[Future] Violence and War as Disease

**Myo-jin** · 04-20-2026, 02:59 AM

Originally posted by Jundo

I think that many of you know my personal view on the ultimate end to the disease of war, the only real treatment and cure. Maybe too radical for some, but I don't think so compared to the horrors we are witnessing on battlefields around the world, in this age of "weapons of mass destruction" and the possibility of their use:

War will continue until human empathy is biologically enhanced in the human being, across our species, to the point that (1) we would be as hesitant to kill and maim an enemy as we would be to kill and maim our own mother or child, encountering all with the same emotions, and (2) we would be as unable to leave another human being hungry, afraid, abandoned and homeless as we be to leave our own mother or child hungry, afraid, abandoned and homeless. When the diseases of violence in rage and insufficient empathy are cured in human beings, in body and mind, the disease of war will be treated and cured, no different from any deadly disease. The ability to make such changes to our animal nature is fast coming and must be prudently employed.

Gassho, Jundo
stlah

No doubt you’re right in principle, to my mind humans won’t survive the coming centuries if we don’t learn to still murdering each other, among a good many other things. We are our own great filter.

Some may take issue with the ethical implications of forcing happy pills or genetic engineering on people. You’d get a similar response if you suggested mandatory sterilization as an answer to overpopulation, regardless of the logic of it. The cynic in me also wonders how long it would take for such technologies to be used against people we don’t like, to render their populations passive and easy to conquer. But in any case, my sense is that this thread isn’t really the place for that discussion so I’ll leave it at that.

Gassho

Sattlah
M

**Jundo** · 04-20-2026, 04:06 AM

Just to clarify, as I often need to do ... and repeatedly ...

Some may take issue with the ethical implications of forcing happy pills or genetic engineering on people. You’d get a similar response if you suggested mandatory sterilization as an answer to overpopulation, regardless of the logic of it.

I don't support forcing anyone, but believe in what I call the "O-zen-pic" model ... offering something so enticing and healthful that folks ... even the rich, famous and powerful ... will partake voluntarily because it makes them feel healthy, pleasant, well-off, happy and peaceful to do so, much as they might take Ozempic into their bodies voluntarily now. If it feels good to be filled with less anger, and enhanced peace and love, people will engage voluntarily just as, today, the masses voluntarily put countless substances in their bodies ... from antidepressants to beer to chocolate cake ... to feel more healthful and happy.

The only exception may be on the battlefield, as an alternative to dropping bombs that dismember and kill. Being dismembered or killed is also not "voluntary," so better a non-voluntary "love bomb." There may also be a place in our penal system as part of the treatment for truly violent, convicted criminals who we now toss into our prisons and hell holes, although even there it should be offered such individuals as their free, medically informed choice.

The cynic in me also wonders how long it would take for such technologies to be used against people we don’t like, to render their populations passive and easy to conquer. But in any case, my sense is that this thread isn’t really the place for that discussion so I’ll leave it at that.

Yes, that is going to happen when the Pentagon, Kremlin and others get their hands on such technologies as one sided weapons. I cannot prevent that, and only warn what is coming whether we like it or not. I am like someone saying "atomic energy is here to stay, whether we like it or not, so we had best use it well if so ... for clean energy, not bombs." The only way to prevent what you describe is to see that both sides are filled with empathy for the other side.

Gassho, Jundo
stlah

**Seido-nigo** · 04-20-2026, 10:35 PM

Jundo ,

In advance, please excuse the lengthy response. You've raised many difficult points and I share my own thoughts in the hope that it provides further perspective.

I too deplore all wars currently occurring globally and would agree with Taikyo that no war is ever "just". The false binary of just/unjust implies some kind of moral superiority in a state of conflict where there is no superiority to be had. There's only devastating loss and destruction that reverberates for generations.

Using the language of morality also begs the question: who determines what is/isn't morally acceptable? Throughout the history of humanity, this hasn't been determined by skill or wisdom but by social norms and power. Buddhism does not escape this human tendency either. Zen monks subverted Buddhist teachings to serve Japanese imperialism and the violent occupation/annexation of neighbouring Asian countries seen as inferior and in need of the purity and divinity of Japan during World War II. I hope we can agree, we don't need to repeat that sad, human exercise.

I am perturbed by your concepts of war and violence, and your proposed solution. Respectfully, war is not a disease. Disease is the abnormal function or structure of part/all of an individual human body, associated with specific signs and symptoms (1). War is armed conflict between states, state forces or organised groups; it is inherently collective, relational, contextual and deeply complex (2). Applying the medical model to a complex geo-socio-economic-political conflict is - in my opinion as a human, buddhist, researcher and physician - unhelpful because it obscures the complexity of war and thus the need for complex, systems approach solutions (note the plural).

Applying the medical model to moral/social/political problems is known as medicalisation (3). Beyond the fundamental misalignment of war and disease, I would strongly advise against placing challenges of the human condition into a medical box if those challenges are not medical problems. Not infrequently, medicalisation becomes a form of misappropriated social control that does not empower or serve the people who become medicalised.

Violence is also not a disease. Violence is behaviour with the intent to harm another, which may be through the use of physical force, coercion, control or sexual aggression. It is deeply destructive and very unfortunately, human. Should violence be prevented? Yes, absolutely, but the solution is not biologically enhanced empathy, which, as far as I understand, is unfeasible at present as we've not identified any discrete biological mechanisms for empathy (4, 5). If you have research that suggests otherwise, I'd be keen to read it (and check who funded it).

My research this past winter focused on interpersonal violence prevention. A 2018 umbrella review of over 120 000 individuals from 1139 unique research studies across 14 countries demonstrated that the individual level factors associated with the highest risk of violence are substance misuse (alcohol, drugs) and disorders of the brain (psychosis, personality disorders, traumatic brain injury). The historical factor that most increases your risk of experiencing violence is witnessing or being a victim of violence as a child (4). A review of the literature globally strongly supports violence being a product of systems of oppression of any kind - gender inequality, sexuality or ethnic minority, immigrant status, socioeconomic deprivation, operating within a hierarchical power structure without appropriate safety culture. Rather than "ozenpic" making people "healthy, pleasant, well-off, happy", this evidence tells me we need to focus our efforts on dismantling systems of oppression and inequality, on ensuring that people can safely and adequately access psychiatric and addiction services for full recovery without stigma, and fund family agencies so that they can intervene early when parents are struggling.

Very disconcertingly, your description of the "ozenpic" model reminded me of soma and society in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. It also unfortunately doesn't match the reality of ozempic/GLP-1 agonists. After 2 years, more than 85% of patients stop taking ozempic despite its benefits of weight loss, cardiovascular and metabolic disease risk reduction (7) and the rapid weight regain after cessation (8). People's relationship to taking medication regularly is deeply personal, counterintuitive and entirely under their autonomy.

What am I trying to say with all this? Our humanity is not pick n mix. There is no way to selectively numb the "anger and rage" parts to luxuriate in the "peace and love" parts. We all have the capacity for violence and a drug that artificially attempts to anaesthetise anger and rage is more likely to mimic a psychiatric disorder and increase violence rather than promote peace.

PS: I recognize you believe a "love bomb" would be benign but respectfully, it has similarities to the OPCW's definition for chemical warfare (9). Perhaps for reconsideration?

Gassho
Seido
satlah

**Jundo** · 04-21-2026, 02:47 AM

Hi Seido,

I hope it is okay, but I moved this discussion to its own thread so that it would not be lost in the other. Also, it is nice to be discussing these issues with someone with your experience and expertise in this arena. Even so, I would like to try to make my position clear, and maybe even persuade you on a couple of points.

First, I am not speaking of medicine and technology as it exists in 2026. I am speaking of our abilities as they, possibly, may exist in 2036, 2076 or 2126 (assuming, of course, that our species makes it that long. This is a week, after all, in which there is level headed discussion among commentators on the possibility of nuclear war in Iran within the coming days: LINK) Do you feel confident in predicting medical technology 10, 50 or 100 years from now? Can you say with certainty that our understanding of the brain and endocrine system will not progress to a point at which raging anger cannot be better moderated, the desires of the rapist better regulated, and feelings of love and empathy not enhanced and more widely directed, again, at some time in the not so distant future?

Second, I speak as a lawyer seeking alternatives to our cruel and ineffective penal system, and as a citizen who seeks alternatives to wars in which thousands of children and other civilians are maimed or killed, or entire civilizations "wiped out" (as was threatened this past week.)

Does the following seem so unworkable, so unrealistic, that the possibility should not even be considered?

Would it be theoretically possible, for example, in the case of recidivist violent criminals found guilty in courts of law of repeated terrible violence done in a state of rage, and in rapists, to someday have relatively simple subcutanoeous microchip devices which, upon detecting hormone release in blood chemistry associated with extreme states of anger in the convicted violent individual, or sexual urges in the convicted child rapist, or associated neurological states, would (again, in 2076 or 2126, not today) release tranquilizing or other calming pharmacological agents or neurological stimulation that would "head off" the rage or desire to sexually assault? Of course, any such device would need to be proven safe and effective in clinical trial, as in any medical treatment. Furthermore, even if such treatments should exist, they should be offered to convicted individuals upon informed consent, freely chosen, as part of a treatment plan which is an alternative to standard punishments (i.e., they will still have full right to choose our current style of punishments should they instead wish. The only exceptions I might foresee of involuntary use would be, in some cases, family guardians choosing for a violent minor, or court ordered treatments for the most violent offenders such as murderers serving life sentences.) Are you prepared to say that the entire concept is impossible, totally impractical, 10, 50 or 100 years from now?

Second, on the nature of love and empathy: Speaking from personal experience, I adopted two children who are not genetically related to me in any way, from other cultures, parents, histories and races, yet somehow I feel that I physiologically developed a parent's love and concern for these children as if my own biological children. I have also experimented (in my distant past) with psychotropic substances that, temporarily, filled me with feelings of universal love, empathy, tolerance and caring, as well as meditation experiences that have done much the same. These experiences lead me to suspect that, possibility, in 2036, 2076 or 2126, the triggers for such feelings might be better understood than today, and possibly, we will have some better ability to trigger, regulate and even direct such emotions. Doctor, can you rule out the possibility of our being better able to do so 10, 50 or 100 years from now?

If we truly "loved our neighbor as ourselves" (and saw the enemy on the battlefield, the homeless man on the streets, the hungry child in Africa with the face of our own mother or child) then war, homelessness and hunger would be nearly impossible for us to tolerate. If something, biologically, hormonally, neurologically, psychologically, causes me to feel that I would lay down my life for my own child, then it may be possible for me to feel the same for all children as if my own. You cannot rule out the possibility, or say that the possibility is not worth exploring.

You say:

who determines what is/isn't morally acceptable?

It is possible to debate morality, but some cases are very clear: Child rape, the bombing of innocent civilians, homelessness and children dying in famines are evils not open to much debate, and it is those evils I wish to address.

You say:

... war is not a disease. Disease is the abnormal function or structure of part/all of an individual human body associated with specific signs and symptoms (1). War is armed conflict between states, state forces or organised groups; it is inherently collective, relational, contextual and deeply complex (2). Applying the medical model to a complex geo-socio-economic-political conflict is - in my opinion as a human, buddhist, researcher and physician - unhelpful because it obscures the complexity of war and thus the need for complex, systems approach solutions (note the plural).

Most wars are based on the principal that I cannot live in my land while tolerant of your living in your land, that we cannot share the earth's bountiful resources so that all have enough, that I hate or despise you for who you are as someone different from me, that I feel jealousy and rage toward the stranger. However, human beings also have great ability to be tolerant, to be friendly and loving, to share and be generous, to be peaceful and free of selfishness and rage. We live so in our nations, neighborhoods and families (when not disfunctional, alas) sharing and loving, tolerant, feeding and supporting each other, and with space for all. There is a biological component to all of that. Are you saying that there is definitely no biological component to why I am loving and generous with my children, accepting and generous with my friends? Are you sure that we can never come to feel such love for all children and peoples in 2076 or 2126?

