Humans are aggressive, sometimes too much – could 'moral enhancement' technologies offer a solution?

It can come as a shock when seemingly sensible people lose it in traffic, Shutterstock

In 2014, one-punch attacks became so frequent in Australia, media outlets^[7] deemed them an “epidemic”. Then there’s road rage^[8], which accounts for numerous cases of injury and property damage each year.

These examples tell us aggression pervades almost every forum of human activity. They suggest otherwise healthy people have the capacity to lose themselves to episodic violence. And perhaps some of us pose a greater hazard than others – without necessarily knowing it.

If we can identify risk-predictors of impulsive aggression, we may be able to prevent some of this spontaneous harm before it’s inflicted.

How do we classify aggression?

Psychology defines aggression as any behaviour intended to cause harm. This excludes consensual harm which a person desires for some greater good, such as surgery or tattooing.

Aggression comes in two broad varieties: reactive and instrumental. Reactive aggression is described as “hot-blooded” and involves extreme anger in the face of a threat. Instrumental aggression is “cold-blooded” and involves calculated acts with low emotional arousal.

While both types of aggression can overlap, each has a distinct neurophysiological signature. Reactive aggression activates “primal” parts of the brain, while instrumental aggression recruits more evolved areas in the neocortex.

Morally speaking, there’s reason to think reactive aggression is more hazardous than other forms. That doesn’t mean instrumental aggression isn’t worrisome. In fact, it’s involved in some of the most damaging conditions such as criminal psychopathy.

But reactive aggression is different because it lacks higher-order cognition. It engages the relatively basic limbic system – the region of the brain which deals with behavioural and emotional reactions. It also shuts down the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for rational decision-making.

Aggression is a common feature in many sports. It’s not always problematic in this context, but it can be. Shutterstock

What can be done?

Precise biomarkers^[9] of reactive aggression haven’t yet been established, but scientists have identified some key contributors^[10]. These include a range of genes, receptors, neurochemicals related to serotonin and dopamine, hyperactivity of the amygdala, and reduced brain matter in particular regions.

Certain biomedical procedures show promise. Neuromodulation techniques have been found to lower aggression by directly altering brain activity. One example involves^[11] a painless procedure in which electrodes are placed on a person’s head to excite or inhibit a specific part of the brain.

Researchers have suggested^[12] we could use such technology on young people with conduct disorders to prevent problematic behaviour in adulthood.

Another emerging technique is psychedelic-assisted therapy^[13]. Working with therapists, patients use substances such as LSD, MDMA, and psilocybin to access altered states of consciousness and positively shape values, thoughts and behaviour. Early clinical trials have shown impressive results for treating conditions including addiction, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Gene-based strategies^[14] such as CRISPR^[15] also offer hope for therapeutic and enhancement purposes. These work by inserting genetic material into a person’s body to modify or replace unwanted genes. Most gene therapies are still in early trial stages. They’ll need much more evaluation before they can used safely and ethically on humans.

Importantly, there are questions over whether moral enhancement is already happening^[16], such as when we take drugs that change our brain chemistry. If so, should we simply think of new moral enhancement strategies as a part of existing pre-emptive medical treatments?

We already know of the many benefits antidepressants provide. Should such medicine be considered a form of ‘moral enhancement’? Shutterstock

The barriers

There are major challenges in implementing any of the above techniques to target aggression. One is non-specificity: the neural structures involved in aggression are also implicated in states such as fear, reward, motivation and threat-detection.

Also, antisocial behaviours can’t simply be associated with one or two genes. They’re a result of a complex genetic architecture in which hundreds of genes, or even thousands, interact with a person’s environment and lifestyle.

Even if we could safely target the determinants of reactive aggression, there are lingering practical and ethical considerations. For one, not all aggression is antisocial. Aggression is often necessary for acts of protection and self-defence.

People can also have mixed motivations, meaning different aggression types can be present in a single act. To complicate things further, some researchers argue for additional classifications such as “micro-”, “prosocial” and “appetitive” aggression.

Any moral enhancement proposals must consider the impact on the person, their character and sense of self. Additionally, there are concerns around autonomy, personal freedom and the possibility of coercive treatment.

These factors would need to be carefully weighed against the potential benefits of moderating an individual’s aggressive tendencies.

Moving forward, we need to learn more about the moral significance of different types of aggression, how they present in an individual’s actions, and how they’re reflected in their biology.

Read more: Neuralink's monkey can play Pong with its mind. Imagine what humans could do with the same technology^[17]

Read more https://theconversation.com/humans-are-aggressive-sometimes-too-much-could-moral-enhancement-technologies-offer-a-solution-186119

• Prev
• Next