Registered: Jul 2000
Location: my mother's bloody womb
Posts: 7185

congratulate me! this is the first time i've used my brain in two weeks.

i was reading a thread in the asylum the other day about the strange behavior of animals, and how some animals display addictive behaviors. there was a mention of monkeys stealing beer, and other animals that sniffed certain types of bug guts because it caused a euphoric reaction.

i was wondering...does this imply that human beings are innately built to become addicted to different things? i've always thought that addictions to drugs and alcohol, while being slightly affected by your genetics, were behavioral issues. but what if human beings just have it encoded in our basic makeup to drive us to addictions? and if this is true, how can we blame ourselves for our loss of control?

discuss.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: Van Diemen's Land.
Posts: 3607

Because they can be ignored and not used in the first instance?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC
Posts: 15179

I think I posted a thread with an article on this a while back.

Or maybe someone else posted it and I posted it elsewhere. I forget. Regardless, there should be something about it somewhere.

Anyway, I think the gist of the article was that there were evolutionary advantages to the behavior of actively seeking out chemicals that alter mental or physical function. I forget the details, as it's been a while.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: my mother's bloody womb
Posts: 7185

well find it, damnit!

i want a doughnut.

edit- your sig is really creepin' me out.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC
Posts: 15179

Found it. http://www.asylumnation.com/asylum/...&threadid=21781

Sounds like you had an opinion on the matter then, at least.

(As for the sig, that's the point)

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: my mother's bloody womb
Posts: 7185

wow! that was a great post i made. i sounded so smart. and stuff.

seriously...i still think that way- responsibility for our actions ultimately lie within ourselves.

do you have an opinion on the question though, roshi? do you think that perhaps we're genetically predisposed to develop addictions?

and if so...does that change how we approach the stigma placed on them?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2000
Location:
Posts: 9434

quote:

---

Originally posted by morgana

do you think that perhaps we're genetically predisposed to develop addictions?

and if so...does that change how we approach the stigma placed on them?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC
Posts: 15179

I think there are genetic predispositions for addiction, yes. But predispositions don't mean you have no choice in the matter. People often have genetic predispositions for heart disease or cancer and never develop them regardless. Environment plays a large part in things, and I think ultimately it lies in your own hands. If you're an addict, it may be because you're predisposed to be, but it was your behavior that got you started in the first place.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: Shreveport, LA
Posts: 3840

there is one substance to which almost every human on the planet is addicted, and for which there is no cure to the addiction. it is something you ingest on a daily basis, despite it's not being necessary to your survival. this substance is refined white sugar, or glucose in it's purest form.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: California
Posts: 4252

I have the instinctual urge to fuck every woman on earth.
Evoloution has given me sufficient uglyness to prevent that from occuring.
Similarly all things are balanced in nature.
Morgana's personallity keeps her from whelping every nine months (I still want to fuck her).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Boston, MA, Center of the Universe
Posts: 4538

quote:

---

Originally posted by morgana
do you think that perhaps we're genetically predisposed to develop addictions?

and if so...does that change how we approach the stigma placed on them?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35782

I think that it is entirely possible that predisposition to addiction and other behavioural patterns is genetic; I certainly can't think of any reason why it can't be.

The fact that everyone gets treated the same under law, even though some people (assuming genetic behavioural predispositions do exist) were more likely to end that way through no fault of their own because of their genetic make-up, is for practical reasons, not moral ones, I think. If it were possible to assess someone's genetic predisposition to a particular behaviour type, then we could all judge their culpabillity in evincing that behaviour relative to it (although we probably ought to consider other environmental factors); too complicated to consider in a court of law though, possibly impractical and certainly unpopular.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16812

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
I think that it is entirely possible that predisposition to addiction and other behavioural patterns is genetic; I certainly can't think of any reason why it can't be.

The fact that everyone gets treated the same under law, even though some people (assuming genetic behavioural predispositions do exist) were more likely to end that way through no fault of their own because of their genetic make-up, is for practical reasons, not moral ones, I think. If it were possible to assess someone's genetic predisposition to a particular behaviour type, then we could all judge their culpabillity in evincing that behaviour relative to it (although we probably ought to consider other environmental factors); too complicated to consider in a court of law though, possibly impractical and certainly unpopular.

---

Last edited by euphorbia on 11-13-2002 at 04:16 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: Shreveport, LA
Posts: 3840

am i the only one who sees a 'gataca' argument approaching?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2001
Location: China
Posts: 11795

I definitely got the alcoholism gene.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35782

I think that intent, what is in the mind of the person that commits the crime, is important. I am pretty sure that is in the US legal system as well, and I think that it is right. From that, the 'insanity' defence seems to me to be inevitable in some (very very few) cases, but what I am really thinking about it sentencing (ie, after a conviction is obtained), where consideration ought to (I think) be given to some concrete issues relating to the mind of the criminal when they committed the crime (this could lead to longer sentences, too, of course).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2000
Location:
Posts: 9434

quote:

---

Originally posted by SatansLeftHand
am i the only one who sees a 'gataca' argument approaching?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16812

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
I think that intent, what is in the mind of the person that commits the crime, is important. I am pretty sure that is in the US legal system as well, and I think that it is right. From that, the 'insanity' defence seems to me to be inevitable in some (very very few) cases, but what I am really thinking about it sentencing (ie, after a conviction is obtained), where consideration ought to (I think) be given to some concrete issues relating to the mind of the criminal when they committed the crime (this could lead to longer sentences, too, of course).

---

Last edited by euphorbia on 11-13-2002 at 06:53 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35782

Well, my point is really that there should be (in my opinion, but I didn't invent it, the law works this way here anyhow) some consideration of what is in the mind of the person who commits the crime. Unless that person is actually incapable of knowing that what they did is wrong (the insanity defence) then they are still to be convicted. What should affect sentencing? Seems to me that the intent on the part of the criminal should be a part of it (although intent can also be required for some crimes, like murder; mere carelessness would be manslaughter, for example). Two different murderers should necessarily get the same sentence, I don't think; the man who kills his wife's lover is, in my opinion, a different case to the contract killer and they should have different sentences, although they are both murderers and both should be 'long' sentences.

But the argument shouldn't be taken to mean that there can be endless mitigation offered based on the normal hormonal cycle, etc; I would accept that a moral case could be made around it, but I just don't think that it would allow us to have a working legal system and would oppose it for that reason. But if you are to judge the relative standing of two crimes, which is 'worse' then the intent of the perpetrator would be one of the things that I would consider.

Of course, it is just possible that I am 'part of the system', in that I am used to living under this sort of system. I think that the attractiveness of the system that would only judge the act and not the intent is clear, too, but that system is not for me. 'Attempted murder' couldn't be differentiated from aiming a gun near someone (aiming to miss) without consideration of the importance of intent; both have the same results (both, I would think, ought to be crimes, too) but they are different things and what makes them different is the intent of the shooter. I don't think that aiming at someone and missing is the same crime as aiming to miss someone and I think that the intent is the important thing that differentiates them.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Beatrice, Nebraska
Posts: 18892

quote:

---

congratulate me! this is the first time i've used my brain in two weeks.

---

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

The pinnacle of Failbot technology.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged