Futurism posted today about a study where Researchers Use Brain Tests to Predict the Potential of Criminality in Toddlers.
From the abstract published in April:
Variation in brain health at three years of age significantly predicted economically burdensome outcomes in each sector.
To be more specific:
A segment comprising 22% of the cohort accounted for 36% of the cohort’s injury insurance claims; 40% of excess obese kilograms; 54% of cigarettes smoked; 57% of hospital nights; 66% of welfare benefits; 77% of fatherless child-rearing; 78% of prescription fills; and 81% of criminal convictions. Childhood risks, including poor brain health at three years of age, predicted this segment with large effect sizes.
81% of criminal convictions from only 22% of the group.
That's amazing. What started with analyzing "childhood socioeconomic deprivation, maltreatment, low IQ and poor self-control" eventually narrowed in on the "brain health" of three year olds.
I wouldn't say they've solved the nature verses nurture problem just yet. One of my favorite discussions on this topic comes from Stefan Molyneux and can be found at bombinthebrain.com. I'll be the first to say he's fallen pretty far off the wagon when it comes to the early anarchist philosophical ideals his early videos introduced me to, but I still enjoy this series. It includes interviews with authors and researchers who discuss the impact of childhood traumatic events in the first five years of life on future well being.
This study says poor brain health leads to future problems. Via epigenetics, it's also possible our earliest experiences actually shape how our brain develops. Now that we've set the stage, let's go a little deeper.
If we were to view poor brain health as we do any other physical problem or handicap and that physical limitation leads to social problems in the future, can we really "blame" the people who cause the most trouble for society? Do our notions of justice, revenge, and restitution even make sense if these poor three-year-old brains deterministically lead to future problems?
Before you say we all have a choice regardless of our early development, check out my Determining Determinism post (ah, the good old days of Steemit 5 months ago when 100 votes could bring in over $800 :). What if the good choices you've made are an illusion? What if the choices made by those we judge and ridicule were ultimately out of their control as well?
Where does this line of thought lead us?
The more pessimistic of us may jump right to the history of eugenics to see where this is going. The first thirty or so years of the 1900's were full of academic and scientifically minded people who thought they were going to make the world a better place, complete with sterilization laws and true racism. And I'm not talking about the SJW, watered down version of racism we see talked about today in our "safe space" college campuses. This was the real deal. An entire worldview based on the belief that some races are not only genetically superior to others, but that some races should be eliminated via selective breeding.
Thankfully, the horrors of Nazism and World War II lead to eugenics being bundled together with the concept of genocide. That said, some think we're shutting down a discussion which should be had. If, using modern genetics, we could eliminate the problems of these poor three-year-old brains which we believe lead to future societal problems, should we?
In October 2015, the United Nations' International Bioethics Committee wrote that the ethical problems of human genetic engineering should not be confused with the ethical problems of the 20th century eugenics movements; however, it is still problematic because it challenges the idea of human equality and opens up new forms of discrimination and stigmatization for those who do not want or cannot afford the enhancements.
-- via Wikipedia
Compassion over Eugenics
The more optimistic of us can instead look to compassion and love as the best solution. The handicapped at birth among us (and I make no distinction between "physical" and "mental" as they are both "physical") deserve our help, our effort, our understanding, our patience, and our respect. They did not choose the outcome they were given. Can we really hold them accountable for the structure of their brain at the age of three which later correlates with actions we might label criminal or immoral? Couldn't we just as easily have been born with their DNA, and they born with ours?
We don't assign blame to inanimate objects or "Acts of God" because we understand no conscious choice is involved. We might get a little more frustrated if our dog or cat pisses us off, but we again recognize their lower level of consciousness. Same thing with children who are not held responsible as adults because a child's brain is not fully developed and doesn't have the same experience for rational evaluation and better decision making. But what about when we become adults? Should we all be held equally accountable for our actions? Are some of us still functioning with low "brain health" as the study described in those three year olds?
What if we instead respond with compassion? As non violent communication (NVC) describes, what if we saw violence as a tragic expression of unmet needs? What if we were able to better understand and meet the needs of that 20% of society we currently look down on as causing 80% of our problems?
What do you think?
P.S.
One of my first posts on Steemit was on NVC, and it's one I'm still the most proud of. I'd love for you to give the videos there a watch and learn how you can help bring about a less violent world.
This post has been ranked within the top 50 most undervalued posts in the first half of Dec 21. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $7.05 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Dec 21 - Part I. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
The 20% of our society causing the problems are the symptom and not the cause. I hate to repeat a cliche, but the 1% creates that same 20% :(
How so?
The way taxation and the economy is run. It keeps sucking money out of people's pockets, that certain people turn to crime, or drugs, or both, to cope. If you follow some of these people you see on Intervention (TV show) up their bloodline, you eventually get to some family member that feel in despair and started self medicating himself. It's a big subject. Can't solve it all in a paragraph, but you might at least understand my stance on why I said 1% creates that same 20%
Thanks. :)
This isn't about eugenics, this is about bad parenting.
Instead of single-moms being praised for their bravery, they should be scolded for making such poor choices that destroy their children's minds and their future.
Sounds like something Molyneux would say. ;)
Can single mothers be blamed for the decisions which led up to that one night stand? Can the fathers who abandon them? Were those outcomes deterministic based in their own programming and neuron responses?
It's not so simple as villifiying one group or another, IMO. Yes, bad parenting plays a huge role, but even then, who gets a good parenting manual? Do parents with low brain health have a chance?
I think some single moms should be praised based on what they overcome and accomplish. If they, against all odds, raise virtuous children, how much harder is it for them then others? Yes, they made bad decisions, but if we were born into their bodies with their DNA and their parents, would we have done any better?
This is tough stuff to think through. As society starts genetically designing the babies of the future, eugenics will certainly enter the discussion.
I am sorry, it is too late at night for me to put the focus into writing this information, this will come across rough...
With a dozen contraceptive choices, and the morning after pill, and abortion, it is by choice that today's first world women become mothers. Too many women try to tie down a bad-boy by having a child. And too many women marry the beta-male who will stay and provide, but is much too boring. 70% of divorce is filed by females. I know very few of the, what movie's make out as "stereotypical" men who decide their secretary is better, and kicks there wife to the curb. The story that I hear over and over and over, are dutiful husbands that got kicked to the curb for being too boring, and then denied access to their children.
One of the most important things, that ancient esoterics know, and brain dead psychologists of today completely miss is the stages of child growth.
*13- yr the child connects to the world. The child is now in the process of understanding the world, and how they will be a part of it.
Abandonment is one of the biggest traumas of a child's life. Not having a mother, or not having a father at the critical juncture destroys their lives. It is hard to deal with life, when your base emotion is "I am not good enough" (my mother/father didn't love me, so what chance have I to find love? I am not loveable.)
Since you brought up Molyneux I assume you have heard the list of things that are much more prevalent if you are the child of a single mother.
70% of people in jail are from a single mother household...
What needs to be added to this, is that this abandonment causes brain damage. The chemicals released in the brain to anaesthetize the pain from abandonment are 10x stronger than cocaine. They have a great impact on your brain and body development. It is not from genetics, for the most part. It is from abuse.
The stuff that comes from genetics is a double edged sword. The one that is most likely to grow up to be a serial killer, is also the one most likely to grown up to be the most compassionate of people. They are destined for one extreme or the other. So, there is no DNA indicators of criminality.
Science doesn't even know what DNA is yet. Talking about designer children is a long way off. Not that we won't try. (and what we will get will be bad, very bad.) And by the time we are able to create designer children, we will probably not ever do it. Because of the very important things we will find about DNA and life.
Can you expand on what you mean by that? When I watch videos like this, it sure seems they know what it is and are pretty far along towards manipulating it as needed.
Also check out CRISPR and CRISPR CAS9. Designer children is not far off. From what I've read, the limitations seem to be more ethical/political than they are technical.
Interesting perspective on women, divorce, and single mothers. Do you have sources for this? I'd like to look into it more.
Does this video mention anything about the electro or the magentic properties of DNA? Probably not. They, scientists/doctors haven't even begun working with designer magnetics yet. (to heal cells and the body)
Quantumly speaking, how many DNA is in the human body?
There is only 1 DNA in several billion positions.
I can't really give you sources that are at the bottom of the rabbit hole. I can sorta guide you to the rabbit hole, but the journey is yours to take.
Have you read any of the "Cancer cure" books of late? Like, Everything Is Energy?
And? What is wrong with the image above? Scientists already know that DNA is a loop, so why do they show it cut off?
Why do they show it like building blocks? I guess you could see it as building blocks, if you think of words as building blocks of a book, however, the order and meaning are very important.
Have you read this book yet?
https://www.amazon.com/Holographic-Universe-Revolutionary-Theory-Reality/dp/0062014102/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1482338304&sr=1-1&keywords=holographic+universe
There are many aspects of what we call reality which we don't yet understand including magnetic and gravitational forces, light waves/photons, and such, but I think it's also important to keep ourselves from making categorical errors. If we're talking about oceans or lakes, we're in a different category than individual water molecules or the atoms which make them up or even the quarks and leptons which make up those atoms.
What do you mean by "Quantumly speaking"? When you say "There is only 1 DNA in several billion positions" that seems like an over simplification.
No, most "cancer cure" stuff I've seen seems to relate more to pseudoscientific woo than evidence (with a little placebo effect thrown in for flavor). I get that on a certain category everything is energy, but science likes reproducible results. Often people throw around scientific sounding words and "quantum theory" type stuff without providing anything reproducible. It's fun for those who like unprovable conspiracy theories and gnostic beliefs, but from what I've seen, much of it leads no where.
That said, I want to keep an open mind. I have seen some interesting things about using light to mess with individual cells and such. I'm interested in learning more. When you say "Everything is Energy" do you mean the book by Mike MacDonald? Would you recommend that as a starting point for the concepts you're describing?
Yes, most of my knowledge now comes from the area of woo woo.
But I wouldn't call it pseudo-scientific.
Long ago, I worked for the cancer industry. I had access to all of the information. If I told you what I did, you could probably figure out who I am.
At that time, I thought that all those cancer cures were "pseudo-scientific woo".
What I learned was that the cancer industry is about causing and treating cancer, and that a cancer cure is never to be spoken of. The manipulation of data that goes on in their depths, places them firmly outside the area of being honest, and one could say VERY unscientific.
Later I learned about cancer curing places. These places have a high success rate. And their numbers aren't massaged, so it could be said that these places are more scientific.
But, cancer cures has more to do with getting over the emotional blockage. Once that is done, almost anything will cure the cancer.
If you would like to understand this more, a woo book to read is
https://www.amazon.com/Hands-Light-Healing-Through-Energy/dp/0553345397/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1482346299&sr=1-1&keywords=hands+of+light
Yes, all the DNA being a single DNA in multiple locations (quantumly speaking) is an oversimplification.
You could very much say that each time a cell divides, it asks the parent DNA structure, same cell or new cell? And thus, the body can change and heal over time.
DNA has 12 layers, and we only discuss one, maybe two.
When DNA researchers start actively talking about the tree of life, then we might actually be looking at real designer children. Until then, we are looking at stabbing at something in the dark and seeing what we get.
The term junk DNA is still thrown around, even though it was shown (by a group of people that study language) to be information. From my views, nature doesn't produce junk, everything had an important purpose, or it just wasn't done. Nothing wasted. Since the term junk DNA is still bandied about, we really do not know much about DNA
It will take me a while to find authors/books name. Sorry, very bad with names.