Тег: Violence

What is the point of inhibitor weapons and what makes them better than classic lethal ones?

Unfortunately, our skeptics still may not understand the fundamental point of the idea about developing combat means to enhance the violence inhibitor. They suggest “don’t waste time,” develop a classical army and invest in traditional lethal weapons. But let’s break it down – why they are wrong.

1) Increasing mobilization potential by several orders of magnitude – unlike what is typically observed with soldiers armed with lethal weapons, drones with this means in the sky will not be shot at, even by those possessing a strong variant of violence inhibitor from birth! And this is even more relevant to opposition forces than armies of states, because among anti-authoritarian people there will be fewer psychopaths willing to kill easily than in the security structures protecting the status quo.

2) Greater public support and less outrage about brutality from sympathizers, which is especially important for a weaker side.

3) The possibility of using inhibitor means in civilian life against domestic abusers, unlike the complete uselessness of classical weapons like tanks and artillery during peacetime (billions are spent on their production, maintenance, and crew training annually from taxes, and this does not benefit society at all, and it is particularly burdensome for more free societies compared to authoritarian ones).

4) Safety of manufacture for the manufacturers themselves – inhibitor drugs cannot accidentally explode during manufacturing, transport or storage; even accidental exposure to workers will do them no harm.

5) Even cluster munitions (CMWs) can be humane. Replicable (“contagious”) vector vaccines have already been tested on animals and their effectiveness was recognized, meaning there are no technological barriers for developing “contagious” gene therapy to enhance the violence inhibitor. Of course, this is a very risky solution, but believe me, anyone would rather catch a “new cold” than be defeated by classical CMW types like nuclear or VX gas.

6) Extremely low cost and simplicity of production of the dose of the inhibitor drug. Of course, developing the first dose may cost billions and require complex equipment, but the cost of reproducing each subsequent one will be on the level of the current cost of doses of popular vector vaccines. The need for equipment and materials to reproduce is not comparable to the equipment needed to produce classical weapons (the equipment easily fits in an apartment, while factories producing artillery shells or tanks occupy square kilometers and are easily vulnerable to air strikes).

7) Extremely small weight of the “combat part” and little energy is required for successful defeat (it’s enough to pierce the skin anywhere on the body). In theory, it’s possible to create a drone the size of a bee, which is already a real technology – not science fiction!

8) Humane mines with no demining problems – after the war, classic mines can remain dangerous for civilian populations for many decades, while inhibitors in traps are quickly neutralized by environmental factors.

As a final note – why not tranquilizers to temporarily sedate the enemy? Indeed, science fiction often features plots where instead of lethal weapons, darts with tranquilizers are used. However, in real life and especially in combat conditions, this is difficult to implement because even a small dose of any tranquilizer won’t have an effect, while too large a dose will be fatal, and the dose needs to be calculated for each person individually, primarily taking into account their body weight. On the other hand, for most inhibitory drugs, the therapeutic window (a “dynamic range” when the dosage already gives an effect but is not yet lethal) will be extremely wide, and one dosage can be boldly applied to any person.

VoluntaristBitarch

Technologies are born in garages, not in barracks: the truth about the role of the MIC

Let’s talk about a common myth that everyone has surely heard: “without military development, we would be without the internet, smartphones, and GPS.” In other words, it is believed that war and the defense industry are the main drivers of technical progress. But is that actually the case?

Take the internet, for example. We are told it was supposedly invented by the Pentagon in case of a nuclear war, but the facts do not support this. In reality, ARPANET (the ancestor of the modern internet) was originally a civilian project handled by various American universities; it was simply funded by the military budget. The military provided the money, but all the work was done by university scientists and programmers. And the famous HTTP protocol, which we are using right now to read this post, was actually devised in Europe by physicists at CERN—purely for the convenience of exchanging scientific articles. The army had absolutely nothing to do with it!

What about GPS? Yes, in this case, the military really did launch satellites so that missiles would land more accurately. But why did GPS become available to everyone? Because civilians turned a military toy into a “people’s” technology. President Reagan opened GPS to everyone after the tragedy with a Korean airliner to improve flight safety, and ultimately, civilian developers transformed the navigation system from a military secret into a popular app for finding the nearest pizzeria.

And do you know who created the first microprocessor? No, not generals or intelligence agencies—it was developed by Intel for a calculator. Meanwhile, the army was conducting its own classified developments that the world wouldn’t have seen for at least another 30 years if not for civilian engineers. While the military was worrying about how not to reveal secrets, the market was already fully utilizing commercial processors.

Space? You would think that here, the military is definitely ahead of the rest of the world. Yes, rockets were first created as weapons, but real space achievements happened mainly thanks to NASA’s civilian programs, and today, private companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin. While the army argues over the best way to shoot from space, Elon Musk has already launched a rocket that returns on its own.

Why aren’t the military always the coolest innovators? Because for the military, the main priority is reliability. They prefer proven technologies and avoid risks. Try suggesting experimental equipment on a battlefield to a general—he will look at you as if you are crazy. Entrepreneurs and scientists, however, are not afraid of risks; that is why most real breakthroughs happen in Silicon Valley garages, laboratories, and universities, rather than in the classified basements of intelligence agencies.

The history of the USSR is a vivid example of how relying exclusively on the defense industry leads to technical backwardness in everyday life. Remember the joke: a Soviet microwave is so reliable that you can hide in it during a nuclear strike—because it is a secret defense device weighing half a ton. A civilian economy handles innovation better because competition and freedom create powerful incentives for breakthroughs. Military technologies usually only catch up to what has already been created by civilians.

By the way, if you think the army funds fundamental science, you are mistaken again. The military needs guaranteed solutions here and now, not research that will yield a result in 30 years, which may not even be suitable for combat. Fundamental research is conducted by universities and private laboratories. They are the ones giving the world quantum computers, new medicines, and the materials of the future. The army simply takes ready-made technologies off the shelf.

Another example: IBM, Apple, and Google register thousands of patents every year, while defense departments register only a handful. Commercial companies compete in innovation, whereas military competition is often limited to budget tenders, where the main thing is not quality, but friendship with the right people in ministries. Therefore, when someone tells you that progress is impossible without war, remind them: the true driving force of humanity is peaceful curiosity, creative freedom, and normal market competition, not missiles and tanks.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Which moral values are psychopaths more prone to reject

According to the definition by psychologist Jonathan Haidt, morality is a set of interrelated values, virtues, norms, practices, identities, institutions, technologies, and evolutionarily developed psychological (neurobiological) mechanisms that work together to constrain or regulate personal interests and make cooperative communities possible. Haidt also identifies five distinct moral foundations:

1) Harm/care — this foundation represents concerns about the violence and suffering of others, including compassion and care;
2) Fairness/reciprocity — represents norms of reciprocal relationships, equality, rights, and justice;
3) In-group/loyalty — covers moral obligations associated with group membership, such as loyalty, betrayal, and preferential treatment of in-group members compared to out-group members;
4) Authority/respect — represents moral obligations associated with hierarchical relationships, such as obedience, duty, respect for authority, and the protection of subordinates;
5) Purity/sanctity — represents the moral ideal of a sublime, noble, and less carnal life, based on an intuition of divinity, a sense of moral disgust, and the purity of body, mind, and soul.

The first two foundations can be called individualizing, as they are aimed at protecting the well-being and interests of separate individuals. The remaining foundations are binding, as they are primarily aimed at some group interest. And what is important for us to know now is how psychopaths—more specifically, individuals with high scores in primary psychopathy, consisting of traits such as callousness, indifference, and a lack of empathy toward others, and a tendency to manipulate and harm them in pursuit of their own interests—relate to various moral foundations.

Regarding the connection between binding foundations and psychopathic predispositions, research usually shows either a positive correlation or no correlation at all, which is not a definitive result. However, what can be said for certain about psychopathic individuals is that they have a relatively greater preference for binding moral foundations than for individualizing ones. Empathic motivation lies at the heart of individualizing moral foundations. Psychopathic individuals, naturally, have problems with this—they are little concerned with things like causing harm and suffering to people, reciprocity in relationships, etc. Accordingly, research shows that high psychopathic predispositions are followed by a decrease in a person’s preference for individualizing foundations.

This is very important to consider when promoting ideas aimed at expanding human freedoms and reducing harm to people, such as libertarianism. Psychopathic individuals are less likely to embrace such ideas; or, if they do, it will be only in extremely distorted forms that allow for violent attacks on people, intentional harm, and the violation of their rights in the pursuit of certain interests (primarily their own). Again, psychologically, they are not particularly concerned with the problem of causing harm to people, and their morality will be structured accordingly, permitting such behavior.

Sources:

  1. Kirrane, M., Farqan, A., Cloak, E. (2024). Exploring a paradox: Psychopathy, Morality and Organisational Citizenship Behaviour.
  2. Glenn, A. L., Iyer, R., Graham, J., Koleva, S., Haidt, J. (2009). Are All Types of Morality Compromised in Psychopathy?
  3. Esser, M. (2022). An Investigation into whether psychopathic traits negatively contribute to moral judgements.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

May my cow die, as long as the neighbor’s two die

It is widely known that the higher a person’s psychopathy scores, the less they are concerned with honesty and causing harm to others. However, researchers were interested in what values psychopathic individuals adhere to in such cases and what motivation shapes their behavior. To this end, an assessment was conducted of 3,521 adult volunteers regarding their level of psychopathy (using the Levenson test), values, aspirations, orientation toward social dominance, as well as a preference for absolute or relative well-being.

First and foremost, psychopathic individuals showed a greater drive toward achieving financial success than toward improving the world around them. Additionally, they—and especially those with high scores in primary psychopathy (traits such as callousness and lack of empathy)—identified material possessions as a central good in human life and a source of happiness, as well as the idea that a person’s success in life is determined by the amount of property they own.

However, it is unlikely that such views can be considered inherently bad, as it is an individual’s choice which values are important to them, provided they do not involve causing harm to others. But what truly can be called a problem is the preference of psychopathic individuals to be wealthier than other people, even if this means having less wealth in absolute terms. In the completed questionnaires, they expressed a reluctance to obtain a higher income, better education, or more leisure time if other people around them would receive even more of these things and have a social status higher than theirs. In absolute terms, they are willing to have less wealth if other people have even less than they do, allowing them to achieve a higher social status in comparison.

It seems that sayings like “let my cow die, as long as my neighbor’s two cows die” or “let my shed burn down, as long as my neighbor’s cow dies” did not appear out of nowhere, but describe the preferences of a specific category of individuals—psychopaths. Apparently, it is primarily important for them to assert themselves at the expense of others and to be relatively better than them, rather than to achieve a specific level of well-being. The strong inclination of psychopathic individuals toward such values once again reflects how dangerous their mental state is, caused by a dysfunction in the violence inhibition mechanism. Normal people should certainly be wary of them, as they are capable of and willing to cause any harm if, in relative terms, it elevates them above everyone else. And in the long term, such a pathology, as we have pointed out many times, requires therapy.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Weapon bans – for the sake of humanism or dominance?

Have you ever noticed how great powers suddenly become “humanitarians” when it comes to weapons and methods of war? On paper, it all looks beautiful: “we ban chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons because we are good.” But let’s look at this whole affair without rose-colored glasses. Doesn’t it seem to you that such bans are not at all about concern for humanity, but a clever trick to maintain the global hierarchy? It’s as if the world boxing champion banned all opponents from using their left hand. Why? Because it makes it easier for him to win!

Take, for example, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Five countries (USA, Russia, China, France, UK) officially gained the right to possess nuclear arsenals. The others were told: “You can’t! It’s dangerous!” Why? Because when you have an atomic bomb, no one risks touching you. Recall the fate of Libya: Gaddafi abandoned his nuclear program, and then his regime was blown to smithereens. North Korea, in turn, decided to avoid this, and now Kim Jong Un has nuclear weapons, and for some reason, no one is bombing him. Or take chemical weapons. For decades, the USA turned a blind eye to the chemical attacks of Saddam’s ally against Iran, but suddenly remembered these atrocities when Iraq stopped being a friend. It looks like selective amnesia.

But it’s even more interesting with the rules of warfare. According to international laws, rebels are forbidden from hiding among civilians. It seems reasonable: fewer casualties among the civilian population. But what is a poor partisan to do if the enemy has drones, satellites, tanks, and aircraft? Go out into the field with an open visor? That’s a guaranteed one-way ticket. It turns out that the great powers tell the weak: either fight by the rules and be guaranteed to lose, or fight as best you can and you will be declared terrorists.

By the way, it is interesting that “legal terror” is only available to the state. The carpet bombing of Dresden in World War II, the nuclear strike on Hiroshima, NATO missile hits on Belgrade bridges and the television center in 1999—these are not terrorism, but “military necessity.” But one explosion by rebels is already a terrible sin. Of course, no one here is justifying violence against civilians, but why can the state do such things while a rebel cannot?

Let’s also remember humanitarian law in conflicts like Afghanistan or Iraq. Western countries always emphasize that they fight “cleanly” and by the rules. But as soon as the rules get in the way, they are easily forgotten. Remember Abu Ghraib? Torture and abuse of prisoners who were “unlawful combatants.” The rules exist, but we don’t apply them to you because you are “not dressed in uniform.”

And then there are psycho-chemical weapons—substances that are meant to selectively and temporarily affect the brain without causing long-term harm to the enemy’s health. A typical example is the incapacitant BZ, which the USA experimented with during the Vietnam era. Officially, it is a “non-lethal means of suppression,” but in a large dose, it turns a person into a helpless zombie. Or take the opioid hybrids used in 2002 during “Nord-Ost”: hostages were put to sleep with a fentanyl-based aerosol—130 people suffocated, yet formally this is not a “combat toxic agent,” but a special tool. Convenient: when the strong need magic dust, it is an “anti-terrorist gas,” but if the weak try to do the same, they instantly become violators of all conventions.

Supporters of humanitarian law say: “Yes, the rules are imperfect, but at least there are some standards.” But if the rules work only in one direction, the question ultimately arises: could it be that they were created not to protect the weak, but to maintain the balance of power in favor of the strong?!

P.S. When authoritarians call libertarians “free-riders,” suggesting we demand that everyone “for free” agree with our “wants” (observe the NAP), they should realize that non-interference in their nervous system, for example, using drugs for forced reinforcement of the violence inhibitor, is self-restraint and a final attempt to peacefully establish a dialogue, not a technical impossibility!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Hack the Aggressor’s Brain, Not Humanity: Mistakes of Stephen King’s Dystopia

Stephen King’s “The End of All This” is a vivid dystopia that warns us about the classic trap of good intentions paving the road to, well, you know where. But let’s look deeper and soberly assess the main mistakes of the characters and how they could have been avoided.

The main character, Robert, discovered that the water in the town of La Plata possesses unique chemical properties that suppress aggression and the propensity for violence. Driven by a sincere and understandable dream to rid humanity of violence, he decides to disperse a similar substance across the entire world, using a volcanic eruption as a delivery mechanism. The experiment initially seems successful—the level of violence in the world drops to zero. However, a terrible side effect soon emerges: the substance causes an irreversible decline in intelligence, gradually turning people into helpless beings incapable of taking care of themselves or maintaining civilization.

As we can see, Robert messed up big time. Instead of reasonably and cautiously testing his idea, he simply sprayed a poorly studied drug on all of humanity at once, “flooding” the planet with unknown chemistry via a volcano. This is roughly like finding an old canister in the garage and pouring it straight into a new Mercedes without any checks. Naturally, the consequences were disastrous: aggression vanished, but brains melted right along with it.

