Now here's a tricky one !
I still haven't had any response to the second idea of eliminating the gene that produces aggression.
Well: you see Teri2,...how can I explain,...let's start by explaining a bit about the genes,...
The genes do NOT hold the answers to our behaviour completely,...the genes change! yes they do,...!!!
as a matter of fact: the genes change according to our behaviour,...
so acctually it's 'WE' ourselfves who cultivate our genes,...and our offspring (if only more people would know about this and care)
of course: there's a big part of cultural and behavioral information stored in them but let's say for example: that my grandfather had the neccesety to kill because he was in the WWII,
now, we all know that genes are passed on not from generation to generation but that they skipp a generation first before passing on the elements on info,..
So, then practically I would have succesfully gained control over the proces and of course by help of my grandfather who was opposed to killing anyone,...
But suppose he enjoyed it? And that he killed whenever he could? (I can imagine that living at any front in a war drives people mad,....no?)
Then as a result I would have more eager to kill: because it's in my subconcious,....
It's also a proven fact that children who grow up in a family with a lot of violence on their hands are more likely to extrapolate that behaviour towards others: because this behaviour was succesfull in having power over 'them' in the first place,....(having had a parent who beat you up every day for the stupidest thing)
Can you see where I'm headded? So it IS a cultural herritage for a part,...but cutting a gene away or killing a person in return is like : taking a painkiller : relieves the pain BUT DOESN'T CURE the cause,...in fact: if you take away that specific gene: then you'll make the person (and his/her offspring) incapable of ever retrieveing or gaining control over their unconcious thoughts in a concious manner,...
So you see it's all about consiousness,....
Thx
:bugeye: