What if our behavior were parasitic?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Parasitic in origin, I mean.

 

Recently I've read a few articles about how toxoplasmosa parasites might influence human behavior. The author of the linked article even suggests that the prevalence of toxoplasmosis in various countries could help explain certain aspects of those countries' cultures. In other words, a mind-altering parasite might be influencing human culture.

 

I'm not opening this thread to discuss how feasible that is, however. The author of the study admits that this work is preliminary and there's a lot more to be done to prove anything. The thing that got me wondering, however, is this: What if it's true?

 

Suppose we discover that numerous cultural differences are all the result of some parasite. With some medication and better handling of meat we could wipe out the parasite entirely, potentially saving lives (the link points out that toxoplasmosis can cause slower reaction times, and thus more auto accidents). But eliminating the parasite would, over time, change the face of nations around the world.

 

If you were in charge, would you lead a campaign to eradicate the parasite, or would you consider it an element of your culture? On the one hand, you'd eliminate a potentially harmful parasite -- but on the other hand you'd be altering the personality of your nation.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Cap'n Refsmmat

[CharonY]

Actually it is likely that the influence is relatively subtle. Most likely not stronger than any number of other influences on behavior (e.g. mass media). As such I would not expect any strong impacts in general.

[Mr Skeptic]

Nope. I'm all for eradicating parasites and diseases (of people at least). Now if one of the ways the parasites affected our mind were positive (are any?) I might reconsider. But if it mostly causes neurosis, schizophrenia, uncertainty avoidance, slower reaction times, I think its all the more reason for it to go. Which might be difficult, considering how many hosts it has.

[iNow]

Beware of unintended consequences.

 

Anyway, if I were to personally attempt to eradicate a parasite from society, I'd start with religion, but that's just me.

[Daecon]

It may have been the seeds of various cultures at the dawn of civilisation, but now those cultures have their momentum going (so to speak), I would expect removing the parasite now wouldn't make any difference that couldn't be changed by interaction with other cultures instead.

 

Like how several thousand years of culture can be irreversibly changed after exposure to a more powerful nation...

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I dunno. It talked about the prevalence of the parasite in countries like Brazil, which was only colonized a few hundred years ago, not several thousand.

 

But regardless, that's not the point. I'm trying to raise an ethical question, not a "is this parasite changing our behavior" question. Assume the parasite does indeed alter cultures to a measurable extent and that we could in fact get rid of it. Would you want to get rid of it if it were partially responsible for your culture?

[GDG]

There is a science fiction story by David Brin ("The Giving Plague", available online in its entirety) about a blood-borne disease that alters human behavior -- influencing people to donate blood.

 

Given the number of genes expressed only in the human brain, and the increasing number of small regulatory RNAs being discovered, I would say that it may even be likely that there are viruses (or other pathogens) that have a direct (but subtle, currently undetected) influence on human behavior.

 

I assume that most people would opt for purging any such pathogen from our systems, in the name of restoring our "free will" to behave without the influence of the pathogen. However, to the extent that it results in a culture diverse from others, this may not be such a good idea. Diversity in outlook is a quantitative Good Thing, and reducing your culture to a clone of another just discards the value of having something different. Assuming that the behavior induced is not simply something like a willingness to be a suicide bomber, without an overwhelming compensatory advantage, I'd say keep the pathogen.