Robert’s main mistake was not the desire to change “human nature,” but the absence of elementary caution and common sense. In a developed society, no one would apply radical methods without long-term research; moreover, “forced therapy” for all of humanity contradicts the very spirit of libertarianism. Coercion is only permissible toward those who have already violated the NAP by committing violence. It is with such people that cautious, gradual, and carefully controlled experiments should have begun.

How might this have looked in practice? Instead of turning the entire planet into guinea pigs, he could have started with small groups of particularly dangerous criminals. If society in some countries allows execution for heinous crimes, why not first try a much more humane and promising alternative—drugs to enhance violence inhibition? One could gradually observe the effects of the drug over years, record side effects, improve the formula, and only expand its application after full certainty. And even then, as a mandatory requirement without the right of choice, it should apply exclusively to those who have already initiated violence.

There is a whole set of tools for reducing catastrophic risks that our hero completely ignored. First and foremost is staging and gradualism—start small, observe, and correct. “Measure seven times, cut once,” not the other way around. Next is targeted application—limit use exclusively to aggressors rather than spraying “happiness” on everyone indiscriminately. This is simply more ethical and effective. Then comes independent oversight and transparency—scientists, ethicists, and supervisory boards acting as a system of checks and balances to eliminate the errors of a single genius (no matter how much he wanted everyone’s well-being). And finally, reversibility—the ability to roll back changes or minimize damage at the first signs of a problem. After all, transhumanism is not about playing Russian roulette with brains, but about controlling biology for the sake of expanding freedom.

Robert’s problem was not that he tried to hack human nature, but that he did it sloppily and hastily. When dealing with powerful tools like biohacking or biotech, responsibility and awareness of the consequences are vital. Here, the “do no harm” principle applies with an adjustment for progress: change whatever you like, but don’t break the whole planet in the process. The conclusion here is simple: hacking “human nature” is possible and even necessary, especially if it brings more freedom and less suffering, but it must be done intelligently so that instead of a brave new world, we don’t end up trapped by our own overconfidence.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Childhood violence – traumas for a lifetime

Let’s be honest: cruel upbringing is not just a bad idea, but a real crime against a child’s freedom and happiness. Of course, some might claim that “the belt builds character.” But let’s face it—the belt builds psychological trauma, not strength of spirit.

We have said before that physical punishment does not work. And these are not just words—they are the results of a massive analysis of 75 studies conducted on 161 thousand children. The result is simple and sad: the belt does not make children obedient; it makes them miserable. Such children later have worse memory, lower IQ, and higher aggression. But if you think this is old news—wait, it gets even more interesting.

A recent study by the University of Michigan, conducted on 6,500 Americans, proves that childhood traumas haunt us for our entire lives. Imagine, even at nearly 80 years old, people continue to experience depression, loneliness, and physical pain due to the violence they suffered in childhood. Such trauma is not a scratch that will heal, but a deep scar that only hurts more over time.

Another striking discovery: it turns out that parental cruelty turns children into “evil geniuses.” A study by the University of Texas on 524 students showed that abusive upbringing develops malicious creativity. Instead of creating peaceful and responsible citizens, parents literally train cunning manipulators, professional liars, and masters of petty mischief, possessing low conscientiousness. And that, to put it mildly, is not what makes society better.

Why does this happen? It’s all about the brain. Research shows that in children who were systematically traumatized by their parents, the development of key brain areas such as the amygdala and hippocampus, which are responsible for emotions and memory, is impaired. Imagine the brain as a computer that constantly crashes and slows down because of viruses introduced by violence. It is also interesting to note that even in monkeys subjected to violence in childhood, disruptions in the serotonin and dopamine systems of the brain were observed. These are very serious disorders affecting happiness and even the will to live.

Unfortunately, that’s not all. The long-term consequences of such “upbringing” include an increased likelihood of developing alcohol and drug addiction, difficulties in establishing stable relationships, and even a propensity for crime. After all, a person who grew up in an atmosphere of fear and violence often considers aggression to be the norm of behavior and carries it into their adult life. It is a vicious cycle that can only be broken by a radical change in approaches to upbringing.

There are more effective and far more humane methods of upbringing that do not deprive a child of dignity and freedom. Science confirms that empathy, love, and understanding promote the development of a strong and resilient personality. This is how we can help children become not just successful, but happy people, capable of creation and independence. Children deserve respect, and the recognition of their freedom and autonomy. Parents should be mentors, not overseers, allowing children to make their own choices and take responsibility for them.

Parental cruelty is incompatible with the ideals of individual freedom. We must resolutely reject abusive “upbringing.” Because, in all fairness, you either raise a free person, or it is better not to raise anyone at all. So let us be free not only in words, but in action—starting with respect for the freedom of children!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

A hardware problem cannot be solved with software

When a capacitor on your motherboard bulges, you resolder it rather than trying to solve the problem by changing some variable in the Windows registry. When a shock absorber in your car dies, you certainly won’t go in and reprogram the electronic control unit in the hope that the problem can be solved without “dirty work.” But for some reason, when it comes to malfunctions in human “hardware,” many mistakenly believe that these problems can be solved purely “programmatically” (through philosophy, religion, social institutions), without therapeutic intervention in the defective systems of the body.

This misconception is especially noticeable in discussions about the violence inhibitor. But in fact, it is exactly the same kind of hardware system as processor elements like the ALU and registers. If a processor has physical defects or has degraded, no firmware update will help — this sad lesson was well learned by owners of the latest generations of Intel “stones.” Likewise, in the case of a degenerate rapist, no amount of persuasion will help — the problem is purely “hardware,” it is in his “noggin.” It’s time to accept the truth and abandon the illusions: hardware (physical) problems require a corresponding hardware solution (action in the real world)!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The Myth of Eternal War: How Did Hobbes Deceive Us?

Once, the philosopher Thomas Hobbes confidently stated that the natural state of humanity is an endless “war of all against all.” Sounds familiar, right? This concept has become so ingrained that we sometimes forget to check its truthfulness. But in reality, it turns out that people are not as bloodthirsty by nature as we are led to believe.

Take, for example, the well-known story of anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon, who claimed that killers among the Yanomami tribe were more successful in reproducing. The idea is clear and frightening: kill more, and you will have three times as many children! It sounds too harsh to be true, and indeed, it later turned out that Chagnon “stretched the truth” a bit—he was comparing elderly killers with young non-killers. And independent research showed that killers in tribal societies do not reproduce faster than others; in fact, to be honest, fewer of their children survive.

And in general, who said that wars are the norm? A famous myth from Steven Pinker goes like this: 15% of the prehistoric population constantly perished in wars until states emerged and brought order. Great advertising for the state, isn’t it? Except that archaeology shows something completely different: violent deaths in pre-cultural societies were no more than 2%. Moreover, the emergence of states did not reduce the level of violence at all. On the contrary, the first large structures often fueled conflicts and increased the percentage of killings to about 5%.

It is worth noting that anthropologists may unconsciously reinforce the notion of the inevitability of war. For example, researchers “record” groups as warlike that actually hardly ever fought, simply because of the presence of weapon images in rock paintings. But these images do not necessarily evidence actual aggression: weapons could have been used for hunting or symbolic ceremonies. As a result, a false impression is created that ancient people were constantly at war.

Data on so-called “simple” hunter-gatherer societies is also quite telling. Despite being depicted in many works as brutal and always ready to fight, in reality, they are the ones characterized by extremely low levels of aggression and violence. Real war is a rarity for them, not the norm. Conversely, societies with a complex social structure and a more developed hierarchy more often become participants in conflicts and wars. Interesting, isn’t it? It turns out that the more complex a society is, the more conflict and aggression it generates.

Furthermore, many proponents of the Hobbesian perspective fully acknowledge this fact, but they try not to emphasize it, seriously studying only cases of “complex” societies, as, for example, Lawrence Keeley did in the work “War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage.” Alternatively, they may simply categorize “complex” societies as “simple,” subsequently labeling the latter as warlike.

In general, peaceful coexistence is the norm for many peoples. Thus, a study of 590 cultures from around the world showed an absence of wars in as many as 64% of them. Of course, they might have defended themselves against attacks, but initiating attacks is something only a minority of cultures engage in.

So why do we continue to believe in the myth of a human nature doomed to eternal war? Perhaps the problem here is habit—this belief was passed from generation to generation without critical reflection. Or perhaps someone intentionally maintains this myth to justify the existence of a strong and powerful state “saving” us from ourselves.

Let’s admit it to ourselves: the idea that people are by nature inclined toward peace and cooperation sounds much more realistic, optimistic, and attractive. Perhaps it is time for us to stop considering peace a utopia and start seeing it as a natural part of human life. After all, as history and research show, peaceful communities are not the exception, but rather the rule. So is it worth continuing to cling to gloomy Hobbesian imagery? Probably not. It is time to stop allowing fears to dictate our view of humanity and start trusting each other a bit more!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Essential oils are effective anti-aggressive agents

Substances that have an anti-aggressive effect can be not only synthesized in laboratories but also found in various natural remedies. One category of such remedies is essential oils. Although they have traditionally been widely used to improve a person’s psychological state, the question of their effect on the nervous system is still insufficiently studied, especially when addressing the topic of aggressive behavior. However, existing research conducted on animals and even on humans indicates a great potential for studying this direction.

First, let us look at a study on the effect of a substance called linalool, which is present in a vast number of essential oils (bitter orange, neroli, petitgrain, rose, lavender, citronella, lemon, geranium, and others), on mice. It demonstrated that inhalation of this substance significantly reduces the number and duration of attacks on unfamiliar conspecifics, and at certain concentrations, almost completely eliminates them. At the same time, as shown in other experiments, such an effect cannot be explained by a general decrease in the activity of the mice, as this does not occur during the inhalation of linalool.

Another study was conducted on fighting fish, or Siamese fighting fish, whose males are known for their extremely aggressive behavior toward conspecifics, which is why they must be kept strictly alone. In the experiment, either lavender essential oil or pure linalool was used, which were added in various concentrations to a container of water. The test subject was placed in this container and given two minutes to acclimate, after which a container with another individual was placed next to it to allow visual contact. As a result, while individuals in the control group (without drugs) attempted to actively attack both during and after acclimation, individuals under the influence of both lavender essential oil and pure linalool showed almost no such behavior—their desire to attack disappeared. Moreover, although the aggressiveness of the individuals was restored over time, it did not return to the pre-test level even three months after the trial with the essential oil. Accordingly, we can conclude a limited permanent anti-aggressive effect from lavender oil.

But is all this applicable to humans? There are strong reasons to believe so, as many experiments have been conducted on the anti-aggressive effect of essential oils on people with cognitive impairments. A meta-analysis of 15 studies with 693 participants showed that although further research is needed to determine effective dosages and side effects, overall, the use of essential oils in therapeutic procedures has a significant anti-aggressive effect.

Although the mechanism of such an effect of essential oils is not yet sufficiently studied, it is known that their molecules can enter the hippocampus, the limbic system, and the amygdala of the brain through the nasal cavity and olfactory cells. It is worth noting that linalool and other substances from essential oils work as 5-HT1A receptor agonists (activating them), and such an effect is known for its selective anti-aggressive effect (eliminating attacking aggression without affecting defensive behavior and other activity), which is achieved through the strengthening of the violence inhibition mechanism. In addition, upon entering the blood, for example, through the skin, essential oils can affect various physiological reactions. Finally, by exerting a certain influence on the function of cholinergic synapses, they can prevent neurodegenerative processes.

Voluntarist, Bitarch