Futurism posted today about a study where Researchers Use Brain Tests to Predict the Potential of Criminality in Toddlers.
From the abstract published in April:
Variation in brain health at three years of age significantly predicted economically burdensome outcomes in each sector.
To be more specific:
A segment comprising 22% of the cohort accounted for 36% of the cohort’s injury insurance claims; 40% of excess obese kilograms; 54% of cigarettes smoked; 57% of hospital nights; 66% of welfare benefits; 77% of fatherless child-rearing; 78% of prescription fills; and 81% of criminal convictions. Childhood risks, including poor brain health at three years of age, predicted this segment with large effect sizes.
81% of criminal convictions from only 22% of the group.
That's amazing. What started with analyzing "childhood socioeconomic deprivation, maltreatment, low IQ and poor self-control" eventually narrowed in on the "brain health" of three year olds.
I wouldn't say they've solved the nature verses nurture problem just yet. One of my favorite discussions on this topic comes from Stefan Molyneux and can be found at bombinthebrain.com. I'll be the first to say he's fallen pretty far off the wagon when it comes to the early anarchist philosophical ideals his early videos introduced me to, but I still enjoy this series. It includes interviews with authors and researchers who discuss the impact of childhood traumatic events in the first five years of life on future well being.
This study says poor brain health leads to future problems. Via epigenetics, it's also possible our earliest experiences actually shape how our brain develops. Now that we've set the stage, let's go a little deeper.
If we were to view poor brain health as we do any other physical problem or handicap and that physical limitation leads to social problems in the future, can we really "blame" the people who cause the most trouble for society? Do our notions of justice, revenge, and restitution even make sense if these poor three-year-old brains deterministically lead to future problems?
Before you say we all have a choice regardless of our early development, check out my Determining Determinism post (ah, the good old days of Steemit 5 months ago when 100 votes could bring in over $800 :). What if the good choices you've made are an illusion? What if the choices made by those we judge and ridicule were ultimately out of their control as well?
Where does this line of thought lead us?
The more pessimistic of us may jump right to the history of eugenics to see where this is going. The first thirty or so years of the 1900's were full of academic and scientifically minded people who thought they were going to make the world a better place, complete with sterilization laws and true racism. And I'm not talking about the SJW, watered down version of racism we see talked about today in our "safe space" college campuses. This was the real deal. An entire worldview based on the belief that some races are not only genetically superior to others, but that some races should be eliminated via selective breeding.
Thankfully, the horrors of Nazism and World War II lead to eugenics being bundled together with the concept of genocide. That said, some think we're shutting down a discussion which should be had. If, using modern genetics, we could eliminate the problems of these poor three-year-old brains which we believe lead to future societal problems, should we?
In October 2015, the United Nations' International Bioethics Committee wrote that the ethical problems of human genetic engineering should not be confused with the ethical problems of the 20th century eugenics movements; however, it is still problematic because it challenges the idea of human equality and opens up new forms of discrimination and stigmatization for those who do not want or cannot afford the enhancements.
-- via Wikipedia
Compassion over Eugenics
The more optimistic of us can instead look to compassion and love as the best solution. The handicapped at birth among us (and I make no distinction between "physical" and "mental" as they are both "physical") deserve our help, our effort, our understanding, our patience, and our respect. They did not choose the outcome they were given. Can we really hold them accountable for the structure of their brain at the age of three which later correlates with actions we might label criminal or immoral? Couldn't we just as easily have been born with their DNA, and they born with ours?
We don't assign blame to inanimate objects or "Acts of God" because we understand no conscious choice is involved. We might get a little more frustrated if our dog or cat pisses us off, but we again recognize their lower level of consciousness. Same thing with children who are not held responsible as adults because a child's brain is not fully developed and doesn't have the same experience for rational evaluation and better decision making. But what about when we become adults? Should we all be held equally accountable for our actions? Are some of us still functioning with low "brain health" as the study described in those three year olds?
What if we instead respond with compassion? As non violent communication (NVC) describes, what if we saw violence as a tragic expression of unmet needs? What if we were able to better understand and meet the needs of that 20% of society we currently look down on as causing 80% of our problems?
What do you think?
P.S.
One of my first posts on Steemit was on NVC, and it's one I'm still the most proud of. I'd love for you to give the videos there a watch and learn how you can help bring about a less violent world.