Medicine is about saving lives, healing wounds, preventing the debilitating effects of malnutrition and preventable diseases. If safe and effective biological treatments became available to reduce violence in rage, and to enhance human empathy (all as shown in clinical trials), resulting in saved lives, and reductions in hunger, poverty and their accompanying diseases, you would refuse to use such means, doctor?

A 2018 umbrella review of over 120 000 individuals from 1139 unique research studies across 14 countries demonstrated that the individual level factors associated with the highest risk of violence are substance misuse (alcohol, drugs) and disorders of the brain (psychosis, personality disorders, traumatic brain injury).

And so, based on that and our current limited abilities, you are sure that, by 2076 or 2126, there will be no medical cure for addictions, something that shuts down the excess cravings?

I think that we will never be able to treat all brain disorders, just as we will never be able to prevent all diseases of the body, but you are sure that by 2076 or 2126, there will be no way to pharmacologically or neurologically regulate and temper some of the worst behavioral aspects of, for example, psychosis, anger disorders, sociopathy, so that such individuals can function as ordinary, non-violent, empathetic, productive members of society? If so, we should stop looking for such cures now as just a waste of time?

I dare say too that, if we are more loving and empathetic toward each other, because biologically called to be so, then much of the harm and oppression of "immigrant status, socioeconomic deprivation, etc. etc." would vanish or radically decrease because we would look toward immigrants and the poor with the faces of our own children. It is that which will dismantle the systems of oppression and excess inequality, not the other way around, so long as our selfish and violent human nature stays the same. You have it backwards, doctor. Better said, lets do ALL OF IT, approaching these problems simultaneously from all angles, both within the human heart and mind (quite literally) and out in our social and political structures. Each approach will further and support the other.

Very disconcertingly, your description of the "ozenpic" model reminded me of soma and society in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. It also unfortunately doesn't match the reality of ozempic/GLP-1 agonists. After 2 years, more than 85% of patients stop taking ozempic despite its benefits of weight loss, cardiovascular and metabolic disease risk reduction (7) and the rapid weight regain after cessation

Again, you are talking from 2026. Do you think that this is the end of the "Ozempic" story? Or is it just the start, and that researchers are not now working on "new and improved" versions which will prolong the positive effects? Have they quit, closed up their labs, and thrown up their hands? If so, doctor, leave your white coat on the floor and turn off the lights.

People's relationship to taking medication regularly is deeply personal, counterintuitive and entirely under their autonomy.

You are correct, but here is something amazing not to forget: There is no need to have 100% universal participation in what I describe in order to have wide-ranging positive changes in society.

For example, if only (1) convicted repeat violent offenders and rapists are treated so as not to engage in violence in rage or rape, serious crime rates would plummet. Perhaps it would not eliminate all serious violent crime, because there would always be first offenders who were unknown before, but the result would be that countless potential victims would be spared, countless children would be safe, countless women would saved, our streets would be safe. Also, (2) if only, for example, 20% of the population were to voluntarily participate, feeling increased love and empathy for the plight of the hungry, homeless, refugees and children in distant lands, voting patterns in western nations would change sufficiently to impact the attitude of politicians and spending on social programs. Then imagine our laws and public policies if 50% or 70% of voters are truly concerned about those issues. Imagine the difference from our societies today.

As to the OPCW ... So, by their rules, I assume, I can now drop bombs which burn the skin and blow off the limbs of 1000 Gazan children, but I could not drop a bomb which changes the hearts of Israeli and Palestinian such that they see each other as brothers and sisters? In my opinion, a "Kannon Ball" of love is not what is meant by "chemical warfare" in the same way as the chlorine gas that burns out lungs, the acid that blinds the eyes, the virus that starts a deadly plague. Even if so, the OPCW can go to hell for standing by as the children die. I refuse to lump what I discuss into the same category as sarin gas and agent orange.

