Just a hypothetical. Say scientists found a chemical that specifically targeted violent rage in individuals, completely eliminating it as a response or action. Suppose it could be introduced into the water supply as a way of targeting everybody.
Would you be for or against? What are your reasons why or why not?
This is sort of like the question, “is gun control good”.
The answer is yes, but only if it’s 100% of the people 100% of the time.
Bad idea. Now we’d have billions of passive-aggressive people.
“No it’s okay, really, don’t worry about it.” + Angry face.
I don’t see how that wouldn’t be a noble public good. Seems like a good idea to me. Re: Smears’ comment, if we accept that it addresses violent rage and not (rational) violence, then I don’t see a problem. Right now if there is someone in a PCP-induced rage barreling down the street, people will respond to that with rational violence. No need to be raging towards psychopaths, just vengeful. That of course invites all sorts of other questions about the nature of ‘rage’ and how it relates to violence but within the limits of the thought experiment, I think it remains a fine idea.
I’d worry about it’s effects on artistic expression.
Yep. I find that I do my best work angry.
Two words:
Artistic Expression
Three Words:
Cost/Benefit Analysis
I’m with Xunzian 100%.
That depends…
Let me ask it this way.
[b]Just a hypothetical. Say scientists found a chemical that specifically targeted religious cult following behavior in individuals, completely eliminating it as a response or action. Suppose it could be introduced into the water supply as a way of targeting everybody.
Would you be for or against? What are your reasons why or why not?[/b]
Let me ask you this way:
Just a hypothetical. Say scientists found a chemical that specifically ended all the bad things in life, completely eliminating it. Would you take it? Logic be damned.
Totally different. You’re talking about the elimination of all aspects of, “Bad,” vs. the elimination of one, or a small set of, very specific aspects.
Without, “Bad,” there can be no, “Good,” and everything would be neutral and gray. In the OP, I think we are talking about rage, there’s a big difference between rage and being angry, someone can still be angry without being enraged. People could still be pricks, people could still be hateful, they would simply be incapable of rage.
Man, I was segueing into a joke about some kind of recreational drug.
Anyway, I wouldn’t. That’s like steak without the meat.
My fault, I apologize.
I didn’t mean to break up your joke.
Hehehe
What about times when rage is the appropriate response to a situation? You shouldn’t go around fucking with the human spirit.
Magnesium?
Against. It is treating a symptom. And even in the best case, which I doubt would exist, where it only targeted rage, but not anger, you are cutting off a part of ourselves. it would make a revolution against tyranny much harder.
If you live in the US, you can see what’s in your water here, then do a MSDS search.
ewg.org/tapwater/statereports/
You can check out this site, too (toxicology info): ntp.niehs.nih.gov:8080/index.html?col=010stat
What if i need my rage?
Whose sense of what ‘the bad things are’?
Trust me, you do.
Even if things are going OK now, the sharks would smell it’s absence and in that school of fish out there your scales would shine more brightly in their eyes. And I am not playing. I truly believe that.