The last time I looked into this, at least one US pesticide* banned in the EU seemed to significantly disrupt oxytocin, notably the pesticide in question seems to be present on fruit, in the store, and can be absorbed through incidental contact. Oxytocin is most notably involved in empathy, giving people a nasal spray of oxytocin and testing them on empathy indicates higher response (in the one story it boiled down to roughly, "how much do you give a shit or relate to the suffering of other people who you do not know") after their oxytocin has been raised.
It does seem like there's room here for a study to see what the general oxytocin level is in the US versus other countries — if it's notably reduced, I wonder if that can help explain why all the US legislation around societal benefits and e.g. healthcare, feels not just apathetic towards, but particularly hostile and mean spirited to people who are suffering.
* - When i originally penned this, I was under the assumption it was Atrazine, but it isn't and I can't find the pesticide in question and don't feel like sifting through a list of "1000 pesticides banned in the EU that the US loves to use" to find the one in question
edit, NB:
HNers that love to skim read and argue based on that, take note — the only claims made here are:
- At least one US pesticide that is banned in the EU disrupts oxytocin (plausible, if not cited)
- Oxytocin is directly connected to expression of empathy (incredibly well-founded)
- US legislation around societal benefits and healthcare feels apathetic and mean spirited (opinion, take it or leave it)
Note that I very carefully do not claim that a {pesicide contact -> reduced oxytocin-> reduced empathy -> mistreatment of the poor and sick} chain is actually the case (I leave that in speculation — "I wonder if"), I only say that it seems viable and worthy of investigation if and only if the first claim in the list above is true. I also do not claim it to be the only cause — that's why I say the words "can help explain". Thank you for reading.
Mm, I did take a quick look but the majority seem to be studying within the cow cervix, which... it seems kind of iffy to then expand that to the wider body, and then jump species from cows to humans. Too many links of indirection to make a reasonable claim about.
It is interesting: I have long wondered if recreational drugs that created long-term feelings of safety and contentment (rather than the anxiety, depression & fear of the current options, especially among uppers) could improve political outcomes.
On the other hand, given European's response to immigration has been to cut their social spending, it seems more likely that the difference in social support can be confidently attributed to racism.
As far as I know we haven't found any chemicals that either create or diminish racism, though it is an interesting direction for future research.
It may be a contributing factor. But reading that I remembered something about NSAIDs (most 'over the counter' pain killers) reducing empathy. First hit (from 2018) for 'NSAID' +'empathy' was https://www.spring.org.uk/2018/02/painkillers-emotions.php
Hey! Maybe microplastics and PFAS/PFOA/BPA do too? Whoo hoo hoo!
I'm no doctor, but if my understanding is correct oxytocin is also correlated with in-group out-group behavior. I think it's a bit reductionist to attribute election results to hormone imbalance. Culture and material conditions probably have a much greater impact on that.
> I think it's a bit reductionist to attribute election results to hormone imbalance.
I very carefully did not attribute election results solely to that cause :)
Russian funding and mass media covert ops are likely more to blame[1][2]
At the same time, I do think that there's room to explain why vast swathes of the US has a very "I've got mine, fuck you" attitude. This also seems to be somewhat recent, because "Universal right to food" was one of the things proposed in, I want to say the 40s-50s? as one of the basic fundamental rights. Which, outright couldn't happen now with the current state of American Politics.
[2]: idk there's a laundry list of news outlets confirming both of these points, if someone wants to argue about it then it's likely we'll never agree in the first place, as the evidence has been widely available for almost a decade now and is very clear in terms of evidence of Russian influence in voter manipulation, general public opinion manipulation, and outright paying off politicians and working to inflate the puritanical right wing.
Oh for sure, I agree with you on that. This reminds me that as far back as during the french revolution, in 1789, some "radical republicans" succeeded in putting a droit de subsistance, right to sustenance, in the very first constitution. That right would guarantee some form of food and shelter for everyone. It was removed in the second constitution by the bourgeoisie, of course.
Those ideas are far from new, and I'm afraid to never see them implemented in my lifetime, but I remain hopeful and will still advocate for them however I can.
My problem with what you're saying is that it relies on affirming the antecedent. Which not a proposition I believe to be correct, and in fact, view as denigration and slander of my countrymen. I do not look kindly on that.
> view as denigration and slander of my countrymen
The fact that you believe it to be incorrect also doesn't really make it incorrect, does it. Notably, I am also not saying that it is correct, but simply making a claim based on if it is correct — which may or may not be true.
I am sorry that you feel that I slandered and denigrated your countrymen but surely the bigger denigration against the american people here is the voting patterns of your countrymen — in repeatedly voting against social measures that would provide aid and care to the poor, sick, and disabled. I would look upon that as something to get insulted, deeply upset about, and use that feeling as a force to try to argue for and push for change politically, as opposed to a random comment on the internet.
It does seem like there's room here for a study to see what the general oxytocin level is in the US versus other countries — if it's notably reduced, I wonder if that can help explain why all the US legislation around societal benefits and e.g. healthcare, feels not just apathetic towards, but particularly hostile and mean spirited to people who are suffering.
* - When i originally penned this, I was under the assumption it was Atrazine, but it isn't and I can't find the pesticide in question and don't feel like sifting through a list of "1000 pesticides banned in the EU that the US loves to use" to find the one in question
edit, NB:
HNers that love to skim read and argue based on that, take note — the only claims made here are:
- At least one US pesticide that is banned in the EU disrupts oxytocin (plausible, if not cited)
- Oxytocin is directly connected to expression of empathy (incredibly well-founded)
- US legislation around societal benefits and healthcare feels apathetic and mean spirited (opinion, take it or leave it)
Note that I very carefully do not claim that a {pesicide contact -> reduced oxytocin-> reduced empathy -> mistreatment of the poor and sick} chain is actually the case (I leave that in speculation — "I wonder if"), I only say that it seems viable and worthy of investigation if and only if the first claim in the list above is true. I also do not claim it to be the only cause — that's why I say the words "can help explain". Thank you for reading.