The Great Debate: ORIGINS OF VIOLENCE (OFFICIAL) - (Part 2/2)

Summary

このスクリプトは、ヒトやチンパンジーの暴力性、親子関係、環境の影響、そして暴力行為を予測する脳機能の研究を巡って、専門家が議論している様子を記録しています。彼らは、非暴力運動の成功、子供への親権者技能の向上、そして暴力メディアの影響について話し合い、さらには未来において脳スキャンに基づく事前犯罪処罰システムの可能性と倫理的な懸念を提起しています。

Takeaways

• 🦍 チンパンジーは他の霊長類に対して暴力をふるうことがあるが、ゴリラに対しては暴力的な行動は報告されていない。
• 🤔 チンパンジーの暴力的な性質がホモサピエンスの他のホモイド種に対処する際の優位性に寄与した可能性があるが、具体的な因果関係は不明。
• 🧬 現代人類（ホモサピエンス）には、ネアンデルタール人の遺伝子が3～4％含まれており、完全に他の種を排除したわけではない。
• 🏘️ トゥルカナ族は言語や文化的な基準で定義される民族言語グループであり、特定の人々の数ではなく共有される文化的な基準が「イングループ」を定義する。
• 🔍 最小集団実験は、人間の集団内・外的认知境界が非常に柔軟であることを示しており、実験参加者は小さな基準に基づいてすぐに内集団と外集団を形成する。
• 👶 幼児期からの環境的な要因、特に母親の喫煙、栄養不足、アルコール摂取は、子宮内での胎児の発達に影響を与え、将来の犯罪行為につながる可能性がある。
• 👨‍👧 親権者への教育は不足しており、親権者技能を高めるプログラムが子供の非社会行為を減少させることが示されている。
• 👫 親権者と子供の関係は子供の成長に影響を与えるが、仲間環境も子供の言語、アクセント、ファッション、音楽の好みなど大きな環境的影響を及ぼす。
• 🎮 暴力的なビデオゲームやテレビ番組に曝露されることが、特にすでに非社会的で攻撃的な子供たちに対して、攻撃的な行動を少し増加させる可能性がある。
• 📉 実際には、暴力的なビデオゲームの人気が高まるにつれて、実際の暴力犯罪の比率は低下しているという仮説が示されている。
• ⚖️ 脳の機能に基づいて潜在的な犯罪者を事前に犯罪を非難し、処罰する「少数報告」スタイルのシステムを検討する必要性があるが、それによる個人の権利侵害が懸念される。

Q & A

チンパンジーは他の猿種に対して暴力的行動をとるでしょうか？

チンパンジーはガリラや他の猿種と共存するが、暴力的な行動は報告されていません。ただし、人間に対しては時折危険な行動をとる可能性があります。

チンパンジーの暴力的行動はホモサピエンスの他のホモイド種に対処する際の優位性に寄与した可能性はありますか？

ホモサピエンスが他のホモイド種と接触した際の暴力的な行動が優位性に寄与した可能性はあると考えられていますが、具体的な理由は不明です。

ターカーナ民族とはどのような集団ですか？

ターカーナ民族は約100万人の人々で構成され、言語、文化、信仰、習慣を共有する民族言語集団です。

「イングループ」と「アウトグループ」を定義する要素は何ですか？

「イングループ」と「アウトグループ」は、文化的基準、信仰、価値観、そして特定の社会的規範に基づいて定義されます。

最小集団実験とは何であり、人間の内集団と外集団の認識はどのように形成されるか？

最小集団実験は、人々の内集団と外集団の認識が非常に柔軟であることを示す実験であり、小さな基準に基づいて人々をグループ分けすると、すぐに内集団と外集団の偏りが生じます。

子供の前頭葉皮質を刺激するために親はどのようなアクションを取るべきですか？

妊娠中に健康的な食生活を送り、喫煙やアルコールの摂取を避けることが重要です。また、親としてのスキルを高めるプログラムも効果的です。

子供の周囲の環境はどのようにして彼らの行動に影響を与えるか？

子供の周囲の環境、特に仲間グループは彼らの言語、アクセント、服装、音楽の好みに大きな影響を与えます。

暴力的なエンターテイメントは子供の暴力行為を促進する可能性はありますか？

実験的研究表明、暴力的なビデオゲームやテレビ番組は、特に既に反社会的である子供の攻撃的な行動を若干増加させる可能性があります。

暴力性エンターテイメントの影響について心理学者の間でどのような議論があるか？

多くの心理学者は暴力性エンターテイメントと実際の暴力行為の間に関連性があると考えていますが、その関連性が実際に重要な犯罪行為にまで及ぶかどうかについては議論が分かれる。

なぜ暴力は予想されるよりも少ないのですか？

社会的構造、教育、経済的要素などが暴力行為を抑制する可能性があり、また、社会的連帯感や貿易の増加も暴力行為の減少に寄与しているとされています。

20世紀の住民が政府や戦争によって殺される可能性はどのくらいでしたか？

20世紀の住民が生涯にわたって政府や戦争によって殺される可能性は1～2％でした。

現代の社会で戦争は減少していると言われていますが、イラクやアフガニスタンでのアメリカの介入はどのように説明されるべきですか？

冷戦後の「警察官戦争」と呼ばれる現象として、開発された国々が内戦を止めたり、自国民を殺害する極めて悪い政権を排除するために兵力を派遣するケースがあります。

潜在的な犯罪者の脳機能を用いた事前犯罪処罰システムは危険ですか？

脳スキャンや遺伝子検査が潜在的な犯罪者を特定するのに役立つかもしれない反面、彼らを犯罪を犯する前に検出して処罰するという考え方は倫理的に問題があると懸念されています。

Outlines

00:00

🦍 チンパンジーの暴力行為とホモ・サピエンスの優位性

この段落では、チンパンジーが他の霊長類に対して暴力的行為をとることと、それがホモ・サピエンスが他のホモイド種に優位性を持つ原因となっている可能性について議論されています。チンパンジーとゴリラが共存する環境では暴力的な行為は観察されておらず、ヒトに対しては時折危険な行為をとることがあるとされています。さらに、ホモ・サピエンスが他のホモイド種と接触した際の暴力的な行動が、彼らの優位性に寄与した可能性について触れられています。

05:02

🏘️ イングルーとアウトグルーの定義と影響

この段落では、イングルーとアウトグルーの概念、およびそれらがどのように形成されるかについて説明されています。ターカナ民族を例に、言語、文化、信仰、そして共通の行動様式を持つ民族言語集団として定義されています。また、最小集団実験に基づいて、人間が非常に柔軟に自己と他者を区別する能力があることが示されています。

10:04

👶 幼児期の環境と暴力行為の関係

この段落では、幼児期の環境が将来の暴力行為に与える影響について議論されています。妊娠中に母親が喫煙や栄養不足、アルコールを摂取する場合、子が大人になって犯罪者になるリスクが高まるとされています。また、親の育児スキル不足が子どもの非社会行為につながることも指摘されています。

15:05

🎮 暴力メディアの影響と社会的動向

この段落では、暴力的なメディアに曝露されることが子どもの攻撃的行動に与える影響について議論されています。実験的証拠から、暴力的なビデオゲームやテレビ番組は攻撃的行動を誘発する可能性があるとされています。しかし、その関連性については心理学者間で意見が分かれると指摘されています。

20:05

🕊️ 戦争の減少と社会の変化

この段落では、戦争が減少していることとそれに伴う社会の変化について議論されています。特に、冷戦後、開発された国々が民間紛争を止めたり、酷い政権を排除したりする「警察官的役割」を果たしていることが触れられています。また、イラクとアフガンの戦争がその一例として挙げられています。

🧠 脳機能と潜在犯罪者に対する社会の対応

最後の段落では、脳機能を用いて潜在的な犯罪者を予測し、その情報を使用して社会がどのように対応するかについて議論されています。少数報告のように犯罪を犯行する前に人を非難し、処罰するシステムに対する懸念が述べられています。

Keywords

💡暴力

暴力とは、力や脅迫を用いて他人に害を与える行為を指します。このビデオでは、チンパンジーが他の霊長類や人間に対して暴力的行為をとることについて議論されています。特に、チンパンジーが他の種族のチンパンジーに対して暴力を行使することはなく、ヒトに対しても稀ですが危険であるとされています。

