But it seems like evolved human biology is a little too violent for the society we want, and perhaps we'd benefit from even more X in the water/air/food supply.
Is it because you believe the myth that high testosterone causes violence? That "roid rage" people normally picture when thinking of people who do steroids is actually people who neglect or don't put enough effort into post cycle therapy or aromatase inhibitors to LOWER their estrogen levels.
Yes taking steroids greatly increases Estrogen levels as well and this is the main reason many men who have done steroids without proper cycling have some semblance of breasts...
If anything this "violent" society you speak of is most likely a result of these pseudoestrogens / xenoestrogens and other endocrine disrupting chemicals.
It has also been observed in humans, though the correlation is weak[1].
1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135917890...
Where is the evidence that lack of "post cycle therapy," which isn't accepted science in itself, and estrogen causes violence?
I don't see any evidence of what you suggest on Cochrane Collab.
I'll decide how I want my interactions with the rest of humanity to go, thanks.
We'd be 100% safe if we were all in cells with a telescreen, or if we had our brainwaves monitored for aggressive thoughts/disruptive emotions.
Think that's too extreme of a comparison? Well, that's where your comment leads: China is monitoring employees' brain waves and emotions: $315M profit increase - https://nordic.businessinsider.com/china-emotional-surveilla...
1) A chinese electricity company began collecting wireless sensor data in 2014
2) In April 2018 their profits were up $315M
Did they begin doing more business? Did their competition remain the same? Are they subsidized by the government somehow?
So many reasons why a utility company could be more profitable, they should explain the connection between the monitoring and profitability, otherwise someone can probably show you evidence that switching brands of office coffee increase profitability 200%.
Ask anyone on hormone replacement therapy what happens when they skip a dose or mix up the dosage. Depression, headaches, migraines, suicidal thoughts etc.
Not something you want the entire society to experience.
The general public has not consented to poorly-understood, poorly-controlled hormone therapy.
Most of us are already nonviolent, so the proposed decrease in violence isn't even possible for us. The only net effect, therefore, is likely negative.
It's kind of like saying that a minority of men have a testosterone deficiency, so let's put it in the water supply. Doesn't it sound more insane when formulated that way?
This is as much a statement about psychology than about biology, and what the definitions of "good" and "bad" are. Us paying more attention to potential negative consequences than positive ones is an example of loss aversion, and the resulting pressure to repress change (because negative changes get more airtime than positive one) is an example of status quo bias. They're often rational from the POV of an individual - you exist by virtue of being well-adapted to the present environment, and so any change in the environment is more likely to harm your own fitness function than individuals who do not yet exist - yet they're irrational from the POV of the system, where you would expect good and bad changes to occur in equal numbers and individuals who are no longer suited to the current environment to be replaced by ones who are.
Come to think of it, this may be behind the observed effect where any radical technical innovation or societal change that happens in your teens and twenties is an awesome opportunity to be capitalized on, while any such change that happens in your thirties or later is a threat to the natural order of things. In your late 20s and early 30s you typically make (nearly) irrevocable commitments in life that are the best adaptations you have to the world as it exists then; any change that happens afterwards will relatively benefit younger people who have not made such commitments more than it will benefit you. For biological changes the benefits are shifted even earlier: any change in the environment that affects relative survival rates will benefit people yet to be born more than people already born, because the latter have already won the evolutionary lottery while the future winners among the former still face selection pressure.
7-UP soda used to be lithiated and there have been proposals to add lithium to drinking water (mood stabilizer). People have suggested that fluoride in drinking water can achieve the same. Of course testosterone levels have been cut in half among comparable men over the last 20 years. So endocrine disruptors in our environment are something to look into.
22% decrease in total and 45% decrease in bioavailable testosterone (the more important metric)
What is interesting is that this is news to you.
You would think the media would bring this important news to people's attention. It is as if things are being subtly filtered.
Although it's quite the SF trope, I can't imagine how it's plausible. Simple careless greed is the most likely reason.
Just imagine how much crime would go down if everyone was too chill to steal or murder!
Yes, there's a chance. But, if history is any guide, not a good one.
I think if nicotine were discovered for the first time today it would be considered a wonder drug.
If you want more focus etc, there are better drugs than nicotine these days.