[sas86 (OP)]

The term cosmetic neurology was invented in 2004 by Professor Anjan Chatterjee, a neurologist. It refers to interventions that individuals would use to improve themselves; not treat ailments or diseases. This paper refers to a theoretical, attraction expansion technology and it was published last month. titled Expanding the Romantic Circle written by Tena Thau and published by Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. Is this kind of technology ethical to research and scientifically plausible?

[Colin2B]

Wouldn’t this depend on how it was used?
For someone to use it on themselves to expand their own acceptance levels vs giving it to someone else to make yourself more attractive to them.

[sas86 (OP)]

Some individuals will decide to take it, others would not.

I'm curious about why it's being written now. I bear in mind what George Orwell said about intellectuals from his Notes on Nationalism essay from 1945.

[Bored chemist]

Some individuals will decide to take it, others would not.

I'm curious about why it's being written now. I bear in mind what George Orwell said about intellectuals from his Notes on Nationalism essay from 1945.

He says quite a lot about them.
What are you referring to?

https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/notes-on-nationalism/

[sas86 (OP)]

There is increasing literature from Oxford University and other institutions (which I can refer to you if you like) about attraction expanding technology and using science to change human feelings of love and attachment.  I was wondering if there was scientific plausibility behind those thoughts because in the 1945 essay, Orwell wrote of intellectuals believing in foolish things.

[Bored chemist]

There is increasing literature from Oxford University and other institutions (which I can refer to you if you like)

I would much rather that you just answered the question.

What are you referring to?

[sas86 (OP)]

What I am referring to is Oxford University academics writing about this hypothetical stuff. Are they being silly as George Orwell warned us academics/intellectuals can be. That is what I am referring to.

[Bored chemist]

You need to define foolish.
Is it foolish to consider what might happen?
Or is that planning?
Also, Orwell, didn't mention Oxford (or "The Other Place") in that essay.

[sas86 (OP)]

No he didn't. You are right about planning and the topic has a lot of stigma.

I mention foolish because you could write about all sorts of things that could happen in the future like aliens arriving on Earth; something that could happen but is not scientifically plausible. Are there certain things you wouldn't want to write about for fear of embarrassing your institution and colleagues?

[alancalverd]

They also teach philosophy, politics and economics at Oxford, as though there were any truth or value in any of them. That said, I have plenty of friends in Cambridge whose deep studies seem to have no merit or purpose.

Nevertheless

 

From the testimony of Robert Rathburn Wilson before the Congressional Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, 1969. As quoted in a lovely memorial to Wilson and the Fermi National Laboratory's Tevatron by science blogger Jennifer Ouellette

Senator John Pastore: "Is there anything connected with the hopes of this accelerator that in any way involves the security of the country?"
Physicist Robert Rathburn Wilson: "No sir, I don't believe so."
Pastore: "Nothing at all?"
Wilson: "Nothing at all."
Pastore: "It has no value in that respect?"
Wilson: "It has only to do with the respect with which we regard one another, the dignity of man, our love of culture. It has to do with: Are we good painters, good sculptors, great poets? I mean all the things we really venerate in our country and are patriotic about. It has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to make it worth defending."

[sas86 (OP)]

The study of such hypotheticals is good in and of itself?

[alancalverd]

It's no more pointless than computer games, and far more interesting.

[sas86 (OP)]

It's better it takes place in a pluralistic society anyway. Tena Thau's work is akin to that of Brian Earp, Julian Savulescu and Anders Sandberg.

[Bored chemist]

The study of such hypotheticals is good in and of itself?

What's purely hypothetical today might be practical tomorrow.

[sas86 (OP)]

I wonder how many scientists will read Tena Thau's paper. I have prepared a sort of ethical statement about cosmetic neurology.

[Bored chemist]

I wonder how many scientists will read Tena Thau's paper.

Probably very few.
Does it say anything particularly different from what a bright 18 year old might deduce?

[puppypower]

Such technology already exists. This technology appears each year at the beginning of the summer and is called bathing suit technology. The more human flesh that is exposed to each other  and the warm summer days, the more natural the feelings of attractiveness for all. Being covered up by clothes technology tends to funnel attractiveness into cliques and classes.

A related technology is called New Years Resolution technology. This is where one makes an attempt to get into shape so the batting suit technology looks better on your toned and trim body by summer time. This technology helps use get closer to the natural state of humans; natural selection, so when combined with bathing suit technology, there is so much to appreciate.

One last old school technology is called beer googles technology. This technology changes the prism of attractiveness and get one back to the basics of natural procreation technology. Summer time tend to combine all three technologies.

[sas86 (OP)]

The paper does discuss something different. A far-reaching intervention like in the Ted Chiang short story which is titled Liking What You See.  Its called calliagnosia.

[sas86 (OP)]

As scientists you are guided by ethics. Would this be ethical to research to make reality?

[Bored chemist]

As scientists you are guided by ethics. Would this be ethical to research to make reality?

All around the world, there are groups of scientists working on protecting people from chemical weapons. That's obviously ethically "good".
Clearly, do do that, they need to know what chemical weapons would do.
And the way to find that out is to make chemical weapons.
So , for ethically good reasons, they make chemical weapons.

The ethics of science is complex.