💡ホモサピエンス

ホモサピエンスは、現代の人間（ホモ・サピエンス）を指し、他のホミニッド種と競争して優位に立つ要因について語られています。ビデオでは、ホモサピエンスが他のホミニドを排除し、地球上で優勢になる過程で暴力がどの程度関与していたかについて探求しています。

💡チンパンジー

チンパンジーは、ホモサピエンスと最も近い親戚の一種の霊長類です。ビデオではチンパンジーが他の種族や人間に向けた暴力的行為について語られており、彼らの行動がホモサピエンスの進化や優位性に与えた影響について考察しています。

💡ネアンデルタール人

ネアンデルタール人は、ホモサピエンスと同様に欧州を歩いた古いホミニドです。ビデオでは、ホモサピエンスが彼らを排除し、地球上で優勢になる過程でどのような役割を果たしたかが議論されています。

💡集団心理学

集団心理学は、個体が集団に属するときに生じる心理的現象を研究する学問分野です。ビデオでは、集団の中での「イングループ」と「アウトグループ」の概念が取り上げられ、それが人間の暴力性や戦争行動にどのように影響を与えるかが解説されています。

💡イングループとアウトグループ

イングループとアウトグループは、集団心理学において重要な概念で、個体が特定の集団に属するかどうかによって、その集団に対する好悪感が変わる現象を指します。ビデオでは、この概念が人間の暴力性や集団間の対立にどのように関与するかが議論されています。

💡親子関係

親子関係は、子供の心理的、社会的開発に大きな影響を与える要素です。ビデオでは、親の育児スキルが子供の非社会行為に関連していること、そして親子関係の向上が犯罪行為を減少させる可能性があることが述べられています。

💡環境的要因

環境的要因とは、個体の行動や特性に影響を与える外部の条件や状況です。ビデオでは、子供の暴力性行動に寄与する環境的要因として、親の育児スキルや仲間環境が挙げられています。

💡暴力メディア

暴力メディアとは、暴力的な内容を含むゲームやテレビ番組などです。ビデオでは、暴力メディアに曝露されることが子供の攻撃的行為に影響を与えるかどうかが議論されており、その影響がすでに暴力的である子供に特に顕著であることが示されています。

💡犯罪予防

犯罪予防は、犯罪を未然に防止することに焦点を当てた取り組みです。ビデオでは、子供の犯罪予防のために親の育児スキルの向上や、環境的要因の管理が重要であることが示されています。

💡アミグダラ

アミグダラは、感情の制御に関与する脳の一部であり、特に共感や良心、後悔の感覚を司ります。ビデオでは、アミグダラの容量が小さい男性の方が、将来に暴力行為を犯す可能性が高くなることが研究から明らかになっていることが触れられています。

💡事前犯罪処罰

事前犯罪処罰とは、犯罪を犯する前に個人を処罰する考え方です。ビデオでは、「少数報告」のようなシナリオが示されており、脳機能の分析を通じて潜在的な犯罪者を特定し、彼らに対して処罰を科すことに関する倫理的な問題が議論されています。

Highlights

Chimpanzees do not exhibit violence towards gorillas, another ape species sharing their habitat.

Chimpanzees have been known to occasionally harm humans, including killing babies in different countries.

The discussion suggests that war might have been a part of interspecies contact, contributing to Homo sapiens' dominance.

Dr. Krauss highlights the presence of Neanderthal genes in modern humans, indicating interbreeding rather than complete elimination.

The Turkana are described as an ethno-linguistic group sharing cultural norms, beliefs, and practices.

In-group and out-group boundaries are shown to be highly malleable, even influenced by trivial criteria.

Trade relationships and economic interdependence can expand cognitive boundaries of in-group perceptions.

Parenting skills are suggested as a critical factor in reducing antisocial behavior in children.

The proposal of making parent skills classes compulsory in high schools to improve parenting quality.

The role of peer environment in child development is emphasized, often more impactful than parenting.

Exposure to violent media has a modest effect on aggressive behavior, especially in at-risk children.

Christopher Ferguson raises doubts about the connection between media violence and real-life harm.

A comparison is made between the rates of violence in society and the rates of traffic accidents, suggesting different societal tolerances.

The decline in violent crime in the United States is noted alongside the rise in violent entertainment.

A strict metric for determining the success of a movement is discussed, focusing on removal of leaders or territorial independence.

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars are framed as 'policing actions' rather than traditional wars.

Concerns are raised about the potential for a pre-crime punishment system based on brain functioning.

Transcripts

okay that's it

ready okay

well that was fun

okay you have to get violent okay okay

so there are lots of questions and

they're really good questions and we

obviously don't have time for a lot of

them but we'll try and pick up a bunch

and I'm actually very pleased that there

are no anonymous questions which is an

so um

Jacob w-where are you Jacob yay okay so

we'll start with chimpanzees okay do

chimpanzees exhibit violence against

other species of apes and could this

quality have played a role in the

dominance of Homo sapiens over other

humanoids do chimpanzees exhibit

violence towards other species of apes

well there are two species of apes that

live in the same environments as

chimpanzees one is Garos and no one has

seen any anything like violence directed

by chimpanzees towards gorillas and you

think you know why the other species is

humans and chimpanzees have actually

occasionally harmed humans they have

killed babies on several different

occasions in several different countries

they are dangerous and now the second

part of the question was something like

could they could this explain the

dominance of Homo sapiens I guess

assuming maybe killing Neanderthals or

or or something like that I guess is the

idea

[Applause]

dr. Krauss gets a girl star and so does

the questioner certainly we don't know

what is responsible for sapiens out

competing all of the other hominoids but

you have to say that given the way in

which chimpanzees behave and given the

way in which are our own species has

behaved when we come into contact with

other members of our species that we did

not know before then you have to say

that war is very likely being a part of

the inter species contact but of course

we do know also that it wasn't totally

eliminating because we've all got our

three to four percent Neanderthal genes

well most of you anyway okay we'll go to

the XY nice actually a quick question

for Sarah I think from Sylvia wherever

you are

okay Sylvia is more quiet than jacob but

that's good what defines an in or out

grew an in or out group and who is turqu

anna and who is not is it just a

political tag and is that is that there

for the vowels okay so the Turkana are

about a million people and they

constitute what people would call an

ethno-linguistic group so they speak a

language and the most important thing is

that they share cultural norms beliefs

ideas and a way of doing things and so

that's in some ways what defines the

ethno-linguistic groups not a certain

number of people because we know that

ethno-linguistic groups have gone from

being really small a few hundred people

a thousand people in some

hunter-gatherer societies to

nation-states in which or religious

entities in which thousands and millions

of people constitute a shared cultural

group so in some ways the Turkana are a

tribe in which everybody agrees on

certain social norms on certain beliefs

about how to treat others how to do

things and that's what constitutes the

in-group

okay yeah the you know I teach

introductory psychology and one of the

staples of the introductory psychology

curriculum is the minimal group

experiment which shows that our

cognitive boundaries of what is an

in-group and out-group can be highly

malleable in this experiment you divide

people up as they come into the lab on

any trivial criterion you want you are

the fans of clay you're at the fans of

Kandinsky and immediately each group

thinks the worse of each other and they

favor their in-group members over

members the other group even by the way

if they're divided by their flip of a

point you're in that group you're in

that the other group and they

immediately start to distrust each other

for years this was thought of as a

rather depressing fact about our species

clearly it's the cognitive ability that

gets engaged by ethno-linguistic groups

in a more natural context but on the

other hand the boundaries are so elastic

that that we can expand them as well as

creating new divisions and one of the

things that seems to have been happen

it's behind the decline of war is that

we no longer as easily think of other

ethno-linguistic groups as the as out

groups a salient case would be the

attitude toward say the Japanese which

during needless to say during World War

two Japanese were treated as subhuman

there were all kinds of demeaning racial

stereotypes and now you know I think

most of us even if we tried could really

not muster a whole lot of hatred against

the Japanese if for no other reason that

they you know make our Nikon and Sony

appliances and indeed the rise of trade

has been credited as one of the things

that helps expand the cognitive

boundaries of who's in your group and

who isn't if people are are your trading

partners you're less likely to want them

to come to harm you need them to buy

your stuff you need them to sell you

their stuff okay anyone else okay Adrian

you you've provoked a lot of questions

you stimulated I don't know whether it

was the prefrontal cortex or the

amygdala you stimulate a lot

Sara asks the following question

I find this a fascinating question what

would you advise parents of young

children between newborn and seven years

old to do to help stimulate the free

prefrontal cortex great question Sara

very good one well first of all I think

this thing's you can do even before the

borns because you know we know that moms

during pregnancy who take smoke

cigarettes their offspring are three

times more likely to grow up to become

violent criminal offenders if she has

poor nutrition during pregnancy they're

two and a half times more likely to grow

up to become offenders we know that

alcohol during pregnancy raises the odds

also of juvenile delinquency and adult

crime so even before the child is born

there are things that people can do that

we can do society can do to take away

these turreted Jones which affects the

developing fetal brain which have

knock-on effects to future crime but I

imagine you know all of you aren't there

with the younger kids seven eight nine

turning away from my research parenting

you know parent skills it's something

that we need to do more of

we know that poor parenting is

associated with crime we know that

programs that enhance parenting skills

reduce antisocial behavior in children

and you know when I step back from that

and I think well I've got two kids and

I'm not such a great parent and I think

well you know was I ever taught how to

be a parent in school no I wasn't is

having a kid one of the most important

things that any of us ever do ever does

yes

it's a one thing we taught nothing about

in school so I wonder whether we would

ever make parent skills classes

compulsory to high schools secondary

school students to enhance

to enhance the level of parenting for

all of us and you know what's so bad

about that that's something I wonder

about that's it yeah

that's what we should all wonder about

that I think anyone else have any any

advice for parents yeah I obviously want

to concentrate on environmental levels

levers of influence on all aspects of

the developing child I tend to think

that we underestimate the role of the

peer environment and that parents

sometimes get blamed a little too

quickly a lot of studies that look at

effects of parenting never control for

the fact that parents are genetically

related to their kids and so if you have

parents who are likely to engage in a

particular kind of behavior they are

likely to have kids who are genetically

more likely more predisposed to do some

things as opposed to others and unless

you do the studies with adopted kids

it's very hard to distinguish whether

it's the parenting per se or the kind of

people who do the parenting which is not

to contradict the idea that people

should be instructed on the basic

qualifications for for not screwing up

your kid but I think far we shouldn't

though because it's so easy to acquaint

nurture environment with parenting we

forget about a source of the environment

that I think is far more consequential

and that is the add the peer group

something that's obviously much harder

to control but you when you grow up you

have the language of your peer group you

have the accent of your peer group you

wear the same styles of clothing you

listen to the same kinds of music that

is a massive environmental influence

that is a little harder to control

because there's no classes to control a

peer group it's a viral phenomenon where

fads come and go and things reach a

tipping point but a better understanding

of the dynamics that lead to whether

it's cool to be a juvenile delinquent or

it's cool to to stay in school would be

another way of influencing likelihood of

violence through an environmental

manipulation here's a question actually

related to the to the vial to an

environmental factor from Julia and this

is a questions often asked and it's

actually wasn't discussed anywhere here

so so it's open to everybody to jump in

quickly does exposure to violence or

violent entertainment encourage violent

behavior so who wants to start oh I know

a little bit about that it's not my area

of research but experimental studies

have shown that exposure to violent

video games violent TV does have a

little bit of effect in raising the

chance of aggressive behavior in the in

the in the kid it's especially true of

kids who are already at risk for being

antisocial and aggressive but there is

experimental research on that as well as

you know hundreds upon hundreds of

studies showing this relationship

contrarian good view of that it is

certainly true that if you were to poll

most psychologists they would say that

there there is a relationship but create

a Christopher Ferguson and others have

cast a lot of doubt on whether those

studies have anything to do with

violence as we really care about it like

real harm or just kids being a little

more rambunctious after they see a

roadrunner cartoon or filling out a

questionnaire and be more likely to

unscramble words so that they spell out

the violent words measures that are not

terribly connected with with real life

in fact if you look at I tend to think

that the concern over violent video

games is a kind of moral panic that

flies in the face of what's happened in

society as a whole

namely that during the era in which

violent video games including the

gruesome first-person shooter games just

exploded in popularity crime violent

crime in real life has fallen through

the floor the rate of violent crime in

the United States today is less than

half of what it was 20 years ago no one

completely understands the reason but

this is the same era in which in which

we'd have special effects in movies that

seem to increase the level of simulated

violence

and the popularity of violent video

games also a Harold Schechter who's

actually studied the history of violent

entertainment points out that pretty

much at all points of history people

take enormous pleasure in watching

scenes of gruesome violence enacted

before their eyes if you look at

Experian tragedies if you look at Punch

and Judy if you look at penny dreadfuls

and pulp fiction and the lives of the

saints the Old Testament there's

gruesome entertainment all the way

through and I think people do I tend to

think that people disconnected from

whether they want to commit violence in

real life anyone want to disagree with

both these gentlemen by the way the

solution of parenting is a P I'm a

grandparent it's a lot easier all the

fun and none of the trouble the one one

thing we might discuss or have on the

table Lisa's the question is why isn't

there more violence given how easy it is

to do and let me just give you a couple

of sort of comparative in comparisons

the worst societies pretty much are ones

that have a homicide rate of about one

hundred and a hundred thousand there's

some cases where it's even worse than

that but that's really bad and pretty

unusual and the question is that's that

your if you live in that society some of

the worst societies there are in terms

of homicide your chance of being killed

is about one in a thousand per year and

the question is why isn't that one in

five hundred or one and two hundred why

isn't why isn't it get higher and it's

so that an interesting sort of thing

I was talking to one of the people here

now in the conference about homicide in

Japan which is now so low it's a

question that could it conceivably get

lower I mean Japan and everybody else

has a certain quota murderous

Psychopaths and you're down to the level

where you basically at that level

details of fish in Japan by the way

[Laughter]

[Applause]

thank you one other one other statistic

everybody in here who is over the age of

fourteen lived during the 20th century a

very murderous time with big Wars and so

forth and also murderous governments

which killed more people than Boris and

I tried to calculate if you were a

resident of the 20th century what was

the likelihood you'd be killed either by

a government or by a war any kind of war

civil war international order whatever

and it comes out to be somewhere between

one and two percent over a lifetime

which would end of course they stopped

they stopped counting and so then the

question is if you're an American what's

your chance each year of being over a

lifetime of being killed an automobile

accident

it's about between one and two percent

and it's sort of a eerie comparison one

of obviously we're completely tolerant

of having this murders for

transportation the other we're not we're

not acceptable so it's I'm not sure what

and that's right that could be I'm not

sure what good that comparison does but

it's sort of interesting to see

go ahead yeah I you know I think that

knowing the numbers on rates of violence

is a highly informative and educational

way of approaching it to put things in

perspective which you don't do reading

the newspaper where the human mind

because of the availability heuristic

just judges probability based on how

easy it is to recall anecdotes and

events so a number of numbers matter so

let's just take as a comparison so

though the most violent countries in the

world today have a homicide rate of a

hundred four hundred thousand per year

Japan and other peaceful countries it's

less than one per hundred thousand per

year do you know what the figures are

for chimpanzees and Sarah do you know

what the figures are the Turkana the

estimates are in the low hundreds

something like one or two hundred which

is lower than some of the

hunter-gatherers certainly those figures

exist for the Turkana yeah I know the

data that the 1% of male adult mortality

is due to interpersonal violence that's

over a lifetime

yeah 1% but 50% from intertribal warfare

okay

well we'll move to Erica I'm trying to

get a question for everyone I want to

end with a another question but Erica

this is one that occurred to me too and

in your study how do you determine

change or success in a movement

what what what determines whether it's a

success mm-hmm well we use the pretty

strict metric there are a couple of

criteria the movement has to meet the

first is that it achieved either the

removal of a leader completely through

irregular means or they achieved

territorial independence that is de jure

independence not just de facto

independence and that would basically be

similar to the the selection criteria of

the cases we only looked at those cases

where they were trying to remove the

incumbent leader through a regular means

or that they were trying to achieve

territorial independence the second

criteria was that we looked at whether

the campaign could have had you know you

can sort of make a reasonably good

argument that the campaign had a direct

impact on that outcome

right so if an international power came

in and just took out the leader we

didn't count that as a campaign success

if the leader died in office of a heart

attack even though you might make a

conceivable argument that they were

stressed out because of the movement we

did we didn't want to give our skeptics

any ammunition so we didn't count that

as a success so we only looked at cases

where it was clear that the movement had

an impact on the outcome and that

outcome had to have occurred within a

year of the peak of the campaign meaning

that if you know campaign ends but then

four years later they get the outcome

that they wanted we didn't count that as

a success so this is actually a very

strict criterion of success we applied

it equally across both the nonviolent

and violent campaigns just to defend

against any skepticism that we were

going easy on the nonviolent cases okay

great

now we don't have much time we started

ten minutes late so I want to I want to

try and but I have one quick question

I'm sure a lot of PE this is the kind of

question to get a lot so I thought I'd

pick this one it's from Michelle and

said if war is on the decline and the

last war as many years ago how do you

explain the conflict of the u.s. was

engaged in in Iraq Afghanistan

Afghanistan right now yeah there's a

phenomena I call it policing lawyers

after the end of the Cold War

the notion was that there weren't really

big enemies anymore

among developed States and they all saw

of the world pretty much the same way so

exactly example there's a civil war in

Bosnia they didn't necessarily know how

to solve the problem but they all agreed

it was a bad thing

so since since the end of the Cold War

there's been amongst a bunch of policing

laws in which troops from developed

countries have been sent into various

areas to try to either stop civil wars

or to replace regimes that are basically

really horrible and killing their own

people and there's been a number of

these there they do not seem to be it

does not seem to be a growth industry

and so I would put both the wars in Iraq

and Afghanistan particularly one in

Afghanistan in that category in general

no one wants to lose very many lives and

those kinds of things because they're

essentially humanitarian and the these

two wars are obviously tied to

of a belief and that they're relevant to

national interest at any rate I think

we're now living through something

called the Iraq syndrome or maybe the

Iraq Afghanistan syndrome and the the

enthusiasm for engaging in any more Wars

like that is extremely low as we saw

this summer last summer with the respect

to the Syrian thing no one even wanted

to think about even punitive bombing in

which no Americans would be killed to

punish Assad for using chemical weapons

and Barack Obama moving in that

direction backed away and I think we

lived after Vietnam with the Vietnam

syndrome

we lived after World War two with the

world war two syndrome there were no

Laura World War two is no more two

Korean Wars and I think we're now in the

Iraq syndrome and it's very unlikely

that they will venture into other

conflicts of that sort unless there's a

really direct attack on the United

States okay that's probably gonna call

some discussion during the break I bet

but the the last question I think since

we're gonna go to the future after the

break I thought this was appropriate and

and it's from Kathleen and it's sort of

directed towards you but but is there

any danger of society using the brain

functioning of potential criminals in a

sort of minority report style pre-crime

punishment system that is accusing and

condemning people before they commit a

crime based on their brain functioning

go ahead Kathleen I think it this is a

great question and I have a vested

interest in this insofar as my brain

scan looks very much like that of a man

who kills 64 people in the 12-year

period and I do not want to be locked up

for a crime I did not commit

just because of my brain scan or if you

do lock me up I want a chance to kill

some of my critics first

but yes but this is seriously it's it's

an important question and it's it's one

of concern the Minority Report

will we ever screen and intervene

earlier on in life because all the boxes

are checked the social boxes the

psychological the genetic the brain and

I think there's a legitimate concern

about that and partly guilty of this

because with my colleagues and I we

brain scanned adults in the community

and found that those with a smaller

volume of the amygdala part of the brain

that gives us a sense of compassion

conscience and remorse

those men with the smaller amygdala

volumes were four times more likely to

commit a violent act in the next three

years and that's prediction over and

above other risk factors we use to

predict violence like you know

employment background and so and so on

so I'm torn at one level no it would be

terribly wrong to detain someone before

they've committed a criminal act on the

other hand we have to make decisions

every day about which prisoners to let

out early because they're not at risk

and which prisoners to keep in prison

because they are dangerous and if brain

imaging and genetics in the future gives

us added value in making more accurate

decisions about who are the risky people

in society well wouldn't it be wrong not

to use that information okay well I know

that that's gonna lead to discussion so

I'm going to stop it one of the things

we try and do in Origins is is is deal

with open questions questions that

haven't been resolved fundamental

questions where we might learn things

and and and of course one of the things

I've seen from this meeting is that this

is such a question and questions that

allow us to confront conventional wisdom

and and to try and make the world a

better place and I want to thank this

panel for illuminating these issues

for us before

we will see you in the very short future

to discuss the future have a good

intermission