2 ms·
Certainly. 1. Here is an example of reckless behavior associated with a lack of fear as it pertains to humans taking anti-fear drugs. [1] http://news.national
by LinuxBender 11y ago
Certainly.
1. Here is an example of reckless behavior associated with a lack of fear as it pertains to humans taking anti-fear drugs.
[1] http://news.nationalpost.com/news/there-was-no-fear-anymore-the-tiny-pill-fuelling-syrias-war-and-giving-fighters-superhuman-energy http://news.nationalpost.com/news/there-was-no-fear-anymore-...
And then there are studies of animals changing their behavior to be more reckless. I am curious to see your thoughts on correlation of animal and human testing.
[2] https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2011/03/scientists-discover-anti-anxiety-circuit-in-brain-region-considered-the-seat-of-fear.html https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2011/03/scientists-di...
- sridca 11y agoReckless behaviour is not associated with lack of fear, as reckless behaviour is not uncommon among normal human adults with fear intact (also the aforementioned drug does more than inhibiting fear). If one is going about life "without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action", that is more a sign of being unintelligent (quite often a case of native intelligence being hampered by such strong emotions as ideological feelings) than merely being fearless. Animals (especially early primate ancestors of humans) do not have fully developed intelligence, so it not unsurprising that they unlike us require primitive emotions such as fear to survive as a species.
- LinuxBender 11y agoSo basically what you are saying is that all of the testing done on animals prior to humans as a requirement to get FDA approval is not valid. Perhaps I agree with you on that part.