Bad chemistry with your partner? Try a chemical solution.
This is the last entry you can comment on for the month of
February.
Does the view of love which this article conveys seem too
reductionist to you? Is the failure of
relationships today purely based on a clash between biology and societal
factors, or is there something the writer is leaving out? Is it fair to compare this drug to
anti-depressents and other drugs which help relationships? (You can also look at the author’s own
discussion questions at the end of the article.)
Just what has this world come into. Couples divorce at the first signs of crisis, leaving poor children behind. I agree in that much with the author – and there my sympathies end. My opinion is that development of such drug is equivalent to showing “The finger” to whole natural selection process. You see, there is a cause why sometimes people do not fall in love – they are not a good match (biologically speaking). There is also a reason why does love fade away.
ReplyDeleteI know that love is no more than chemical reaction in brain. Therefore it can be simulated. It does not however mean that it should. The ethical implication of its deployment are severe. I still remember what havoc could “Love potion” in Harry Potter cause. Now try to imagine that in real world. If the drug became affordable to wide range of people (as the author hopes for), love would loose its special status it has. It would be perfect for one-night love affairs, which would thus earn the “love” part in their name. It would be only a question of time since someone asks the waiter to put a pill into their date's coffee. Try to imagine what would happen
I also can not agree with comparsion to other drugs. They are not made to help failing relationships – the fact they do is purely coincidental. I think that author is trying to easen our view of the drugs, comparing them to something we are aquinted with and approve of. This however does not mean there is a link – and I can not see one. He should not do that. It is quite demagogic.
The article deals with a very interesting topic and I am amazed at the very many opinions on what love is and what role does biology play in human relationships. I think that Milan’s confident claim about love being merely a chemical reaction is too reductionist. The evolutionary explanation of relationships resulting from the need to protect offsprings seems a little more appealing to me, however, I agree with the reader who commented on this notion that common divorces has something to do with longer life expectancy. To express my own opinion, I believe there must be evolutionary determinants of faithful human relationships. On the other hand, divorces in early age of the children as well as happy marriages till grave violate uniqueness of the evolutionary effect. Thus, I still believe there exist love as something metaphysical and mysterious.
ReplyDeleteScientists progress in unveiling many genetic, environmental and social factors affecting our experiences of love, which are undeniably quite individual. Nevertheless, life-long relationships are not only a matter to be justified by evolutionary psychology; it has a moral value to a vast group of people. For example, Christian teaching upholds monogamous partnerships while it accounts for a major share of the world’s religious followers. Thus, we come to a clash of traditional and widely-accepted life-long marriages and the desire for freedom and change that a person of the western culture (and other as well) currently faces. If we agree or at least feel that preservation of relationships is crucial, we should decide what price we are willing to pay for it.
Now to my opinion of the pharmaceutics. I hold a very reserved attitude towards most medicaments, especially those served as a cure for various mental disorders. Although it is true that certain chemicals aid functioning of the nervous system and thus are necessary for cure in some cases, I think that many other drugs are used to control our mood which is not right. I accept that everyone wants (and deserves?) to be happy, but I think that taking pills to make people more easy-going and amiable is a bit too much. Even though the application to human relationships seems quite appealing, it does not advocate the use of the MDMA in my eyes. Along with antidepressants and viagra, MDMA would only deal with symptoms of a dysfunction but not solve the fundamental problem. I admit it is hardly achievable by today’s medicine. Despite that all, I think that happiness is something to fight for; it must come from within and not be bought.
It already has to have come clear that I would boycott such thing to enhance my relationship, though it would certainly be of use sometimes. I agree with the other commenter, who stated that it is another attempt of the pharmaceutics industry to profit and that we have our brains to keep passion and love alive. As each person is the creator of his or her own luck, he should decide which way to seek bliss. Once again, it is upon us to reach a firm position whether to prefer a lasting relationship over the ‘hobby’ of promiscuity and proclaimed independence to show off, which is now rapidly growing in popularity.
Reading an article like this, having thrown in face that love may be artificially stimulated, one has to wonder what love really is? It is not that until now I have been holding exclusively metaphysical understanding of love, but certainly I have not wanted to know that with an improvement in technology, love will become a matter of a well-picked mix of chemical substances delivered probably orally (as many people, including me, fear intravenous injections), in effect similar to Eros’ arrows. Does it mean that the sentimental moments of my life, when I am reminiscing about my ex-girlfriend, are caused only by residues of “love” chemicals? Milan has a clear opinion of love, but for me, this raises a serious question about what is truly real in our life and what comes from us, as unique beings, and not from our biological differences.
ReplyDeleteRelating to the article, I have encountered numerous sources claiming that people are not suited for everlasting love. Really a discouraging statement, but I am not in favor of denying scientific conclusions on the basis of my preferences, so I guess it may be, unfortunately, true. However, tackling the love pragmatically, taking love-enhancing drugs breaks down into two questions: Who do we harm by not loving each other anymore? and To what extent is our momentous not-loving induced by unfortunate circumstances (through scientific glasses – induced by love-degrading cocktail of chemicals)? Unlike Kika, I see a few advantages to this scientific discovery.
Operating within strict borders of utilitarianism, to which pragmatism relates broadly, both questions are surprisingly easy to answer. Thinking of divorce somewhere in the most critical years of child’s development, i.e. puberty, is probably an egregious idea. In fact, so is until the child leaves for university. For example, I consider myself fairly hardened as my parents have been arguing ever since I can remember, but it still phases me a lot to hear them shouting at each other. Also, the impact of a divorce depends heavily on how it is conducted. A serene agreement between the parents is surely better than when a court has to decide upon the custody. Thus forcefully (that is my personal opinion) boosting love when the other option is a psychically ravaged child is perhaps the more ideal way to deal with relationship dead-end.
The second question has to do with a couple itself. From the nature of people, external effects may severely influence how we perceive things. However, in case it is only a temporary change, it is worth offsetting it with a love potion to preserve what was being built over an extended period of time. On the other hand, it is questionable to what degree it is possible to determine whether the change is not permanent, in what case the magical potion would only postpone the inevitable. A simple solution would be to give it a try and if the lovey-dovey times ever ceased once again, the relationship should probably end unconditionally.
Similarly to Michal, this article caused me to stop and think. What this thing called “love” that everyone at my age is chasing ? A bunch of neurons in my brain firing and some hormones flooding my blood stream? Is that really it? And after a few moments of pondering it over I stopped, because there’s no point in having such a perspective. Theoretically, yes, that is all that love is, in very simplified biological terms. But then what is pain? And life? If we wanted to, everything could be reduced down to the fundamentals of biology and we would all be nothing but masses of cells without any purpose at all.
DeleteI feel that the writer of this article is using such a narrow and one-sided perspective of love to convince people that nothing is bad with using drugs. And yet, since when are narrow and one-sided perspectives acceptable in this world? If I was the ruler of Earth and was to follow in the writer’s footsteps and take on such a perspective then everything could be treated with drugs. A heart-break? Have some of this, it will make the pain go away. You attempted to murder someone? Oh no, have some of that, you’ll feel calmer. As someone in the comments section put it, what are we, walking pharmaceutical cabinets? It seems as if this has come straight out of Brave New World and pretty soon we’ll all be on soma just so we feel everything is okay.
In further response to Michal’s comment, I agree with basically everything he said. Although this use of drugs is truly an ‘ideal’ solution, and like Michal said, could ease many children’s’ lives since their parents would get along better, I still think that it just isn’t right. Even if my parents didn’t get along well, I probably wouldn’t want them to be doped just so they could manage to be together for my sake. If a couple isn’t meant to be together no amount of chemicals in their bloodstreams will truly prove otherwise.
@Milan
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jimmy about his opinion about love not being classified or referred to as a drug. I think that it has a different effect on a person. Of course, love makes you want “it“ more and more, it makes you happy and gives you that special feeling. However, I consider a drug a substance that is abused and not a feeling.
I disagree with Milan's opinion on couples divorcing on the first sign of crisis. I think this definitely is not true. Moreover, I think that already married couples with children want to find ways to survive their crisis and stay together for the sake of their family, home and children. Furthermore I also disagree with Milan on the opinion of love fading away because of “biological incompetence“. I think the couple looses love because they know each other so much, and have spent so much time together, that the moments have become less precious and got used to one another’s company. In conclusion, I think that the concept of "love" is quite vague and every person shares a different opinion about the issue.