Aldous Huxley's Brave New World

That is a story, not history. If you want to talk fiction, then I am concerned about preventing "Mad Max" and "Hunger Games." I prefer Aldous' other writings, his later writings, and his experiments (as primitive as they were) with mind altering substance, including his experience of "solidarity with all people" as described here (1:40 mark):

He recounted of his later life and experiments ....

I think innumerable ways have been developed to help people to achieve this final end of man. Some are satisfactory, others, it seems to me, are not. On general principles I would say that the means employed for this purpose should resemble the end envisaged. For example, the end envisaged is a form of consciousness entirely free from the partiality of individual ego-consciousness. We are partial, of course: we see the world in a partial way because we see ourselves as absolutely distinct, and virtually divine and absolute as ourselves.

And this is, of course, a perfectly partial and perfectly untrue way of looking at the universe. I mean, if I’m desperately preoccupied with myself it means that I’m ignoring the immense majority of all the events in the universe. Naturally, we can’t know all the events in the universe, but we must be aware that this totality of things is going on and that this partial view is, of course, a totally warped and self-stultifying view. I mean, we try to help ourselves in this way, but he that finds his life shall lose it and he who loses his life shall find it. All these paradoxical sayings which keep cropping up in every religion refer to this same thing: this necessity of getting rid of the essentially partial, limited, ego-centered view of the world. LINK

I am sure that you are a competent doctor now, Seido. But "now," hopefully, is not the end of human time.

Gassho, Jundo
stlah

**Myo-jin** · 04-21-2026, 05:17 AM

Thank you Seido-nigo, that was illuminating. I’m also very cautious of the human behavior as chemistry model as being over simplistic, and problematic in its own right.

I’ve been around enough violence and violent people to realise that a lot of it is situational and the result of upbringing as well as social an economic conditions. There are reasons that military recruiters target economically deprived youth to fill the ranks.

As father of a young child I’m also very conscious of my own behavior and even expressions of annoyance on my part could well be observed and mirrored by him in future.

As for love drugs, I seem to recall the Americans experimented with LSD during Vietnam, and there’s a video of the British giving it to a group of Royal Marines, unsurprisingly their CO lost all control of them and they weee definitely not in a position to fight. Others have tried MDMA, but I can tell you that the seratonin debt and resulting withdrawals make it not worthwhile despite the brief euphoria.

Over all, life, and my professional life have taught me to be cautious of simple answers, and my current position is that violence is baked into us as sentient beings, Evolutionarily theory indicate that the ability to dominate and take resources is a survival trait that includes the ability to hurt others if needed, so it’s a result of natural selection rahh ther than a pure aberration. So it’s unclear to me how you would excise violence without removing the drive to survival.

What can I say, humans are strange and paradoxical beings.

Gassho

Sattlah
M

**Jundo** · 04-21-2026, 05:49 AM

Hi Myo-jin,

Just to clarify a couple of points ...

Evolutionarily theory indicate that the ability to dominate and take resources is a survival trait that includes the ability to hurt others if needed, so it’s a result of natural selection rahh ther than a pure aberration. So it’s unclear to me how you would excise violence without removing the drive to survival.

NOT "EXCISE" (totally remove), but rather, balance, moderate, temper harmful excesses, and somewhat enhance some positive qualities so that humanity's worst, most destructive impulses (to get into bar fights, batter wifes, abuse babies, or drop nukes on battlefields) are reduced (which, by the way, is the case for most citizens who generally do not get into bar fights, rape, murder, nuke or batter their wives). Of course, we need some degree of selfishness and competitive nature in order to survive and thrive.

As for love drugs, I seem to recall the Americans experimented with LSD during Vietnam, and there’s a video of the British giving it to a group of Royal Marines, unsurprisingly their CO lost all control of them and they weee definitely not in a position to fight. Others have tried MDMA, but I can tell you that the seratonin debt and resulting withdrawals make it not worthwhile despite the brief euphoria.

Those are primitive, uncontrollable substances, very far from what I think is coming in 10, 50 or 100 years. Do not think that I am talking about acid trips and rave parties!

I also hear people say that "all this was tried with chemical castration and lobotomies" in the barbarity of the 1950s, so it will be the same in 2050! That is ridiculous! It is something like saying that modern neuro-surgery is worthless because the Aztecs once tried it!

