Neuroscientist Larry Young has studied mammal brain chemistry to solve the riddle of human monogamy, but might have solved the riddle of good government in the process.
According to an essay in the journal Nature on Young's research, fewer than 5% of mammals exhibit so-called ‘pair bonding,' and none as much as human beings do. At the same time, it has been said that anyone egotistical enough to run for office is ipso facto not qualified. These two riddles bookend the fundamental question of human altruism: when can we know that someone is truly acting for another, or are we each better off assuming they merely act for themselves? This is a concern of all democracies, where everyone is in it together.
Dr. Young believes that the biochemical pathways of love - of true connection to another individual - can be induced by the right combination of neurochemicals vasopressin and oxytocin. (Oxytocin is not to be confused with oxycodone or OxyContin, the opiate painkiller, though confounding love with a drug is easily forgiven.)
The idea is that the exact proportions can be replicated in a chemical cocktail or injection to induce love. On the flip side, Young acknowledged to the New York Times that the pathways could be just as easily interfered with, blocking the body's recognition of those chemicals and saving those who would be consumed by too much or unrequited love.
The governmental implications of such research make one weak at the knees.
First, the Food and Drug Administration would have to debate approving the use of love cocktails and inhibitors on human beings for research. Though scientists have already found success creating feelings of trust and empathy by squirting oxytocin in people's nostrils - a new line of cologne, anyone? - substantial human experimentation would surely be required to explore this discovery's potential. After all, which but a speaking, feeling organism could conclusively exhibit true love, or a lack thereof? And the idea of messing with something as fundamental to human consciousness as love sounds sickeningly perverse. Yet in prohibiting researchers from exploring those uncharted territories, in interfering with science's all-important goal to lift the veil between human knowledge and mystery, the FDA could deprive researchers of a great achievement. Not to mention our competitiveness with Europe in the love-race.
Second, if conclusive findings emerge, how would we utilize them? Though Dr. Young plans to use his discoveries to improve the social experiences of those who suffer from autism or schizophrenia, the potential for a back market love cocktail can not be ignored. Sure, we might be able to turn prisoners into poets or imbue adulterers with ‘family values,' but there's a huge difference between rehabilitation and intoxication. And there's an even greater danger of empowering those who wish to shape or inhibit the sexual feelings of others - from the desperate dater to the homophobic parent. The bad intentions of the few must be weighed against the potential help to the many, curing lovesickness or bringing the spark back to a couple grown tired of each other. Even then, such a love-aid is not necessarily good if you're old-fashioned and believe in the sacredness of love. Maybe that cocktail is just the thing for obsolete fuddy-duddies - or their unfeeling antagonists, of course. So who decides?
That brings us to the final consideration: love is so much more than a romantic force. Imagine this cocktail tailored to specific loves, to making people less inclined to fall in love with, say, their political ideals. Could this be an end to bigotry, to intellectual obtuseness, or just an end to intellectual diversity? Listen closely, and you can hear the sighs of elected leaders who have to make the tough and unpopular decisions starting to love this idea.
Controlling the uncontrollable aspects of human nature is the dream of any elected official, as well as the capable but uncharismatic would-be philosopher king who could never get elected. After all, isn't controlling the dark side of human nature the goal of any good law? Imagine if the fickle masses became docile lovers of peace, harmony, and goodness. There sure would be a lot less conflict in the world.
And there would be that much less of what makes us human.
So is the goal of government to restrain or perfect humanity? That might be a decision too important to leave up to scientists, or the FDA. And yet, is it any safer to leave this determination up to the whim of the masses?
It has to be, in a democracy - love it or leave it...while you still can make that choice for yourself.
Also Interesting: