During the debate on Thursday, someone mentioned that apotemnophilia would be a disorder because removing a limb doesn’t make sense in terms of evolution (how could removing a limb make you more “fit” or better your chances for survival?) Initially, I thought this argument was a little. Of course in our evolutionary past, we needed all four limbs, but we aren’t hunting for food or running away from predators anymore. Who cares if you’re missing a leg and move a little slower?
Then on Friday, I was discussing how we humans living in the United States no longer need the rennin-angiotensin system. Of course there was a time when we did need it and in some parts of the world there are people who still do. So that’s when I realized that my initial reaction to the comment made during the debate may have been misguided. This took me back to Pinker’s article that we read. Specifically around page three where he disputes the Blank Slate and brings up the also no longer needed human desire/taste for sugar and fat. So if I’m viewing the need for limbs in a similar way, while we don’t HAVE to have all of our limbs, as far as evolutionary psychology is concerned it is abnormal to not want/have all of your limbs and therefore apotemnophilia is a disorder as defined during the debate.
So now I am looking apotemnophilia as a “disorder”, continuing to reread Pinker’s dispute of the Blank Slate, and wondering if there has ever been a pair of twins in which one of the individuals has apotemnophilia and one does not. My problem now is: where do you draw the line between normal and abnormal? Is there a clear cut way to divide the spectrum between really having this “disorder” to just having some sort of fetish? If we evolutionarily should be attracted to people who have all of their limbs is it also abnormal to be attracted to amputees? If we are treating apotemnophilia, should we be treating acrotomophilia too? Is there a genetic or neuroscientific way to show whether a person has this disorder?
When if comes to biopolitics, I like to think that people have a right to their own bodies and I am generally not one to “‘yuck’ someone else’s ‘yum’”. If some one wants to (and has the money to) have eye surgery just because they want to see better, go for it. If someone is attracted to amputees, that’s fine with me too. At the same time, if someone wants to have their leg removed, understands the consequences, and can afford to have surgery, I'm not going to be the one to stop them. I guess my main issue of this debate is where the disorder line is drawn and what that means as far as treatment goes and who gets/needs treatment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
" If we evolutionarily should be attracted to people who have all of their limbs is it also abnormal to be attracted to amputees? "
ReplyDeleteI think it is statistically abnormal to be particularly attracted to amputees - in that, a minority of the population has this particular fetish. Though I do think that our higher-order thinking processes allow us to be attracted to people for complex reasons. So, I would suggest that a larger population of people would be fine with dating an amputee than the population of people who particularly fetishize them.
Evolutionary psychology is really a fun food for thought - but if you are looking for a way to find scientific certainty, that isn't the place. Scientists like Pinker like to posit rational evolutionary psych theories but the vast majority of these positions are untestable and therefore not scientific.
'abnormal' and 'disordered' are, in my opinion, not equatable. Just being 'different' isn't enough to get pegged as disordered. Someone has to decide that the way in which you are different presents some form of harm to yourself or to society. This is inherent in the diagnostic criteria for 'disorder'.
If the governing system enforced rules on who we were allowed to mate, then arguably anyone with a mating preference that didn't follow these rules could be branded 'disordered' - but probably they would just be called criminals instead?
well i think something can be ad-normal and a fetish at the same time.i mean since society decides what is and what is not "normal", if the majority of the population is finds it when then it still is classified as a disorder. Like some words the word disorder has been skewed to fit into an insult.
ReplyDeleteHumans still need four limbs in my opinion. Although the world has evolved to a point where people with physical disabilities can move( wheelchairs, scooters, etc), the world still relays heavily on the ability to use four limbs. i mean these wheelchairs dont build and design themselves, and i cant really think of a reason where having three limbs instead of four would be beneficial.
In my opinion, evolutionary biology isn't really a valid argument for this case. Humans aren't really evolving. If you look up the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium model (basically a set of requirements of evolution) not a whole lot of those apply to humans as a whole.
ReplyDeleteYou're right - we don't really need all four limbs because most peoples' reproductive statuses are not determined by speed or fighting skill anymore.
I'm guessing the line between normal and abnormal has to do with bell curves and upper and lower quadrants and percentiles and whatnot. But how important is normal/abnormal anyway?
Whether it's a disorder or not doesn't seem to matter, if people with the condition are not looking for assistance in dealing with it. From what I see, the disorder debate only matters in academia and insurance.
edit: Humans aren't really evolving anymore. This is not to say that we never have undergone evolution.
ReplyDeleteI would argue that humans are indeed evolving. If our species manages to survive several hundreds of thousands or years more (how likely?), we will probably find some significant differences. But to think that the loss of limbs will at some time become an advantage seems pretty unlikely.
ReplyDeleteIf we are indeed evolving, then does the question of "where the disorder line is drawn" become even more complicated? That is, are the 'conventions' that guide our diagnosis of disorder in need of a complete overhaul because we don't really need our arms anymore?
ReplyDeleteIt seems that this might be the case, because of the grasp that Art Frank's protectionist bioethics have on our consciousness - the commercialization of this whole discussion is so ingrained in our culture that it attempts to de-legitimize all arguments which attempt to take an outside look at the entire design (an approach given a fancy name of Socratic Bioethics)...
Still, looking at redesign in all facets of societal function sounds deliciously refreshing, and might have just convinced me of ongoing evolution.
edit: via Art Franks' breakdown of "protectionist bioethics," not his own use of them. obviously.
ReplyDelete