't fair or egalitarian

This is no excuse. You think that we should just accept things as they are because "nature is not fair"?

You do not see potential in humans to do better?

I can think of several dozen more worthy things than "correcting global injustices."

I am intrigued, and since I can not read your mind, I will wait to hear your dozen things more worthy than trying our best to
improve the standard of living for humans(and other animals we fuck with of course).

 

[Callan S.]

Yeah, I'm curious as well to see what manages to pip correcting global injustices (especially how encompassing (how global!) that term is!)?