[FutureBuddha (16)] Not A Perfect 'Pure Land,' But A Peaceful, Good Land

[Meian]

Kokuu, you have expressed my thoughts and concerns on this so much better than I could. Thank you.

[emoji120][emoji120][emoji120] st

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Jundo]

PS - I am, by far, not the only person thinking of these things. If a college professor or a lawyer can, so can a member of the clergy ...

Is There Anything Wrong With Using AI Implantable Brain Devices to Prevent Convicted Offenders from Reoffending?

The world’s first clinical trial using advisory brain implant operated by artificial intelligence (AI) has been completed with significant success. The tested devices predict a specific neuronal event (epileptic seizure), allowing people implanted with the device to be forewarned and to take steps to reduce or avoid the impact of the event. In principle, these kinds of artificially intelligent devices could be used to predict other neuronal events and allow those implanted with the device to take precautionary steps or to automate drug delivery so as to avoid unwanted outcomes. This chapter examines moral issues arising from the hypothetical situation where such devices controlled by AI are used to ensure that convicted criminal offenders are safe for release into society. We distinguish two types of predictive technologies controlled by AI: advisory systems and automated therapeutic response systems. The purpose of this chapter is to determine which of these two technologies would generate fewer ethical concerns. While there are moral similarities between the two technologies, the latter raises more concerns. In particular, it raises the possibility that individual moral decision-making and moral autonomy can be threatened by the use of automated implants.

https://academic.oup.com/book/33650/...dFrom=fulltext

And I thought to ask OpenAI this question, which seems fitting ...

Is there research on connection of genetics and psychopathy?

Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by a lack of empathy and remorse, a disregard for social norms and rules, and a tendency toward impulsive and antisocial behavior. While psychopathy is often associated with criminal behavior and violence, not all individuals with psychopathic traits engage in criminal behavior, and not all criminals have psychopathic traits. Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that genetics can play a role in the development of psychopathy.

One of the most well-known theories of the genetics of psychopathy is the "warrior gene" hypothesis, which proposes that a variation in the MAOA gene, which codes for an enzyme that helps break down neurotransmitters such as dopamine and serotonin, is associated with increased risk for psychopathy and violent behavior. This variation, known as the MAOA-L allele, is thought to result in lower levels of MAOA activity, which can lead to higher levels of aggression and impulsivity.

However, while early studies supported the "warrior gene" hypothesis, more recent research has challenged this theory. For example, a study by McDermott et al. (2009) found no association between the MAOA-L allele and psychopathic traits or aggressive behavior. Other studies have suggested that the effects of the MAOA-L allele on behavior may be moderated by environmental factors, such as childhood abuse and neglect (Caspi et al., 2002; Ficks & Waldman, 2014).

Other genes that have been associated with psychopathy include the DRD2 gene, which codes for a dopamine receptor that is involved in reward and motivation, and the BDNF gene, which codes for a protein that is involved in the growth and survival of neurons. Studies have found that variations in these genes are associated with increased risk for psychopathy (Brunner et al., 1993; Meyer-Lindenberg et al., 2006), although the effects are typically small and interact with other factors.

Twin studies have also been useful in investigating the role of genetics in psychopathy. Twin studies compare the rates of psychopathic traits among identical twins, who share 100% of their genes, and fraternal twins, who share only 50% of their genes. If genetic factors play a role in psychopathy, we would expect to see higher rates of concordance for psychopathic traits among identical twins than among fraternal twins.

A number of twin studies have found that genetic factors account for a significant proportion of the variability in psychopathic traits. For example, a study by Viding et al. (2005) found that genetic factors accounted for about 50% of the variance in callous-unemotional traits, a key component of psychopathy, among children and adolescents, with the other 50% being accounted for by environmental factors. A meta-analysis by Raine et al. (2018) found that genetic factors accounted for about 50% of the variance in psychopathic traits among adults, with the other 50% being accounted for by environmental factors.

It is important to note, however, that genetics is just one of many factors that contribute to psychopathy, and the effects of genetic variations on behavior are typically small and interact with environmental and social factors. For example, a study by Tuvblad et al. (2014) found that genetic factors accounted for about 60% of the variance in callous-unemotional traits among adolescent boys, with the other 40% being accounted for by environmental factors such as parental monitoring, peer delinquency, and exposure to violence.

So, somebody is thinking about these things. Seems like a better use of time than chanting the "Fuji ya. Fuji ya. Fudo ya fudo ya" Dharani.

Gassho, J

[Jundo]

One study on mice means nothing, of course, but by coincidence this was just announced. I hope to see more like this, and more medical treatments for addictions, including medical treatments and physiological approaches to all manner of addictions and excess desires ...

Researchers Discover That Immune System Drug Can Significantly Reduce Alcohol Consumption

Researchers at Scripps Research discovered that apremilast (Otezla®) can reduce alcohol consumption by over 50% in individuals with severe alcohol use disorder.

A clinical trial conducted by Scripps Research Institute has revealed that apremilast, an FDA-approved medication for the treatment of psoriasis, significantly reduces alcohol intake by over 50% in individuals with severe alcohol use disorder (AUD). In addition, researchers from Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) and other institutions found that in mice, apremilast increases activity in a region of the brain known to play a role in AUD.

The research was recently published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation.

“We’re incredibly excited to have found a drug that has such a large effect size on alcohol consumption, and with such good tolerability and safety at the same time,” says co-senior author Barbara Mason, Ph.D., the Pearson Family Chair and Director of the Pearson Center for Alcohol and Addiction Research at Scripps Research.

About 29.5 million Americans meet the criteria for AUD, which encompasses the conditions known as alcohol abuse, alcohol dependence, and alcohol addiction. Fewer than 10% of people with the disorder get any treatment, and an even smaller number are prescribed medication to treat AUD.

https://scitechdaily.com/researchers...l-consumption/

Gassho, J

stlah

[Kokuu]

If people are comfortable with the latter portion, and can overlook the former, than there is no problem. If someone is so uncomfortable with the former that they feel that this is not the right place for them, then I cannot keep them here and I do not chase them (what I inelegantly meant by their being free to "just take a hike.") They can find the church, temple or other teacher that suits their tastes more (as people have always done, whether I teach X or Y or not.) I don't take surveys of the members to see what I should teach and emphasize here.

This is why I told our pre-priests that they should be aware of what I believe and espouse. They do not need to agree, but they should not be so alienated by "out of the box" ideas and radical proposals that they feel scared to be here. Sorry, my ideas do not constitute "crimes against humanity," but if somebody is convinced that they do ... they should not be here.

That sounds fine. Just to clarify further, it is okay for people to be here who do not buy into these ideas, and even be openly critical of them?

They are also not going to be a mandatory part of Treeleaf training?

So, somebody is thinking about these things. Seems like a better use of time than chanting the "Fuji ya. Fuji ya. Fudo ya fudo ya" Dharani.

Straw man arguments like that are not helpful. Quoting studies as you have is good and do not need a strawman rejoinder afterwards.


Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday-

[Guest]

I will admit that I did not read through all of the posts and reactions to posts and will do so soon. At present, I need focus on sitting, sewing and keep up on the readings and hopefully make it to the Teahouse today. These are the immediate concerns of the day for me.

I will say however that if we bring scientific research in to the discussion of practice, we already have some evidence that what we do in practice (without genetic modification or medication) does change us. Studies have shown that a minimum of 20 minutes of meditation on a regular basis can build new neuro pathways. These neuro pathways affect the hypothalamus pituitary adrenals (HPA), the pathways that lead to stress reactivity and an abundance of cortisol (stress hormone) in the body which can lead to chronic stress reactivity which not only is why they are now identifying stress as the #1 proxy killer, but in addition, the continued heightened state of stress reactivity can lead to poor anger management and violent outbursts. We also know from some research done in epigenetics, that we have the ability to turn on or off certain genetic predispositions by how we live our life. Things like exercise, diet, and yes meditation has been shown to altar that system in some ways resulting in dangerous genetic predispositions not being activated or turned on. We also know from some research in polyvagal theory that the vagus nerve that runs from our gut to our brain is responsible for how the parasympathetic nervous system is activated or not activated. This pathway leads to the medulla oblongata which governs pathways that work with the limbic system that is responsible for emotions, learning and memory (The part of the limbic system, the amygdala, has been shown to shrink with mindfulness meditation). Certain breathing techniques, humming (chanting) and communing with others (sangha) can help activate the ventral vagal pathway which activates the parasympathetic nervous system. I think this shows some promise that meditative practices can bring about a calm and nurturing mind. Interestingly, a course I took from a cognitive behavioral psychologist even discussed that intentionally swallowing saliva (medulla oblongata) activates the vagal pathway which activates the parasympathetic nervous system thus reducing stress reactivity and anxiety.

Why is swallowing saliva so interesting as it relates to this? Because we have evidence that an earlier science of meditation was addressing these things. In the Taoist tradition for example, the practice of neidan (internal alchemy), purposely used swallowing saliva as part of the meditative process. This can sound like it gets a bit carried away and involved, but suffice it to say that the Taoists believe that if we keep the fluids of the body (jing) in tact through such exercises these fluids can be warmed by our body and meditative practices which turns jing in to steam (qi). Qi when mixed with jing turns to shen (spirit) and this, according to the Taoists is how one becomes an immortal (enlightened). I know all of that sounds a bit out there, but many Chinese masters were practicing these techniques. Some of the early Chan masters still used some language that alluded to their knowledge of this kind of Taoist thought. Turning the light inwards to illuminate the spirit is one such phrase that we hear in both Taoist and Chan writings (It shows up in the fukanzazengi as well although Dogen was not specifically talking about internal alchemy, or was he? His is a clear indication of using body and mind in zazen). In later Taoist writings the neidan became more psychologically and practically focused so that the three poisons, if overcome, could automatically blend the jing, qi, and shen forming the elixir of immortality and thus creating human beings endowed with clarity and tranquility.

Sorry to run so long, but I think there is evidence that science is discovering things about the human body and mind that have been employed already in meditative practices. And this, without having to invent anything new. If science leads to ways to bring about these kinds of changes through chemicals or altering our DNA, it seems that it would need to be done in a way that is ethical and non-harming which would be a very tall order since most things that go in this direction may be driven to benefit humans, but often times becomes profit driven which does not always have our best interest in mind.

Gassho,

Daiman
Sat Today

[Meian]

I will admit that I did not read through all of the posts and reactions to posts and will do so soon. At present, I need focus on sitting, sewing and keep up on the readings and hopefully make it to the Teahouse today. These are the immediate concerns of the day for me.

I will say however that if we bring scientific research in to the discussion of practice, we already have some evidence that what we do in practice (without genetic modification or medication) does change us. Studies have shown that a minimum of 20 minutes of meditation on a regular basis can build new neuro pathways. These neuro pathways affect the hypothalamus pituitary adrenals (HPA), the pathways that lead to stress reactivity and an abundance of cortisol (stress hormone) in the body which can lead to chronic stress reactivity which not only is why they are now identifying stress as the #1 proxy killer, but in addition, the continued heightened state of stress reactivity can lead to poor anger management and violent outbursts. We also know from some research done in epigenetics, that we have the ability to turn on or off certain genetic predispositions by how we live our life. Things like exercise, diet, and yes meditation has been shown to altar that system in some ways resulting in dangerous genetic predispositions not being activated or turned on. We also know from some research in polyvagal theory that the vagus nerve that runs from our gut to our brain is responsible for how the parasympathetic nervous system is activated or not activated. This pathway leads to the medulla oblongata which governs pathways that work with the limbic system that is responsible for emotions, learning and memory (The part of the limbic system, the amygdala, has been shown to shrink with mindfulness meditation). Certain breathing techniques, humming (chanting) and communing with others (sangha) can help activate the ventral vagal pathway which activates the parasympathetic nervous system. I think this shows some promise that meditative practices can bring about a calm and nurturing mind. Interestingly, a course I took from a cognitive behavioral psychologist even discussed that intentionally swallowing saliva (medulla oblongata) activates the vagal pathway which activates the parasympathetic nervous system thus reducing stress reactivity and anxiety.

Why is swallowing saliva so interesting as it relates to this? Because we have evidence that an earlier science of meditation was addressing these things. In the Taoist tradition for example, the practice of neidan (internal alchemy), purposely used swallowing saliva as part of the meditative process. This can sound like it gets a bit carried away and involved, but suffice it to say that the Taoists believe that if we keep the fluids of the body (jing) in tact through such exercises these fluids can be warmed by our body and meditative practices which turns jing in to steam (qi). Qi when mixed with jing turns to shen (spirit) and this, according to the Taoists is how one becomes an immortal (enlightened). I know all of that sounds a bit out there, but many Chinese masters were practicing these techniques. Some of the early Chan masters still used some language that alluded to their knowledge of this kind of Taoist thought. Turning the light inwards to illuminate the spirit is one such phrase that we hear in both Taoist and Chan writings (It shows up in the fukanzazengi as well although Dogen was not specifically talking about internal alchemy, or was he? His is a clear indication of using body and mind in zazen). In later Taoist writings the neidan became more psychologically and practically focused so that the three poisons, if overcome, could automatically blend the jing, qi, and shen forming the elixir of immortality and thus creating human beings endowed with clarity and tranquility.

Sorry to run so long, but I think there is evidence that science is discovering things about the human body and mind that have been employed already in meditative practices. And this, without having to invent anything new. If science leads to ways to bring about these kinds of changes through chemicals or altering our DNA, it seems that it would need to be done in a way that is ethical and non-harming which would be a very tall order since most things that go in this direction may be driven to benefit humans, but often times becomes profit driven which does not always have our best interest in mind.

Gassho,

Daiman
Sat Today

Gassho2 stlh

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Meian]

That sounds fine. Just to clarify further, it is okay for people to be here who do not buy into these ideas, and even be openly critical of them?

They are also not going to be a mandatory part of Treeleaf training?




Straw man arguments like that are not helpful. Quoting studies as you have is good and do not need a strawman rejoinder afterwards.


Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday-

Gassho2 stlh

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Guest]

I would like to add to my post above that there is a reason why the Taoists developed these later forms of alchemy and in most part replaced external alchemy (waidan) where they were using base metals like mercury and lead to develop the elixir of immortality because waidan proved to be too dangerous and deadly. I wonder if science were to move in that direction if we would discover the same thing in favor of leaning toward something like neidan and the use of meditative and ethical practices to lead to an enlightened state of being rather than messing with chemicals and laboratory alterations of human elements. Most of what remains in Taoist practice today is of the Longmen or Dragon Gate sect of Taoism which practices mostly Quanzhen meditation which is basically a Taoist form of Zen. Buddhism met Taoism and highly influenced what later became Chinese Chan just as much as Chinese Chan influenced what later became Dragon Gate (Blending the three Jewels of Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism). I bring the example of Taoism up because I think these kinds of experiments of using chemicals to somehow alter the human condition in service of developing some kind of superhuman or utopian state, have been tried before and it was not so successful.

Gassho,
Daiman
St

[Jundo]

That sounds fine. Just to clarify further, it is okay for people to be here who do not buy into these ideas, and even be openly critical of them?

They are also not going to be a mandatory part of Treeleaf training?

No, of course, nobody has to believe any or everything I write here. Yes, folks can debate and criticize any proposal. No, nobody has to agree to any of this as part of their Treeleaf Training.

At the same time, I need to say and propose what I feel I must say and propose.

Gassho, Jundo

stlah

[Jundo]

I will say however that if we bring scientific research in to the discussion of practice, we already have some evidence that what we do in practice (without genetic modification or medication) does change us. Studies have shown that a minimum of 20 minutes of meditation ...

I think that most of the research on the physiological effects of meditation, so far, has been poorly structured, with too small samples, poor controls and some cherry picking of positive results by the popular scientific press. At least, that was the situation a few years ago according to meta studies of meditation, and I do not feel that the quality of research I have been seeing is much improved.

The psychological effects of meditation: a meta-analysis

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22582738/

I do not believe that meditation alone, done by one person, can have the kinds of wide-spread societal effects that I focus on in the book. We are not going to get billions and billions of people to start meditating suddenly (I wish! )

If science leads to ways to bring about these kinds of changes through chemicals or altering our DNA, it seems that it would need to be done in a way that is ethical and non-harming which would be a very tall order since most things that go in this direction may be driven to benefit humans, but often times becomes profit driven which does not always have our best interest in mind.

In future chapters I will discuss how I think these things can be done ethically, respectful of human and civil rights. Also, I will repeat again and again that, if we don't figure out ways to use them ethically for good, then the "bad guys" (dictators, militarists, big companies etc etc ) are certainly going to use these technologies for their own purposes. We have to stop them, head the bad guys off at the pass.

Gassho, Jundo

stlah

[Guest]

I think that most of the research on the physiological effects of meditation, so far, has been poorly structured, with too small samples, poor controls and some cherry picking of positive results by the popular scientific press. At least, that was the situation a few years ago according to meta studies of meditation, and I do not feel that the quality of research I have been seeing is much improved.

The psychological effects of meditation: a meta-analysis

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22582738/

Gassho, Jundo

stlah

I agree that some of the research is questionable but some is promising. I think we are still early in the process and the definition of what we are studying such as what makes it meditation or mindfulness is still a operating definition that needs to be clear for the research to be more scientific. And yes, many people would need to meditate to see any significant impact and getting folks to do that would be next to impossible just as would be getting people to take medication or agree to genetic altering. It is a fascinating subject however.

Gassho,

Daiman
St

[Erin]

if we don't figure out ways to use them ethically for good, then the "bad guys" (dictators, militarists, big companies etc etc ) are certainly going to use these technologies for their own purposes. We have to stop them, head the bad guys off at the pass.

How are proposals for the ethics of future tech going to stop "the bad guys" from misusing them? How to you propose take power away from the dictators, militarists, big companies, etc?

I do not believe that meditation alone, done by one person, can have the kinds of wide-spread societal effects that I focus on in the book.

If personal adoption of the technology you imagine is completely voluntary, how will it have wide-spread societal effects. Do you think that greedy people want to not be greedy? Do you think that bigoted people want to give up their bigotry? They're not going to volunteer to be changed.

[Seiko]

A few years ago I was the patient in a treatment called Brain Working Recursive Therapy (BWRT). I am not a medical professional and everything I say about this must be understood as merely my own opinion, not as medical advice. BWRT is often used to eliminate specific phobias or fears (yes eliminate, not treat or cure). It is undergone voluntarily and involves the patient imagining different scenarios and preferred outcomes in fast - very fast - succession. This was given in a mainstream UK National Health Service setting - not as an alternative therapy. I was told that BWRT works by building new neural pathways which would change my response to a situation from negative to positive - effectively removing the trigger. Two sessions of BWRT banished my anxiety and debilitating panic attacks - that was ten years ago.

Analysing this, to my inexpert mind, the process of Metta and Tonglen feel very similar, if not identical to BWRT. To use meditation as a way to modify, to reprogramme myself voluntarily, in ways that I choose and approve, feels far more gentle and acceptable than using technology, medication, chemicals etc.

Gasshō
Seiko
stlah

[Tokan]

Hey all

I will be honest with you all, I have some real ethical issues at times, thoughts I find hard to reconcile with my buddhist ethics for example, but thoughts that I feel I need to run with to understand my own thoughts better. One thing that really concerns me is that our societies have become 'addicted' to human rights and have ditched human responsibilities. In New Zealand, there is such a strong emphasis now on how mental health and poor upbringings contribute to the development of psychopathy and crime that we are now, essentially, 'apologizing' to those people by letting them away with their criminal behaviour. While it has merits, restorative justice or other measures such as home detention ARE perceived as being able to get away with crime - I worked in a prison for four years, the people in prison used to tell me all the time how they 'pleaded poverty' to the judge and received a discount on their sentence. Our societies, in my view, have allowed political correctness to evolve to a perverse degree that is poisoning our societies. Another example, the government eased up the pressure on organised crime in New Zealand because the gangs are largely made up of Indigenous people, policing policies being seen as racist. How has that worked out for us? Well, we now have a methamphetamine problem that is spiralling out of control, gangs membership has exploded (more than doubled in my city), and antisocial behaviour and crime is increasing. Are the people who do not engage in such behaviour supposed to just put up with it for the sake of the human rights of the criminal elements in our society? I want to hold out a hand of friendship, but there has to be change, otherwise it becomes (tacitly) acceptance and tolerance of harmful behaviour.

My view is that our democratic societies have in some ways peaked, and the social unrest we see now (not striking workers in the UK by the way!), is a sign that the disease is spreading. It seems inevitable to me that many countries now considered democratic (let's not get into that one!) will slide into quasi-democracies (like Russia). Where am I going with this - can technology help us before we get to this point? I do not think we have the luxury of thinking that individual action against social issues or climate change is going to win the day anymore, do I take out the recycling - yes, do I think it makes a difference - no, but I do it anyway (just in case lol!). I'm not just thinking about how humans might be different with new medications, nanotech, genetic modification, ultrasound type machines that can 'erase' bad thoughts or tendencies, whatever the future holds, but about how any advances or improvements can address the issues that may help us to avoid cumulative global catastrophies that may reduce the world's population by billions - avoiding a new Dark Age. What used to seem like science fiction, dystopia, or fantasy now seems less so. I hadn't thought much about a Nuclear Winter since the 80's, until last year when it became a thing in the media again. If you hadn't noticed, I'm not overly optimistic about our future because we seem to take one step forward and two back (e.g. Berlin wall comes down, Cold War cools off, Ukraine war starts, Cold War back on but maybe worse than before). I can sit zazen and be peace with all of this, because zazen is complete and perfect just as it is.

On the up side, we seem to be getting closer to cures for diseases that have frustrated scientists for years - cancer (my own father had a hugely expensive therapy involving genetic programming of his immune system to find and kill his cancer), diabetes, Alzheimers, and many more. Imagine what this could do for our crumbling health systems and overcrowded rest homes? There would no longer be a global shortage of doctors, nurses, and other health specialists because we simply wouldn't need as many. Imagine being freed from the daily rituals of diabetes, or having your dementia reversed or a brain implant that 'connects the dots' so you can be you again. In my eyes, we need not fear future technology any more than we fear what we already have. Maybe this is just the lot of humanity, to have technology that can be used for great good or great evil, with the choice being up to us. I recall the late great Carl Sagan, in the series Cosmos, offering the reflection...

It is as if there were a god, saying to us, I have provided you with the means to go to the stars, or to destroy yourselves, the choice is yours.

Running long again but that seems to be the way in these threads. Note please that I am not meaning to offend anyone, these are just my own thoughts and anxieties, and I do feel that it is important that a zen sangha debates these issues and not 'hide behind the monastery walls', so even where we disagree with each other, I respect and value the debate.

Gassho, Tokan

satlah

[Jundo]

How are proposals for the ethics of future tech going to stop "the bad guys" from misusing them? How to you propose take power away from the dictators, militarists, big companies, etc?



If personal adoption of the technology you imagine is completely voluntary, how will it have wide-spread societal effects. Do you think that greedy people want to not be greedy? Do you think that bigoted people want to give up their bigotry? They're not going to volunteer to be changed.

These are vitally important questions, Erin, and while I will address them in greater detail in later chapters, I will offer a brief outline here.

On the second question, I believe that most human beings are motivated by feeling good, self-pleasure, self-interest and health. Today, people choose freely in the marketplace, and are willing to take into their bodies, things that make them feel good or extremely good, even ecstatic, ranging from alcohol to opioids and other "highs," to buying a puppy to driving a car over the speed limit to having all manner of (sometimes risky) sex, because it makes them feel good. They do it, even are willing to break the law or otherwise risk their health in order to do many of these things. Unfortunately, alcohol, opioids, risky sex practices and the like (everything but the puppy) are potentially harmful, do damage to the body, risk illness and disease.

If there were treatments that made people feel good ... incredibly good about themselves ... but were also healthy and beneficial to the person, we could have our cake and eat it too. People would choose such pills and treatments because it makes em feel jolly, peaceful, happy, content. My joke is that, if we could rewire the sexual pleasure centers and dopamine triggers of the body, folks would do charity because it gave them thrills equivalent to orgasms to do so, and they would do "good deeds" because it would give them the same thrills and pleasure as hours of video games on their phones. Men would watch hours of "porno" consisting of videos of cats beings rescued from trees, because it gives them the same or greater pleasure than the porno and violence we watch in media now. They would freely choose to, for example, "help the homeless" just as they now freely choose sex, smoking pot, vacation trips, going to the movies, eating dessert in restaurants ... because it tastes and feels so delicious, relaxing, enjoyable, fun and good. Nobody would force anybody, not any more than we force chocolate addicts to eat chocolate. However, these "desserts" and alcohols and "opiods" would leave people BETTER in body and mind.

Might we develop such kinds of tempting and addictive substances that are GOOD & HEALTHY addictions and temptations, put em on the market just like we stock the shelves in the grocers with those overly sugary breakfast cereals that folks freely choose to put in their bodies today, like vodka on liquor store shelves, sell em in dispensaries just like the marijuana that people smoke and swallow for pleasure, like the Viagra and questionable "supplements" that people put in their bodies because they associate each with pleasure, health and well-being? If there was a pill that gave people more pleasure and waves of contentment "just as they are" which exceeded the pleasure we have now from the need to buy buy buy at the mall, would not our consumption be greatly reduced with the accompanying reduction in environmental harm? Well, if mall shopping for a new pair of basketball shoes is free choice of a pleasure, so would not this offering of "contentment Viagra" be just the same personal exercise of free choice of a pleasure in the marketplace? (The Covid vaccines, by the way, did not afford immediate and tangible pleasure, only a delayed possible ... and easily discounted ... benefit. If vaccination had given a sense of immediate health and great pleasure, it might have been more widely accepted.)

As to your first question, I do not have a complete answer ... but I am not the one responsible for creating these technologies. In fact, I warn against their misuse. Perhaps, because even billionaires and dictators are motivated by sex, pleasure and their quest to be healthy, many of them will indulge in "empathy pills" too because it makes them feel good, affording even more pleasure than buying their next yacht or the thrill of power. Maybe we do not have to make EVERYBODY charitable and more empathetic, only a minority of the world's population, in order to positively impact the world. If only one million people in America (now about 1/400th of the population) suddenly began to get as much pleasure from charity as they do from sex, an army of one million volunteers and contributors who felt tingles running up their spine to help others, to give and donate to others, then charities and social programs would be much enriched with their efforts and donations. Imagine if it were 10 million, or 100 million ...

There are only two areas that I might see as less than fully voluntary:

(1) Offering violent prisoners, such as rapists, child abusers, criminal addicts and murderers, the option to choose ... after their trial and conviction, just as now ... upon presenting them with information, seeking informed consent, and with a right to refuse ... the option to replace or reduce their prison time in exchange for medical or pharmacological procedures and treatments which would reduce or eliminate their drives to do violence in anger, sexual attractions toward children, addictions and the like. The treatments would be implanted in the body so that they cannot be easily removed. If the person wishes, however, they can have the option of going to the same prisons as we have now. The medical option is free to choose or refuse. (In fact, if the technology becomes available, would it not be inhumane to withhold offer of the option?) It is also possible that parents might choose such medical treatments for their children who exhibit, for example, sociopathic tendencies in youth, just as parents now choose heart surgery for their child with heart disease.

(2) In a war situation, we now drop bombs on enemies without the enemy's consent, and of course, tragically, we sometimes kills innocent civilians without the civilians' consent. The Ukranians are not consenting now to have the Russians attack them, of course. Thus, as an alternative to bullets and bombs that maim and kill, I would like to see weapons that simply render enemies incapable of fighting, perhaps by causing them to feel so peaceful, loving, magnanimous, empathetic toward others, that they turn from soldiers to saints, terrorists to lovers. Does it sound ridiculous? Or is dropping bombs on cities today, creating widows and orphans and death and disfigurement, the human deed that is truly ridiculous? In any case, it is not my idea ... and the pentagon and such are already working on it and worse ...

Redefining Neuroweapons Emerging Capabilities in Neuroscience and Neurotechnology

As global conflicts assume increasingly asymmetric and “gray zone” forms, the ability to employ current and newly developing techniques and tools of neurocognitive science to manipulate human thought and behavior must be viewed as a present and increasing challenge.1 Ongoing developments in neuroscience and technology (neuroS/T), which trend toward 5- to 10-year trajectories of progression, make the brain sciences valid, viable, and of growing value for operational use in warfare, intelligence, and national security (WINS) applications. Illustrative of this progress are a series of U.S. Government assessments of such capabilities. A 2008 report by the ad hoc Committee on Military and Intelligence Methodology for Emergent Neurophysiological and Cognitive/Neural Science Research in the Next Two Decades claimed that neuroS/T was not sufficiently mature to enable operational employment in WINS. However, a subsequent report by this same committee in 2014 noted that advancements enabled several domains of neuroS/T to be capable and operationalizable for WINS. This was substantiated by a number of nations’ increased interest in, and consideration and use of, neurocognitive methods and tools for military and intelligence purposes.2 Indeed, neuroS/T can be employed as both “soft” and “hard” weapons in competition with adversaries.

Mr. Joseph DeFranco is a Donavan Group fellow at U.S. Special Operations Command. Dr. Diane DiEuliis is a senior research fellow at National Defense University, and Dr. James Giordano is professor of neurology and biochemistry, chief of the Neuroethics Studies Program, and co-director of the O’Neill-Pellegrino Program in Brain Science and Global Law and Policy at Georgetown University Medical Center.

https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/prism/prism_8-3/prism_8-3_DeFranco-DiEuliis-Giordano_48-63.pdf

“LOVE AND CUDDLE” DRUGS

Other agents being developed, said Dando, include oxytocin, dubbed the “love and cuddle” chemical which induces trust and whose emergence “opens up the possibility of a drug that could be used to manipulate people’s emotions in a military context.”

Although some backers of this idea argue that using incapacitating drugs as weapons could stop people being killed in conflicts, the scientist said, historical evidence like that of the Russian siege suggested otherwise.

Dando said he was alarmed what he called a lack of engagement with the issue among life scientists whom he had questioned in some 13 countries around the world. “They are just not taking the problem on board,” he told Reuters.

https://www.academia.edu/5855398/What_Does_Neuroethics_Have_to_Say_about_the_Problem_of_Dual_Use_by_Valentina_Bartolucci_and_Malcolm_Dando?auto=download

Is that terrible? YES! Is it possibly better than maiming and slaughtering on the battlefield, and the deaths of civilians? YES!

Make love not war.

Gassho, J