In recent years biologists have discovered that every animal species which they studied -- from flower beetles through rabbits to baboons -- is equipped with instinctive behaviour-patterns which put a brake on excessive breeding, and keep the population-density in a given territory fairly constant, even when food is plentiful. When the density exceeds a certain limit, crowding produces stress-symptoms which affect the hormonal balance; rabbits and deer begin to die off from 'adrenal stress' without any sign of epidemic disease; the females of rats stop caring for their young, which perish, and abnormal sexual behaviour makes its appearance. Thus the ecological equilibrium in a given area is maintained not only by the relative distribution of animals, plants and micro-organisms, of predators and prey, but also by a kind of intra-specific feedback mechanism which adjusts the rate of breeding so as to keep the population at a stable level. The population of a given species in a given territory behaves in fact as a self-regulating social holon, governed by the instinctive canons of 'keeping distance' and maintaining average density.
But in this respect man is again unique -- except perhaps for the suicidal lemmings. It seems almost as if in human populations the ecological rule were reversed: the more crowded they are in slums, ghettoes and poverty-stricken areas, the faster they breed. In the past, the stabilising factor was not the type of feedback mechanism which regulates the rate of breeding in animals, but the death-harvests of war, pestilence and infant mortality. However, already in biblical days, as we learn from the story of Onan, man compensated to some extent for the absence of instinctive breeding-controls by voluntary birth-control through coitus interruptus and other practices. Then, a century ago, when Louis Pasteur initiated the 'take-off' of the population curve, Charles Goodyear, rubber manufacturer and inventor (after whom the famous tyre company is named) invented the first artificial contraceptives. The modern methods of birth-control by intra-uterine coils and oral contraceptives represent a much more radical tampering with Nature on a more vital level. They interfere in a permanent (and yet by all indications non-injurious) manner with the physiological processes governing the oestrual cycle. Applied on a world-wide scale -- as they must be if the impending catastrophe is to be prevented, they would amount to an artificially simulated, adaptive mutation.
Our species became a biological freak when somewhere on the way it lost the instinctual controls which in animals regulate the rate of breeding. It can only survive by inventing methods which imitate evolutionary mutation. We can no longer hope that Nature will provide the corrective remedy. We must provide it ourselves.
Prometheus Unhinged
Mutatis mutandis, can we invent a similar remedy for the schizophysiology of our nervous system, for the paranoid streak in man which made such an appalling mess of our history? And' not only of the history of homo sapiens, but apparently of his near-human predecessors as well. Let us go back to Lorenz:
Obviously instinctive behaviour mechanisms failed to cope with the new circumstances which culture unavoidably produced even at its very dawn. There is evidence that the first inventors of pebble tools, the African Australopithecines, promptly used their new weapons to kill not only game, but fellow members of their species as well. Peking Man, the Prometheus who learned to preserve fire, used it to roast his brothers: beside the first traces of the regular use of fire lie the mutilated and roasted bones of Sinanthropus Pekinenis himself. [14]
The Promethean myth has acquired an ugly twist: the giant reaching out to steal the lightning from the gods is insane. By all indications the trouble started with the sudden mushrooming of the neocortex at a rate 'unprecedented in evolutionary history' (p. 273). If we compress the whole history of life on earth, from its beginnings some 2,000 million yean ago to the present, into a single day from midnight to midnight, then the age of mammals would begin about 11 p.m.; and the evolution from Pithecantropus (Java ape-man) to Homo sapiens -- that is, the evolution of the human neocortex--would have taken place in the last forty-five seconds. The growth of the cortex, too, followed an exponential curve. Is it unreasonable to assume that at this explosive rate of the brain's development, which so widely overshot its mark, something may have gone wrong? More precisely, that the lines of communication between the very old and the brand-new structures were not developed sufficiently to guarantee their harmonious interplay, the hierarchic co-ordination of instinct and intelligence. Remembering the mistakes which occurred in the evolution of earlier versions of nervous systems -- the arthropod brain choking its alimentary canal, the marsupial brain without adequate connections between the right and left hemispheres -- we cannot help suspecting that something similar may have happened to us; and the combined evidence from neurophysiology, psychopathology and human history seems to support this hypothesis.
The neurophysiological evidence indicates, as we have seen, a dissonance between the reactions of ncocortex and limbic system. Instead of functioning as integral parts in a hierarchic order, they lead a kind of agonised coexistence. To revert to an earlier metaphor: the rider has never gained complete control of the horse, and the horse asserts its whims in the most objectionable ways. We have also seen that the horse -- the limbic system -- has direct access to the emotion-generating, viscerally orientated centres in the hypothalamus; but the rider has no direct access to them. Moreover, the stirrups and reins by which the rider is meant to control the horse are inadequate. To quote MacLean once more: 'On the basis of neuronographic studies there appear to be no extensive associational connections between the limbic and the neocortex.'* There is no anatomical evidence for the intricate 'loops within loops' of feedbacks, of the delicate interplay of excitation and inhibition, which characterises the nervous system in general. 'Both horse and man are very much alive to one another and to their environment, yet communication between them is limited. Both derive information and act upon it in a different way. [15]
* The article continues: 'This would indicate that the two depend almost entirely on vertical, rather than horizontal, lines of communication. The so-called diffuse projection system of the diencephalon offers one such possible relating system, but the evidence in this regard is still conflicting. There is ample justification, however, for assuming another system of connections through the reticular system of the midbrain. This part of the brain, which has been shown by Magoun and others to be essential to a state of wakefulness, has been found electrophysiologically to bear a reciprocal relationship to both the limbic and the neo- cortex. In addition there is anatomical and electrophysiological evidence that the central gray, which lies as a core within this reticulum and which plays a dynamogenous role in emotion, is related to the archicortex.' [15] This is what one means by 'inadequate' co-ordination.
Here, then, is the anatomical substratum of the 'divided house of faith and reason' whose tenants are condemned to live in a state of 'controlled schizophrenia' -- as the atomic spy Klaus Fuchs described it.
To go on preaching sweet reason to an inherently unreasonable species is, as history shows, a fairly hopeless enterprise. Biological evolution has let us down; we can only hope to survive if we develop techniques which supplant it by inducing the necessary changes in human nature. We may be able to prevent the demotic apocalypse by interfering with woman's oestrous cycle. We cannot cure our paranoic disposition by putting additional wiring circuits into our brains. But we may be able to achieve a cure, or at least a significant improvement, by directing research into the required channels.
Mutating into the Future
In 1961 the University of California San Francisco Medical Center organised a symposium on "Control of the Mind." At the first session, Professor Holger Hydén of Goeteborg University made headlines in the San Francisco press, although the title of his highly technical paper -- 'Biochemical Aspects of Brain Activity' -- was hardly designed to appeal to the popular press. Hydén is one of the leading authorities in that field.* The passage which created the sensation is quoted below (the reference to me is explained by the fact t
hat I was a participant of the symposium):
In considering the problem of control of the mind, the data give rise to the following question: would it be possible to change the fundamentals of emotion by inducing molecular changes in the biologically active substances in the brain? The RNA, in particular, is the main target for such a speculation, since a molecular change of the RNA may lead to a change in the proteins being formed. ** One may phrase the question in different words to modify the emphasis: do the experimental data presented here provide means to modify the mental state by specifically induced chemical changes? Results pointing in that direction have been obtained; this work was carried out using a substance called tricyano-aminopropene. . . . The application of a substance changing the rate of production and composition of RNA and provoking enzyme changes in the functional units of the central nervous system has both negative and positive aspects. There is now evidence that the administration of tricyano-aminopropene is followed by an increased suggestibility in man. This being the case, a defined change of such a functionally important substance as the RNA in the brain could be used for conditioning. The author is not referring specifically to tricyano-aminopropene, but to any substance inducing changes of biologically important molecules in the neurons and the glia and affecting the mental state in a negative direction. It is not dilficult to imagine the possible uses to which a government in a police-controlled state could put this substance. For a time they would subject the population to hard conditions. Suddenly the hardship would be removed, and at the same time, the substance would be added to the tap water and the mass-communications media turned on. This method would be much cheaper, and would create more intriguing possibilities, than to let Ivanov treat Rubashov individually for a long time, as Koestler described in his book. On the other hand, a counter-measure against the effect of a substance such as tricyano-aminopropene is not difficult to imagine either. [16] * The model of the neuron on the jacket of this volume is by Hydén. ** Ribosenucleic acid, a key substance in the genetic apparatus.
Leaving technical details aside, the implications are clear. Like any other human science, biochemistry can serve the powers of light or of darkness. Its dangers are terrifying; but we are now concerned with its beneficial possibilities. Let me quote another pertinent passage from Dean Saunders, of the San Francisco Medical School, at the "Control of the Mind" symposium:
The great technological skill and ingenuity of the modern chemist has provided the medical scientist and the physician with an abundant array of new chemical compounds of varying and diverse structure which influence the central nervous system to distort, accelerate, or depress the mental state and behavioural characteristics of the individual. The conference emphasised that many of these chemical agents possess a highly selective action on particular and discrete parts of the nervous system -- so much so as to permit from an examination of their actions in man and animals an arrangement in order and rank. Those chemical agents thus offer, by a consideration of the relationships between chemical structure and biological action, the possibility of providing a vast array of drugs influencing the specific activity of the brain. Indeed, since such agents may either potentiate or attenuate one another, exhibit overlap in their actions, and demonstrate polarity in their effects on the brain, the very strong possibility is suggested of a full spectrum of chemical agents which can be used for the control of the mind in the majority of its activities.
. . . Here at our disposal, to be used wisely or unwisely, is an increasing array of agents that manipulate human beings. . . . It is now possible to act directly on the individual to modify his behaviour instead of, as in the past, indirectly through modification of the environment. This, then, constitutes a part of what Aldous Huxley has called 'The Final Revolution'. . . . [17]
I must comment on the last paragraph in this quotation. Huxley was haunted by the fear that this 'Final Revolution', brought about by the combined effect of drugs and the mass media, could create 'within a generation or so for entire societies a sort of painless concentration camp of the mind, in which people will have lost their liberties in the enjoyment of a dictatorship without tears'. [18] In other words, the state of affairs described in Brave New World. As an antidote, Huxley advocated the use of mescalin and other psychodelic drugs, to guide us along the eightfold path towards cosmic consciousness, mystic enlightenment and artistic creativity.
I have been for a long time an admirer of Huxley's personality and work, but in his last years I profoundly disagreed with him; and the points of disagreement will help to clarify the issue.
In Heaven and Hell, praising the benefits of mescalin, Huxley offered this advice to modern man in search of his soul: 'knowing as he does . . . what are the chemical conditions of transcendental experience, the aspiring mystic should turn for technical help to the specialists in pharmacology, in biochemistry, in physiology and neurology. . . .'
Now this is precisely what I do not mean by the positive uses of psychopharmacology. In the first place, experimenting with mescalin or with LSD 25 does involve serious risks. But quite apart from this, it is fundamentally wrong, and naive, to expect that drugs can present the mind with gratis gifts -- put into it something which is not already there. Neither mystic insights, nor philosophic wisdom, nor creative power can be provided by pill or injection. The psycho-pharmacist cannot add to the faculties of the brain -- but he can, at best, eliminate obstructions and blockages which impede their proper use. He cannot aggrandise us -- but he can, within limits, normalise us; he cannot put additional circuits into the brain, but he can, again within limits, improve the co-ordination between existing ones, attenuate conflicts, prevent the blowing of fuses, and ensure a steady power supply. That is all the help we can ask for -- but if we were able to obtain it, the benefits to mankind would be incalculable; it would be the 'Final Revolution' in a sense opposite to Huxley's -- the break-through from maniac to man.
The 'we' in the previous sentence is not meant to refer to patients in the psychiatric ward or on the therapist's couch. Psychopharmacology will no doubt play an increasing part in the treatment of mental disorders in the clinical sense*; but that is not the point. What we are concerned with is a cure for the paranoic streak in what we call normal people, i.e., mankind as a whole: an artificially simulated, adaptive mutation to bridge the rift between the phylogenetically old and new brain, between instinct and intellect, emotion and reason. If it is within our reach to increase man's suggestibility, it will be soon within our reach to do the opposite, to counteract misplaced devotion and that militant enthusiasm, both murderous and suicidal, which we see reflected in the pages of the daily newspaper. The most urgent task of biochemistry is the search for a remedy in the 'increasing range', as Saunders put it, 'of the spectrum of chemical agents which can be used for the control of the mind'. It is not utopian to believe that it can and will be done. Our present tranquillisers, barbiturates, stimulants, anti-depressants and combinations thereof, are merely a first step towards a more sophisticated range of aids to promote a co-ordinated, harmonious state of mind. Not the unruffled ataraxia sought by the Stoics, not the ecstasy of the dancing dervish, nor the Pop-Nirvana created by Huxley's 'soma' pills -- but a state of dynamic equilibrium in which thought and emotion are re-united, and hierarchic order is restored.
* As this book goes to press, the American journal, Archives of General Psychiatry, reports experiments at Tulane University which suggest the possibility of a chemical cure for schizophrenia (Gould, D., 'An Antibody in Schizophrenics'. London: New Scientist, 2.2.1967.)
A Plea to the Phantom Reader
I am aware that 'control of the mind' and 'manipulating human beings' have sinister undertones. Who is to control the controls, manipulate the manipulators? Assuming that we succeed in synthetising a hormone which acts as a mental stabiliser on the lines indicated -- how are we to propagate its global use to induce that beneficial mutation? Are we to ram it down people's throats, or put it into the tap water?
/> The answer seems obvious. No legislation, no compulsory measures were needed to persuade Greeks and Romans to partake of 'the juice of the grape that gives joy and oblivion'. Sleeping pills, pep pills, tranquillisers have, for better or worse, spread across the world with a minimum of publicity or official encouragement. They have spread because people liked their effect, and even accepted unpleasant or harmful after-effects. A mental stabiliser would produce neither euphoria, nor sleep, nor mescalin visions, nor cabbage-like equanimity -- it would in fact have no noticeably specific effect, except promoting cerebral co-ordination and harmonising thought and emotion; in other words, restore the integrity of the split hierarchy. Its use would spread because people like feeling healthy rather than unhealthy in body or mind. It would spread as vaccination has spread, and contraception has spread, not by coercion but by enlightened self-interest.
The first noticeable result would perhaps be a sudden drop in the crime and suicide rate in certain regions and social groups where the new Pill became fashionable. From here on the developments are as unpredictable as the consequences of James Watt's or Pasteur's discoveries had been. Some Swiss canton might decide, after a public referendum, to add the new substance to the chlorine in the water supply,* for a trial period, and other countries might follow their example. Or there might be an international fashion among the young, replacing weirdy-beards and purple hearts. In one way or the other, the mutation would get under way.