Part of TrevorJ's point is that there's a very good case to be made that when people declare our level of concern about global warming is irrational, that they are in fact being irrational about that claim. Future fears are discounted, and they should be, because the alternative is paralysis. It's easy to spout off about how we "should" be as concerned about global warming as a snake ten feet away when you don't realize just how thoroughly infeasible that approach would be.
Redesigning the human body is an old hobby, but a complete understanding of how evolution works and the complexity of the human body (including the brain) should make one hesitate. I've seen numerous things that could be "better" (for example, "let's just get rid of the appendix"), but I've never seen such a redesign that I could actually guarantee was a certainly-better thing. The tradeoffs are ignored.
There's no guarantee that "just" allowing the prefrontal cortex to induce a larger fear response will have anything like the desired effect. You might just end up with a population with widespread, crippling phobias, or, given that the prefrontal cortex is hardly invincible, widespread coordinated responses to non-threats. I think this went by on HN a few days ago and can serve as an example of an excessively-powerful prefrontal cortex overriding survival instincts to terrible, terrible effect: http://lewrockwell.com/orig9/deming2.html (or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nongqawuse ) (Just take the initial story bit.)
It's just not trivial to re-engineer the brain, and those who are making political points while doing so should be flat-out ignored.
Comments
Part of TrevorJ's point is that there's a very good case to be made that when people declare our level of concern about global warming is irrational, that they are in fact being irrational about that claim. Future fears are discounted, and they should be, because the alternative is paralysis. It's easy to spout off about how we "should" be as concerned about global warming as a snake ten feet away when you don't realize just how thoroughly infeasible that approach would be.
Redesigning the human body is an old hobby, but a complete understanding of how evolution works and the complexity of the human body (including the brain) should make one hesitate. I've seen numerous things that could be "better" (for example, "let's just get rid of the appendix"), but I've never seen such a redesign that I could actually guarantee was a certainly-better thing. The tradeoffs are ignored.
There's no guarantee that "just" allowing the prefrontal cortex to induce a larger fear response will have anything like the desired effect. You might just end up with a population with widespread, crippling phobias, or, given that the prefrontal cortex is hardly invincible, widespread coordinated responses to non-threats. I think this went by on HN a few days ago and can serve as an example of an excessively-powerful prefrontal cortex overriding survival instincts to terrible, terrible effect: http://lewrockwell.com/orig9/deming2.html (or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nongqawuse ) (Just take the initial story bit.)
It's just not trivial to re-engineer the brain, and those who are making political points while doing so should be flat-out ignored.