Love = Chemical Addiction?

DOOManiac

<div class="IPBDescription">SCIENCE!</div><b>Scientists are finding that, after all, love really is down to a chemical addiction between people</b>
<a href='http://www.economist.com/printedition/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=2424049' target='_blank'>Article</a>

<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->OVER the course of history it has been artists, poets and playwrights who have made the greatest progress in humanity's understanding of love. Romance has seemed as inexplicable as the beauty of a rainbow. But these days scientists are challenging that notion, and they have rather a lot to say about how and why people love each other.

Is this useful? The scientists think so. For a start, understanding the neurochemical pathways that regulate social attachments may help to deal with defects in people's ability to form relationships. All relationships, whether they are those of parents with their children, spouses with their partners, or workers with their colleagues, rely on an ability to create and maintain social ties. Defects can be disabling, and become apparent as disorders such as autism and schizophrenia—and, indeed, as the serious depression that can result from rejection in love. Research is also shedding light on some of the more extreme forms of sexual behaviour. And, controversially, some utopian fringe groups see such work as the doorway to a future where love is guaranteed because it will be provided chemically, or even genetically engineered from conception.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Interesting read, though a bit long.

Phoenix_Six

I always like to refer to this quote by the famous physicist Richard Feynman when something like this comes up:

<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Quote by Richard Feynman:
(As quoted from the "Best Mind Since Einstein" NOVA Video)

I have a friend who’s an artist and he’s some times taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say, "look how beautiful it is," and I’ll agree, I think. And he says, "you see, I as an artist can see how beautiful this is, but you as a scientist, oh, take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing." And I think he’s kind of nutty.

First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me, too, I believe, although I might not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is. But I can appreciate the beauty of a flower.

At the same time, I see much more about the flower that he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside which also have a beauty. I mean, it’s not just beauty at this dimension of one centimeter: there is also beauty at a smaller dimension, the inner structure…also the processes.

The fact that the colors in the flower are evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting – it means that insects can see the color.

It adds a question – does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms that are…why is it aesthetic, all kinds of interesting questions which a science knowledge only adds to the excitement and mystery and the awe of a flower.

It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

EDIT: forgot a piddling "the".

UltimaGecko

While obviously people (or in this case voles) injected with chemicals to make them feel pleasurable responses they'll probably want to keep feeling that response; I think the entire 2nd half of the article is over-generalized and over-simplified.

The second half is basically saying: we develop our idea of love based on past exeperiences and how we were treated." I figured that was common knowledge, it's like going to a psychic who says: It will rain soon. So, the science of this article doesn't give a definite way we would pick mates, and apparently it's unpredictable (just based on past experiances, and lust (sex), romantic love (obsession, except not really about sex) and/or ...some relationship (intimiate caring and stability) thing I forgot the name of - they do say there is overlap).

Even if you inject someone with the chemical to 'make them love someone' it will depend on the person. Their 2nd type of voles (started with an m) didn't have receptors for the 2 chemicals that control love, I'd assume people with a bunch of wives, or that always cheat, or never get married (but have lots of girlfriends) wouldn't have receptors to form permanent 'love' based relationships.

...well, I have to go play NS now...maybe I'll write more later about the unscientificicy (yay, inventing words!) of this article, and its over simplification.

baconflaps

If they somehow prove all that true, it'll be quite depressing.

Epidemic

Havent this always ben known?<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo--> It's not like it changed anything, all things are just illusions anyway..

Vulgar_Menace

I plan to print that off and hand it out to everyone in my class.

Zyndrome

Just matter of weeks 'til we see the first "Love-Rifle", which forces us to fall in love with others. Good thing I never go outside.

MeanMrMustard

Seems Interesting.
But Scientist cant leave nothing alone.
exposing the harsh reality will do nothing but transform Love into something that like many things has been taken apart, studied and then left to rot.
Do we really want Love and the reaction to be researched?
The resultts could be devastating for the world.

Ok, Ive went slightly over the top.



<!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->