Simple answers sometimes work. So, for example, my "rage monitor" is a simple idea, but might work in a way not unlike the very similar "insulin monitors" that track blood chemistry and preserve balance, or the simple heart pacemaker which tracks electrical signals and keeps balance. Simple systems, yet keeping health and balance in the body:

Combined continuous glucose monitoring and subcutaneous insulin infusion

Just a moment...

https://dom-pubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dom.14028

Also ... Therapeutic modulation of empathy: pharmacological, neurostimulation, and behavioral approache

This hybrid narrative–scoping review synthesizes evidence across pharmacological, neurostimulation, and behavioral approaches to empathy modulation. The accumulated evidence indicates that empathy is biologically and psychologically modifiable, but that current interventions yield modest, heterogeneous, and often transient effects. Behavioral interventions—particularly mindfulness-based and compassion-focused programs—demonstrate the strongest combination of scalability, safety, and ecological validity, though effect sizes remain small to moderate (d = 0.37 for mindfulness) and depend on sustained engagement.

Pharmacological approaches provide valuable mechanistic insights but face substantial translational barriers. Intranasal oxytocin produces small, context-dependent effects (d = 0.24) that do not generalize reliably, while MDMA-assisted therapy demonstrates large effects (d ≈ 0.91) within tightly controlled psychotherapeutic settings but remains constrained by regulatory, ethical, and safety considerations following FDA rejection in August 2024. Neurostimulation techniques offer causal leverage over empathy-related circuits, particularly for cognitive empathy (d ≈ 0.18–0.20 for TMS), yet effects are short-lived and highly variable, limiting standalone clinical utility.

Frontiers | Therapeutic modulation of empathy: pharmacological, neurostimulation, and behavioral approaches

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1762816/full

Empathy is a core neurobiological capacity that enables humans to perceive, understand, and respond to others’ experiences, yet its deliberate modulation as ...

Study finds that genes play a role in empathy

Study finds that genes play a role in empathy

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/study-finds-that-genes-play-a-role-in-empathy

A new study published today suggests that how empathic we are is not just a result of our upbringing and experience but also partly a result of our genes.

I am glad to see that some people are exploring these avenues. Let us try ALL AVENUES to greater empathy and peace!

Gassho, Jundo

**MikeH** · 04-21-2026, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by Seido-nigo

Jundo ,

...I too deplore all wars currently occurring globally and would agree with Taikyo that no war is ever "just". The false binary of just/unjust implies some kind of moral superiority in a state of conflict where there is no superiority to be had. There's only devastating loss and destruction that reverberates for generations.

Using the language of morality also begs the question: who determines what is/isn't morally acceptable? Throughout the history of humanity, this hasn't been determined by skill or wisdom but by social norms and power...

Gassho
Seido
satlah

Thank you, Seido, for lending your expertise here and offering so much information and insight to ponder. I have read your comment several times, and will read it several more. I have also been thinking about Jundo's ideas regarding war and violence, and his proposal to end both. I don't understand his proposal fully, and I have concerns about it like yours, but as a philosopher and someone heartbroken by violence, I'm always open to hearing and discussing any and all ideas to end suffering, no matter how controversial they may seem, and I am now reading Jundo's clarifications carefully. I really admire the respectful dialogue in this forum and concern for an end to suffering shown by everyone.

Above I quoted one part of your contribution, Seido, that I respectfully think could use some modification since it ventures toward a kind of moral skepticism or even nihilism. (I'd be curious whether you agree, considering this skepticism seems to undermine your own moral thinking in your excellent post.) I think, contrary to what you appear to have said, that it is very easy for all people to determine (at least on a general level) what is morally acceptable and unacceptable. I also think there is near universal agreement on these matters. Surely we all know that targeting civilians in war is unacceptable. Who's to say? We're all to say. It is not the case that social norms and power alone have determined these judgments throughout history; it is also a deep sense of right and wrong that is innate in each one of us and that makes Buddhist precepts recognizable immediately as wise and good things to follow. Just/unjust is not a false binary. Justice is what is owed to each person and each sentient being. Children, for example, are owed freedom from fear of being bombed while they attend school. That's justice and its opposite is injustice--nothing false about the distinction. You and Jundo both demonstrate great concern for justice and an end to injustice, and you both testify to the truth of the distinction. Thank you for this.

What is difficult, however, is determining the concrete course of action to address moral wrongs that have been and are being committed, like war and violence. We all see the wrong, and we all see what would be better, but moving from the one to the other requires getting into details of the sort you and Jundo are working on. I see Jundo trying out a proposal, and I see you raising concerns and pointing in the direction of other proposals. It is very good to see this discussion happening. We all agree on the basic moral foundations here--we detest suffering and violence and want them to end--but we're working out the details of how to get governments to act justly. Thank you, to both you and Jundo, for working on these issues.

Gassho,
SatLah,
Mike

**MikeH** · 04-21-2026, 07:08 PM

It is worth pointing out that Jundo's ideas here are not as controversial or radical as they may appear at first. (I say that as an academic philosopher who regularly teaches and has done research in biomedical ethics.) What Jundo is proposing falls within the literature on "biomedical moral enhancement" (or BME for short). As far as I can tell, Jundo's proposal is very close to what the leading Oxford physician and bioethicist, Julian Savulescu, has been advocating for over a decade. If you want to see Savulescu's idea worked up in full detail, Savulescu co-authored a book on it with Ingmar Persson called Unfit for the Future: The Need for Moral Enhancement (Oxford University Press, 2012). The "Savulescu-Persson Programme" for moral enhancement, as it's called, is summarized by the authors here. A critical review of the book by another leading bioethicist, Tom Beauchamp, is here. Unfit for the Future has given rise to a cottage industry of critiques and revisions over the years, proving that it might be incomplete, but it stands up to scrutiny by scientists and ethicists, and it inspires novel moral ideas. See, for example, this review of a recent-ish book by Harry Wiseman, who is very skeptical of the sort of idea Jundo/Savulescu espouse, but who nevertheless advocates for some kind of moral enhancement. Most of the discussion we are having here at Treeleaf mirrors the debates in the literature. It's good these debates are happening, since we need all minds on deck to solve the problem of never-ending violence using every means at our disposal--science, medicine, ethics, Buddhism. (That said, I'm not sold on the idea of dropping "Kannon bombs" on soldiers, though the name is so perfect...

).

Gassho,
SatLah,
Mike

**Jundo** · 04-22-2026, 12:54 AM

Thank you, Mike. It is good to hear from an academic medical ethicist who appreciates the nuance.

Sometimes I get knee-jerk (also physiological) reactions from folks who, hearing words like "medicine," "technology," "pharmacology," "genes," and "brain" in connection with human ethics and Buddhist values say that I am advocating for some kind of "eugenics." I bristle at that (also a reaction of the nervous system).

In my understanding, "eugenics" would generally point toward creation of a "master race," or a group with superior intelligence, beauty, sports abilities, etc. Fine tuning anger and enhancing human love and empathy for our fellow human beings seems a far cry from what the Nazi's were aiming for. I am not working for some race of ethical "super-men," while eliminating or exterminating the "impure" through ovens or sterilizations, for Buddha's sake (!!), but rather, I am hoping for folks who are rather less prone to raging anger leading to violence, and who are a bit more empathetic to the plight of the homeless, the hungry and children on the battlefield. No, I don't think that the Nazi aim for some Aryan ideal was about that. Imagine if the Nazis had felt a bit more empathy for the poor beings in their concentration camps!!

Nor do I favor some government imposition of any such program, forcing people to participate at gunpoint. The marketplace can decide (thus my example of Ozempic and even the Covid vaccine ... although, in fact, I actually see the value of mandatory vaccines in some cases, as polio !! suddenly raises it ugly head again: LINK) The use on the battlefield or as part of our penal system are a different story, one that comes to mind as 165 Iranian school girls could be in class today, at worst a bit more loving than before, rather than in their graves. All of Epstein's hundreds of later child victims might have been spared if some effective treatment were imposed upon his first conviction, rather than so many young lives damaged.

Gassho, J
stlah

**Dachi** · 04-22-2026, 03:05 PM

Jundo, if we make this voluntary, do we think those predisposed to anger/violence/selfishness will actually choose to take the peace pill? Let's assume they will not. Doesn't this potentially create a world of happy, defenseless people that can be exploited by those not taking the pill?

**Jundo** · 04-22-2026, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Dachi

Jundo, if we make this voluntary, do we think those predisposed to anger/violence/selfishness will actually choose to take the peace pill? Let's assume they will not.

Here is my take on that:

The worst cases of violence occur among violent criminals (assault, rape, child abuse, murder, etc.) in our penal system and on the battlefield in war.

In the former case, I imagine our offering medical treatment to reduce or eliminate violent tendencies due to rage or the urge to rape, with enhanced empathy toward other human beings, as a voluntary part of a rehabilitation program offered to convicted criminals as a step toward release. That would do much to eliminate violence done in anger, rape, child abuse and the like, which could become rare, even if only repeat offenders are subject to such treatment. The convicted criminals would be free to refuse the treatments, of course, and could choose instead the punishments we impose now. I think many would voluntarily choose the treatment rather than the punishments we hand out now.

The situation in war is not voluntary. As we learned in recent weeks, it is apparently okay to drop bombs and assassinate an enemy's leaders, to bomb cities and to maim or kill enemy soldiers, with civilians considered "collateral damage." So, if it is okay now to slaughter in war, I believe it more moral to drop love and friendship on an enemy's leaders, its soldiers, cities and civilians, in wartime. It is a weapon, yes, like our exploding drones and missiles today. But I would rather defeat the enemy by making them like me, rather than to defeat them like now, by burning their cities, killing their children, slaughtering soldiers by the thousands.

As to the general population, I believe that feeling less angry, more peaceful, happier, more loving, content, healthier might be attractive enough that many people (rich and poor) would choose to partake (there are many unhappy, angry, frustrated rich and powerful people in the world ... from Hollywood to the White House ... who now commonly seek relief via alcohol, illegal drugs, therapy, such that even many of the rich and powerful would jump at something that made them happier, less frustrated, more filled with love.) It is something like today, when millions of people, including the rich and famous, inject Ozempic in search of feeling better about themselves. If only 20% of the population indulges, you would feel the effects in voting patterns, public policy choices, etc.

Finally, as to this question:

Doesn't this potentially create a world of happy, defenseless people that can be exploited by those not taking the pill?

I do not see people rendered so passive, drugged up, numbed that they are made sheep who could not defend themselves against attack or exploitation. Rather, I see folks at the extremes (prone to violence in rage) rendered ordinary. I see ordinary people made a bit more loving and charitable. I see soldiers who are made friendly, yes, but only as an alternative to their death today. It is much like you or me who, while not killers under normal circumstances, and not prone to raging anger enough to murder (I assume, Dachi

) could, nonetheless, defend our self or family from robbers and home intruders today, and protest injustices in society today. In other words, people would still be capable of action, and only the worst "fly off the handle" anger cases, rapists, soldiers on the battlefield and such would be subject to stronger measures. The treatments would leave us ordinary, a bit more loving, a bit more empathetic, not zombies.

Right now, does your Buddhist practice render you a passive zombie? Does it make you incapable of standing up for yourself, protesting injustices, getting a little angry sometimes? Or does it just make you a calmer, nicer, more caring, peaceful person, less prone to boiling over, maybe more empathic to all suffering sentient beings? So, what I envision would be closer to the latter.

Gassho, J
stlah

PS - These technologies are coming whether you and I like it or not. Sadly, some may abuse them, e.g., dictators to tame populations. It would be the same as dictators shooting and jailing dissidents, or throwing them in mental hospitals, like they do today. However, maybe if the dictators are made more empathetic, they will instead treat their citizens more nicely!

[Future] Violence and War as Disease

[Future] Violence and War as Disease

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment