Автор: Битарх

Cheap AI drones are one of the most dangerous weapons of the future

Voluntarist, Bitarch

When discussing what weapons could be extremely lethal yet very cheap and accessible for creation by almost any group of people or even a single individual, viruses likely come to mind. Given the rapid development and decreasing cost of biotechnologies, there is a threat of “basement laboratories” that can be easily opened and moved from place to place. However, the list of lethal and accessible weaponry does not end there. As noted in Alexander Rozov’s “LiveJournal,” AI-powered drones could become such weapons.

To provide context, it is first worth quoting a comment from user alekseymeeres, to which Rozov was responding:
Light drones have changed the battlefield. Today, this is a flying sniper that terrorizes everyone—people and even armored vehicles. The cost of a kamikaze drone is 1,000 dollars (approximately), which is practically one enemy soldier. A million dollars is a thousand enemy soldiers. A billion dollars is a million enemy soldiers. Even by WWII prices, this is dirt cheap.

Further, based on technological patterns, Rozov makes predictions that:
– light drones costing 100 dollars and produced at 100,000 units per day will appear, which is entirely realistic;
– drones for destroying drones will appear as the only possible defensive measure against drone attacks; however, manual control of them will be impossible due to such a complex target, making them autonomous, which will also make them resistant to signal jamming;
– the decision-making barrier will disappear; humans will no longer make decisions about whether to launch an attack or in which direction to conduct it if the drones are already in the air.

But what is more important to us is not how drones will be used by states in wars. We are concerned with the consequences for society as a whole:
– due to the simplicity and low cost of the technology, it cannot remain a secret; any extremist or mafia group with any political or economic goals will be able to use it;
– no civilian object in the world will ever be safe again;
– the boundary between peace and war will disappear.

Most likely, many will be able to create drones at home simply by following instructions from the internet; it will not be much harder than making a children’s electric toy. Ensuring autonomous control resistant to EW suppression is also not a problem at the current level of AI development. And any person with a dysfunction of the violence-inhibiting mechanism and psychopathic predispositions will easily use such drones to commit violence. Moreover, tracking and punishing the perpetrator will be extremely difficult, unless they decide to openly release a swarm of drones in broad daylight, which would encourage an even greater number of psychopathic individuals to commit violence. What the drones are equipped with is also unimportant, even without access to explosives or their components. For example, they could carry flammable substances, and if the target of the attack is just one person, a swarm of drones might be able to beat them down by brute force. In such a world, there would be no possibility to engage in full productive activity, to develop, or even just to live peacefully. Perpetrators will establish total terror for both each other and ordinary peaceful people.

As some researchers believe, avoiding irreparable harm in the future will only be possible either through a complete renunciation of freedom and the introduction of a totalitarian system of round-the-clock surveillance of every person, or through “moral bio-enhancement.” To implement the second scenario, it would be sufficient to develop and distribute a therapy that restores the full functioning of the violence-inhibiting mechanism in psychopathic individuals. Only this way can the threat they create in the violent pursuit of their goals be reliably eliminated. Furthermore, even politicians, who will not soon have the technical capability to monitor what every single citizen does behind closed doors, should consider the idea of moral bio-enhancement, as they too will not be safe.

Even if you prove you are right in court, no one will compensate you for a ruined life

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Do you remember a sports car like the DeLorean, which was also used as a time machine in the “Back to the Future” trilogy? The story of its creator, John DeLorean, is quite instructive. As soon as he started producing cars, he was charged with drug trafficking. Later, he was able to prove that the story had been framed by the FBI, but his entire fortune went toward paying lawyers. One can also recall many stories where someone spent a decade or two in prison, after which it turned out they were innocent. Of course, in such cases, monetary compensation may be provided. But how can you compensate for the loss of a significant part of one’s life, often the “best” part, when a person is still young, most productive, and capable of easily starting a family or building a career?

Even after proving your correctness in state courts, you can lose a lot. In far from all cases will you be entitled to even monetary compensation, and if you do achieve it, it will still not cover the loss of part of your life or the lost profit from funds that you had to spend on proceedings rather than investing. A stationary bandit, by making a mistake, can easily destroy your life.

Of course, there is an argument that this is the price that must be paid for security, and the system is permitted to sacrifice the lives of a few if it is capable of saving many. But does the person putting forward such an argument understand that the mistakes of state authorities are paid for from their own pocket? The state does not have its own money, after all. Would he pay compensation to a falsely accused person himself if it were not taken from his pocket through cleverly designed and rather hidden tax collections? Hardly; most likely, he would say that the person who made the mistake should deal with it, without reaching into his pocket as an outsider. And would he support such a system if he himself ended up among those few victims? Most likely, such a situation would anger him.

Also, conversations about the position of the permissibility of making sacrifices for the “greater good” prompt us to remember who generally possesses such a mindset. Research in which participants had to solve moral dilemmas demonstrated that psychopathic predispositions are linked to a willingness to make a sacrifice. For example, this was well shown through a modified trolley problem, in which one must decide whether it is permissible to approach one fat person and push them under the trolley to stop it and save five other people tied to the tracks. The choice in favor of making a sacrifice was linked to an increased level of all psychopathy indicators. And, it should be noted, psychopathic individuals in their responses to various dilemmas were willing to sacrifice the well-being of other people, but not willing to sacrifice their own well-being (they, of course, would not throw themselves under the trolley).

Now it is worth asking: how does the immoral and cruel choice to throw an innocent person under the trolley to save other people, which only psychopathic individuals might decide upon, differ from the choice of a stationary bandit to impose such costs of legal proceedings on a person and apply punishments that can completely destroy their life when there is a probability of their innocence? If we are going to allow the second, then it follows that the first is also permissible. But most of us are peaceful and non-psychopathic individuals who, by their own hands and decisions, would not be able to sacrifice a person. So perhaps it is not worth supporting a system that does this? And, again, you yourself would not want to suddenly find yourself in the place of the victim.

And if someone does not mind becoming a victim for the good of others, they would like to be pointed to something regarding our main theme. In such a case, they, for example, have no right to argue from the position of the inadmissibility of mandatory therapy to strengthen the violence inhibitor in individuals with its dysfunction, justifying this by the possible error of its application to the “innocent.” Is that not so?

Pinker’s Error – has society become more peaceful because of the emergence of the state?

Voluntarist, Bitarch

One of Steven Pinker’s well-known works is the book “The Better Angels of Our Nature.” Based on it, societies that existed before the emergence of agricultural civilizations with cities and monopoly governments suffered from chronic violence and endless wars, and the level of violence has steadily declined over time, partly due to the monopolization of power and law. But has violence actually decreased, did the emergence of the state play an important role in this, and is man cruel by nature?

According to Pinker, for hunter-gatherer societies, the average level of lethal violence was as high as 14%. But where does this data come from? Analyzing it, anthropologists Douglas Fry and Brian Ferguson found that it is inaccurate and represents “cherry-picking”[1][2]. For example, Pinker provides homicide data for 8 tribal peoples, yet he does not mention that in the case of two of them (the Hiví and the Ache), all killings were related to the extermination of the indigenous population by border guards. Meanwhile, the tribes tried to live in peace with one another. Taking these and other similar cases explained by colonialism into account, Pinker’s estimate can already be reduced by half, to 7%.

But other data of his are also doubtful. Modern tribes have been “infected” by colonialists, slave traders, globalization, and simply farming. They have little in common with the tribes that lived thousands of years ago. Additionally, anthropologists may prefer to study more violent societies. 20% of Pinker’s data are provided by a single person—Napoleon Chagnon, who is criticized within the anthropological community, makes methodological errors, and was even exiled from one tribe due to intrusive interference.

Using a different approach, Fry reviewed a sample of 186 societies studied by anthropologists. Only 24 of them were hunter-gatherers, and only 8 had many mentions. In the case of 7 of these 8 societies, killings were reported as a rare or even entirely absent phenomenon. He also searched anthropological literature for cultures that never waged war. He counted as many as 70 such cultures.

As Pinker claims, citing 21 archaeological excavations, 15% of savages died from violence. However, some of this data is very limited and may also be misinterpreted. For example, burials of people with arrowheads may simply mean that they were hunters.

Can better evidence be provided? A study of up to 3,000 remains found in France showed 1.9% cases of lethal injuries. It is not on Pinker’s list. Nor are studies of 350 remains in Britain with 2%, 418 remains in Serbia and Romania with 2.3%, or 2,500 in Japan with 2% traces of lethal violence. A study of 1,107 remains in Europe showed a minimum estimate of 3.7% and a maximum of 5.5% lethal violence. Not even close to Pinker’s 15%.

Finally, all examples cited by Pinker are no older than 12,000 years, meaning they could have been influenced by the agricultural revolution. And as anthropologist Leslie Sponsel writes, “at the stage of hunter-gatherer cultural evolution, which dominated 99% of human existence… the absence of archaeological evidence of war suggests that they were rare or absent throughout most of human prehistory.”

Ultimately, the following data on the level of lethal violence can be derived: 2% for hunter-gatherers, up to 5% for societies after the agricultural revolution, 7% for modern hunter-gatherers, 5% for early states, and 3% for the 20th century. They confirm Ferguson’s theory that wars suddenly emerged in a world without war due to the complication of social structure, as well as Fry’s words that we are dealing not with a continuous decline in the level of violence, but with an n-type curve.

People in hunter-gatherer societies—a social structure closest to the natural state of man—lived in peace and solved many problems without violence long before the state imposed discipline upon them. There was no Hobbesian “war of all against all,” and the data indicating otherwise are inaccurate and selective.

Does alcohol consumption lead to violence

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Alcohol consumption is often linked to the manifestation of increased aggression in a person. Every third crime is committed in a state of alcohol intoxication, and in the case of violent crimes, such as domestic violence and murder, this figure can even reach 80%. It would seem that the link between alcohol and violence is quite direct. However, in this matter, as in many others, one should not make the survivor’s bias mistake—considering only the clearly observable results while ignoring those that we had no opportunity to observe. Not all people become more aggressive from alcohol. Of course, some of them may become angry under its influence, and we notice this well. But at the same time, others will begin to feel sad or exhibit some other emotions. And a very important role in what behavior can be expected from alcohol consumption is played by the person’s neurophysiology.

As studies on primates have revealed, differences in the functioning of the serotonin system and the negative influence of the environment are important factors in alcohol-induced aggression. In rhesus macaques, stressful circumstances, such as separation from parents and social isolation at an early age, led to the suppression of the serotonin system’s work, increased aggressiveness, and excessive alcohol consumption when it was freely available. However, it is very important to specify that the negative influence did not have such an effect on all monkeys—only carriers of the short allele of the serotonin transporter gene were susceptible to it. At the same time, carriers of the long allele were more resilient and did not experience the negative consequences of such influence. It can be concluded that a genetic predisposition to greater sensitivity to stressful circumstances, which causes disruptions in the functioning of the serotonin system, leads to increased alcohol consumption and aggression.

Increased alcohol consumption was observed also in mutant mice lacking the serotonin 1B receptor gene, while stimulation of the serotonin 1A receptor can lead to a decrease in its consumption. Additionally, studies on mice confirmed that not all individuals become aggressive from alcohol consumption. Increased aggression was observed only in individuals who had significantly reduced (by 49-76%) levels of mRNA of all serotonin receptors (except 3A) in the prefrontal cortex of the brain and some other abnormalities in serotonin function.

It is also worth highlighting that empathy is an important mediating factor in this matter. Thus, men (but not women) with low levels of empathy exhibit increased aggression from alcohol consumption. Furthermore, in two samples (a clinical sample consisting of 703 psychiatric institution patients, and a community sample consisting of 870 students), it was shown that the level of psychopathic traits mediates the influence of alcohol dependence on the commission of violence against romantic partners. At the same time, alcohol dependence on its own, separate from psychopathic traits, showed an insufficient link with violence to be considered a predicting factor. As noted, research on violence against romantic partners should take into account the potential role of psychopathy, especially if the influence of alcohol consumption is being studied.

Of course, consuming large quantities of alcohol entails many negative consequences for a person. However, in the case where a person exhibits violent behavior under alcohol intoxication, we cannot place all the blame solely on alcohol. It is merely another provoking factor, not the cause of the violence, for which the therapeutic solution must be sought. The root of the problem of violent behavior and the increase in the level of psychopathic traits in an individual lies in the disruption of the violence inhibition mechanism, the functioning of which is handled by the serotonin system. In the case of violence, it is the dysfunction of this mechanism that primarily requires therapy.

How cooperation between members of different groups arises

Voluntarist, Bitarch

It is generally believed that purely human phenomena, such as culture, traditions, and social norms, are necessary to make cooperation between different societies possible. At the same time, animals that lack such phenomena are typically considered social only in relation to their own group and hostile toward members of other groups. Of course, the importance of these phenomena should not be underestimated, but they may well be unnecessary for the emergence of cooperation between groups.

As demonstrated by research on pygmy chimpanzees, or bonobos—humans’ closest genetic relatives—they exhibit high levels of tolerance between members of different groups. They can travel, rest, and feed together. Resource exchange between groups is not uncommon among bonobos. Moreover, it has been noted that individuals who exhibited more pro-social behavior within their own group were also more pro-social toward members of other groups. At the same time, such cooperation does not arise under the influence of any culture or social norms. One could say that this is simply a natural state for bonobos.

It is also worth comparing bonobos with common chimpanzees. The latter are quite hostile to strangers; in their case, intergroup clashes can even end in lethal violence. Why does such a difference arise? If one compares the neurophysiology of common and pygmy chimpanzees, the latter are found to have twice the density of serotonergic neurons in the amygdala of the brain. Additionally, it is worth noting the relationship regarding aggression between serotonin, oxytocin (a hormone that promotes only intra-group pro-sociality, or so-called parochial altruism), and testosterone (a sex hormone). Common chimpanzees exhibit high testosterone reactivity, which reduces their tolerance and provokes a drive to fight for higher status. And as is known from studies, the function of the serotonergic system (which is more pronounced in bonobos) includes inhibiting the pro-aggressive influence of testosterone. Pro-sociality is also stimulated by oxytocin, and it should be noted that the serotonergic system can exert an influence on its release.

It should also not be forgotten that cooperative-communicative skills, which emerged in the early stages of human evolution, were key to the emergence of various forms of human cultural cognition, including language. Therefore, it is entirely possible to assume that pro-sociality and cooperation arise not simply because of culture. Rather, all these phenomena have common evolutionary roots. The basis for their emergence may well be the development of a violence inhibition mechanism and the strengthening of serotonergic function during evolution. Such adaptation is necessary for peaceful coexistence and the prevention of lethal violence, which in many circumstances is extremely detrimental to the entire population. Furthermore, the observation of such adaptation in an extremely strong form in bonobos indicates that “constant wars between neighboring groups are not necessarily a legacy of humanity and do not seem evolutionarily inevitable.”

The Typical Politician is a Psychopath

Voluntarist, Bitarch

It is known that more than half of people will not score higher than 2 out of 24 on Robert Hare’s PCL:SV test. And only 1–2% of individuals will score 13 or higher, indicating a high level of psychopathy. But it is interesting to wonder how a “typical” politician would fare on this test? Based on the article “On Politics and Psychopathy,” let us conduct a thought experiment and assign a score from 0 to 2 points for each trait of psychopathy to his personality.

Let’s start with the first factor of psychopathy, which assesses an individual’s selfishness, callousness, and ruthlessness.
– Does a typical politician possess superficial charm? Of course, it is very important for him to present himself well in public. It should also be noted that he tends to pretend to be someone he is not and simulate emotions. On this point, he can certainly be given 1 point, and possibly 2 points.
– Does he consider himself better than everyone else, i.e., someone worthy of ruling others? He wants power, so he certainly gets 1 point, and possibly 2 points.
– Is he deceitful, insincere, manipulative, unscrupulous, and dishonest? Needless to say, 2 points.
– Does he lack empathy, sensitivity, and respect for other people? And we are speaking specifically about people as individual persons; we are not interested in his feelings toward a certain nation or political course, since empathy can only be felt toward individuals. Of course, he actually doesn’t care about individual people, except perhaps his friends and family members, so we confidently give 2 points.
– Does the politician evade responsibility for his actions? Naturally, he will cover up his wrongdoings and will only take responsibility if it brings him even more power, wealth, or fame, so we can confidently give 1 point, or even 2 points.
– Does the politician lack guilt and remorse, and is he cold toward others? Is he completely indifferent to the pain and suffering of the victims of his actions? Yes, he passes laws that cause people inconvenience, make them poorer, or violate their rights, so we confidently give 2 points.

Now let’s move to the second factor of psychopathy, which assesses how antisocial an individual’s lifestyle is.
– Is the politician impulsive, reckless, rash, and unpredictable? Not always, however, from time to time he may support extremely risky decisions, so we give 1 point.
– Is he impatient, unrestrained, and irritable? Also not always, but politicians often allow themselves sharp, “alarmist” appeals, so we also give 1 point.
– Is his lifestyle parasitic, does he have no long-term goals for the future? Of course he has goals, but these goals consist of achieving power, wealth, and popularity by worsening the situation of others. Also, a politician lives on taxes forcibly collected from people, so he is a parasite who receives 1 point.
– Is he irresponsible, unreliable, and fails to meet his obligations? A confident 2 points.
However, as for antisocial behavior in adolescence and adulthood, this is not typical for a politician, and if he did behave this way at some point, it would be hidden from the public, so a confident score cannot be given here.

In the end, a typical politician receives 9 to 12 points for Factor 1 (which is the maximum result) and 5 points for Factor 2. His total score is 14 to 17 points. It turns out that he confidently falls into the worst 1–2% of the population. He is not someone we would want to associate ourselves with, let alone vote for. And in a properly organized human society, he would simply be exiled; he would not receive the slightest share of power.

I would also like to add a comparison of a typical politician with war criminals. As research demonstrates, ordinary violent criminals have high total scores, but fairly balanced scores across the two factors of psychopathy, whereas war criminals, while having similar total scores, have higher scores on Factor 1 and lower scores on Factor 2. They are not overly antisocial personalities. At the same time, they are excessively cruel and callous, just like a typical politician.

Treating the Incurable: A Single Case of a Psychopathic Patient Undergoing Therapy

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Since the first conceptualization of psychopathy in modern psychiatry, this condition has been considered practically incurable. However, there is an experimental approach that may refute such a view. Schema therapy is a psychotherapy for the treatment of personality disorders that has performed well in the therapy of borderline personality disorder, but has also been adapted for patients with other problems, including those with high levels of psychopathy.

There is a case study of schema therapy for psychopathy in a 25-year-old rapist. His father was a cruel man who subjected him to beatings and authoritarian upbringing. From the age of 8, the patient exhibited serious behavioral problems; at 17, he was first convicted of assault causing grievous bodily harm, and at 19, together with an accomplice, he committed rape, after which he tried to shift all the blame onto the victim (calling her a prostitute and claiming she had consented) and the accomplice (saying that he had forced him into it).

First, the patient took the PCL-R test. He scored 4 out of 8 on the interpersonal component (dishonesty, manipulativeness, etc.), 7 out of 8 on the affective component (lack of empathy, guilt, other emotions, and failure to take responsibility for his actions), 6 out of 10 on impulsivity, and 8 out of 10 on antisociality (history of behavioral problems and criminality). Considering additional traits outside the components (sexual promiscuity and a tendency toward multiple short-term relationships), he scored 28 out of 40—a high level of psychopathy.

The therapy lasted 4 years. In the first year, the therapist earned the patient’s trust and worked on his control over impulsive aggression. He also discussed his early behavioral problems and encouraged him to evaluate his emotions. Initially, the patient had difficulty with this and did not want to admit guilt for his actions. However, later, a sense of guilt was successfully evoked in him. He burst into tears, admitted responsibility, regretted that he could not restrain himself, and said that he deserved to pay for this act for the rest of his life. After a year, the therapist managed to establish a close emotional bond with the patient by employing empathic confrontation (convincing the patient of the sincerity of his intentions).

In the second year, the patient decided to make peace with his past. Additionally, he entered a relationship with a girl (who often accompanied his mother when visiting the clinic), after which he began to have conversations with the therapist about friendship and love. Although the relationship was later broken off due to the girl’s infidelity, he still wanted to build a healthy relationship.

In the last two years, the patient underwent imagery exercises in which he imagined, described, and worked through memories of his father’s cruel acts. After this, he was allowed to leave the clinic, he started a new relationship, and underwent resocialization. At the end of the 4 years of therapy, he was released, found a job, had a child, and no longer participated in criminal activities.

For another 3 years, he was monitored by the therapist and took the PCL-R test again. Now he scored only 1 out of 8 on the interpersonal component, 1 out of 8 on the affective component, and 3 out of 10 on impulsivity. Of course, the antisocial component remained unchanged, but this was primarily due to its historical nature. In total, he scored 14 out of 40, which is no longer a high indicator of psychopathy.

Of course, such an approach is very long. The creation and application of pharmacological agents to correct the dysfunction of the violence inhibition mechanism—due to which the interpersonal and affective components of psychopathy and the lack of certain emotions in a person manifest—could potentially yield a faster and more reliable result. But at the very least, it shatters the myth of the incurability of psychopathy and violent behavior, which gives us huge prospects in eradicating the problem of violence in human society. It should also be noted that congenital predispositions to weak violence inhibition tend to manifest in practice due to the negative influence of the environment, which is why proper psychological work with children is very important.

Some points regarding the self-domestication of humans and how they became friendlier

Voluntarist, Bitarch

As is known from the theory of human self-domestication, humans possess certain traits similar to those observed in domesticated animals. This includes brain development and behavioral aspects. In this context, it is worth highlighting some points regarding the development of a tendency toward non-aggressive behavior toward unfamiliar members of one’s own species, which will allow us to better understand why a normal human possesses a strongly expressed violence inhibition mechanism.

In one study, domesticated animals such as pigs, rabbits, or guinea pigs, as well as animals characterized by cooperative breeding, such as the red fox and some primates, were found to possess a significantly larger amygdala volume and higher neuronal density within it compared to many other animal species. This is also true for humans, whom this study classifies as a cooperatively breeding species. During the Pleistocene (Ice Age), it became critically necessary for human survival for children to be cared for not only by their biological mothers but also by other group members. This led to the emergence of corresponding adaptations, including a reduction in children’s fear of close contact with other people and a reduction in mothers’ fear of other people approaching and caring for their children. Furthermore, prosociality, replacing aggressiveness, was extremely necessary for the evolution of all forms of human cultural cognition, including language.

Such an adaptation is fully consistent with the theory of the violence inhibition mechanism, according to which an unconditional reflex is triggered in humans when observing distress signals in others, such as expressions of fear or sadness, which deters them from causing harm by evoking negative feelings. The development of the amygdala led to better recognition and understanding of other people’s fear, which helps prevent a person from behaving aggressively toward them due to their own fear. This part of the brain plays a primary role in regulating aggressive behavior, which also aligns with the concept of a violence inhibitor. In many animals, this works similarly toward members of their own species.

Let’s look at another example of self-domestication: the pygmy chimpanzee (bonobo). Their females prefer to breed with non-aggressive males and jointly defend themselves against aggressive ones, which also steers their selection toward non-aggressiveness. Compared to common chimpanzees, the serotonin neuron density in the amygdala of bonobos is twice as high. This can generally be observed in species that do not typically exhibit aggressive behavior due to social frustration. And as we already know, the serotonergic system is a key regulator of aggressive behavior in animals and humans; the activation of certain serotonin receptors can completely eliminate attacking aggressive behavior toward conspecifics, replacing it, as a rule, with non-aggressive prosocial behavior (while this process does not suppress defensive behavior if a conspecific decides to attack first).

All these data prove once again that a healthy person is characterized by the inhibition of violence due to certain evolutionary adaptations, and that it relies on the full functioning of the amygdala and the serotonergic system. These data are extremely important for the search and development of therapeutic methods aimed at correcting dysfunction of the violence inhibitor in people who exhibit violent behavior and psychopathic predispositions.

Sources:
Cerrito, P., Burkart, J.M. (2023). Human Amygdala Volumetric Patterns Convergently Evolved in Cooperatively Breeding and Domesticated Species. Hum Nat. doi:10.1007/s12110-023-09461-3;
Hare, B. (2017). Survival of the Friendliest: Homo sapiens Evolved via Selection for Prosociality. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 155–186. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044201.

Who considers violence justified for the sake of achieving a greater good?

Voluntarist, Bitarch

When solving various kinds of moral problems, we can proceed either from a utilitarian point of view, which is result-oriented and consists of maximizing utility, or from a deontological one, which is action-oriented and consists of mandatory adherence to certain norms (including moral norms). For example, in the trolley dilemma, the first position justifies the killing of one innocent person to save many others, whereas the second position does not allow this and condemns any intentional infliction of harm on a person. However, not only thought experiments but many real-life situations can lead to the question of whether a human life should be sacrificed for some higher good. And it would be very interesting to see what choice is preferred by individuals who do not experience aversion to committing violence, have weakly expressed empathy, and possess other traits of psychopathy.

As we know, in the standard version of the trolley dilemma, a person must choose whether to redirect the trolley to a track where only one person is tied, or to do nothing, as a result of which the trolley will run over five people at once. A survey of 700 participants in a study showed that the choice in favor of taking action (sacrificing one for the benefit of many) was only slightly associated with traits of primary psychopathy (a person’s tendency toward callousness, lack of empathy, and a weak sense of guilt). However, in a modified version, where the participant had to decide whether to push a fat man off a bridge onto the tracks to stop the trolley, the choice in favor of this was strongly associated with all indicators of psychopathy. It seems that psychopathic individuals tend to believe that in this situation, killing the fat man is a completely justified action.

The study also found that individuals with higher psychopathy scores tend to have a desire to cause harm to people for the sake of achieving some higher good. Yet, at the same time, they do not strive to help in the impartial maximization of the well-being of as many people as possible. To be clear, it can be put this way: a psychopath is ready to accept human casualties and commit violence to achieve a higher good, but he would not help with his wallet, even if he possesses funds that are not very necessary to him and could significantly help many other people.

Additionally, participants were surveyed on a number of dilemmas from the CNI model, which assesses their sensitivity to consequences (C), moral norms (N), and preference for inaction over action (I). Naturally, higher psychopathy scores were associated with a greater tendency to make utilitarian rather than deontological decisions. To be more precise, according to the Levenson test, this result was significantly associated with indicators of primary psychopathy specifically, and only weakly with indicators of secondary psychopathy (reflecting emotional instability and the presence of psychological problems in a person). According to the triarchic model of psychopathy, it was associated with a person’s tendency toward meanness. And according to the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI), it was associated with egocentric impulsivity, fearless dominance, and cold-bloodedness.

It can be concluded that the more impaired an individual’s violence inhibition mechanism is—which in practice manifests as traits of primary psychopathy—the more they are inclined to make a utilitarian rather than a deontological choice. Human casualties and violence are justified for them if they believe that this will lead to some higher good for many people. At the same time, the interesting point is that they are not particularly inclined to sacrifice their own well-being for this purpose. In real life, this can easily be seen in the example of various kinds of dictators who pursued one ideology or another. At the same time, non-psychopathic individuals prefer to follow moral norms and not sacrifice human lives. They will not choose to intentionally cause harm to a person.

Bacteria against violence

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Rather interesting results are demonstrated by a study of germ-free mice. As it turned out, they behave much more aggressively than their normal counterparts. At the same time, returning gut microorganisms to them immediately or 6 weeks after birth demonstrated a significant reduction in aggressive behavior during experiments conducted at the 12th week of their lives. Additionally, a number of studies[1][2] demonstrate that the absence of gut microbes leads to impairments in brain development, including a decrease in serotonergic signaling and the expression of 5-HT1A receptors, which play a key role in the full functioning of the violence inhibition mechanism. In general, the gut-brain axis has a significant influence on the regulation of behavior and mood. For example, disruption of the gut microbiota caused by alcoholism leads to depressive and anxious states due to dysfunction of emotional control in the amygdala, prefrontal cortex, and hypothalamus (it should be noted that these brain regions are also key in the regulation of aggression).

Such data indicate to us not only the fact that gut microorganisms are important for the full development of the brain, but also the possibility of therapy for certain neurophysiological abnormalities, including the same dysfunction of the violence inhibitor, through the use of probiotics; researchers are already pointing to the potential of probiotics in the therapy of affective (mood) disorders. A result similar to the use of certain 5-HT1A/1B receptor agonists can be expected, i.e., the elimination of attacking aggression from behavior without affecting defensive aggression and other behaviors. At the same time, it is potentially possible to achieve a more stable and long-term result by selectively developing probiotics specifically for the therapy of this dysfunction.

Theoretically, probiotics that could be suitable for such a task can be identified. Bifidobacterium breve (M2CF22M7) and Bifidobacterium longum infantis (E41), administered to mice over a 5-week period with stress exposure experiments, improved the regulation of the secretion of the serotonin precursor 5-HTP, and also increased the level of serotonin itself in the brain. Given that they also improved the expression of the TPH1 gene, a possible similar effect on the TPH2 gene in the brain (which is important in the regulation of aggression and the functioning of the serotonergic system) exists, although this still requires confirmation. Lactobacillus casei (54-2-33), necessarily administered together with the prebiotic inulin (which is necessary to stimulate bacterial growth) for 14 days to young rats, increased the level of 5-HT1A receptor mRNA in their hippocampus. Also, a 4-week administration to young rats of a mixture of galacto-oligosaccharide and polydextrose prebiotics, as well as the prebiotic lactoferrin, which stimulated the growth of various types of lactobacilli, prevented the stress-induced decrease in 5-HT1A receptor mRNA levels.

At the moment, the topic of the influence of probiotics on the development and functioning of the brain can be called quite poorly studied. However, existing data already point to another promising direction in the development of therapy for various neurophysiological dysfunctions, including problems with violence inhibition. If bacterial strains are developed that, in an adequate (non-harmful) quantity in the gut, prove capable of significantly improving the work of the serotonergic system and certain brain regions, it will become possible to carry out therapy for violent behavior extremely effectively without the need for the constant use of corresponding medications.