I can't quite remember how I stumbled upon this first link to the neurotechnology blog 'Brain Stimulant':
Magnifying Taste Pleasure by Neuromodulation. The post begins by discussing the possibilities for enhancing the pleasure derived from one's experience of taste; not by making better food, but through neuromodulation ("
the alteration of nerve activity through the delivery of electrical stimulation or chemical agents to targeted sites of the body." International Neuromodulation Society) and the study of taste hedonics (the affective response to food, of liking it or feeling pleasure).
My first thought about all of this is - WHY? As the article discusses, we already modify and amplify our pleasure derived from food every day - without microchip implants. Besides, does this not mask the real problem? You know, a lack of well-grown and prepared food?
But then I got to thinking... this could have huge implications, both positive and negative. I must admit that it makes me uncomfortable to think of people who would not otherwise enjoy a specific food or flavour, ultimately being able to over-ride their displeasure with pharmaceutical drugs or biotechnology. Instead of the usual response of "UGHuaghh! This is awful!," someone could experience potentially extreme pleasure by simply activating an implanted microchip that stimulates particular receptors or releases drugs to simulate enjoyment. On the other hand, it interests me greatly to think of possibilities to increase the maximum threshold for pleasure from tasting and what it can tell us about how our sense of taste and smell work everyday.
So, for the fun of it, and with very limited knowledge of the technology, I put together a list of three potential future uses for magnifying or modifying taste pleasure by neuromodulation, either gleaned from Brain Stimulant or conjured myself:
1. We would be able to amplify, normalize or otherwise modify the experience of those who have handicaps, diseases, injuries or those with taste-related organs declining in efficacy due to age. In a
previous post on our sense of taste, I had linked to an article on smell and taste disorders, which had a long list of potential 'taste disturbances'. Perhaps some of those affected by a disturbance due to neurodegeneration could experience pleasure from taste again or 'normally' for the first time. It could serve a rehabilitative function, easing those with eating disorders or taste disturbances from mouth cancer or burns back into a regular diet regime and temporarily simulate an enjoyment of food after they have been 'turned off' of certain foods or food in general.
As I said above, part of me thinks this is like over-riding the system. What I mean is that for those with neurological disorders or degeneration this is could be directly applicable, because it takes care of the part that is missing - the chemical response in the brain which makes us feel pleasure toward tasting things we like. For those without flavourful food to eat or those with damage to their nose or mouth, this type of solution side-steps the root problem. Would it be that you do not experience things as more flavourful, but you would be happier about tasting whatever it is you are tasting?
I am unsure how much our sensation of flavour and the sensation of feeling good from a flavour is differentiated in our experiences. If we are able to have taste must we also be having pleasure (or displeasure) of that taste? Is it more like a reward system, where pleasure is coupled to certain tastes, depending on the individual? This would mean they are separate phenomenon and is the intuitive way of breaking down the experience. Would people who have no ability to taste due to nasal or oral damage feel this as a fully-simulated pleasure, seemingly out of nowhere? Like taking a sip of water and then being eerily ecsatic about how it tastes? The flavour of the water has not improved, nor has your ability to taste, however your subjective response to the water has been. As Brain Stimulant says, "
the chip could be specifically designed to artificially induce extreme taste qualia that would be uncoupled from any sort of eating."
Another part of me thinks that it may not matter to us that it would be an over-ride or simulated affect. For those who have diminished ability to taste, the simulated affect may not be apparent, like when we drink alcohol or smoke marijuana and things seem to objectively taste better, even though the things in themselves and our sensory organs that interact with them have not been improved (discussed further below).
2. We could make healthy foods seem to 'taste better' in order to encourage the enjoyment of healthy foods by those less inclined, for whatever reason. For example, Little Jimmy hates vegetables. Switch on his taste-pleasure microchip when you need him to eat those damned brussel sprouts and he'll enjoy them beyond belief, while obtaining their nutritional value. That example is awful, since it involves coercion, but some people may voluntarily wish to enjoy healthy foods that they genuinely experience as not tasting good (picky eaters out on a date?). I don't believe this should be necessary in any society, however the way people eat today... maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing. Again, this solution side-steps the root problem for some, which is the cost, availability, time and know-how involved in preparing food that is nutritional and flavourful.
3. The last possible use that I can foresee is twofold: we increase or decrease our maximum potential for pleasure from taste, perhaps allowing us to better understand how taste functions normally and experience taste in a way inconceivable by current standards, but also put ourselves at risk for recreational uses of the technology which could exacerbate food addictions to a point equally inconceivable today. People could become addicted to the enhanced pleasure from food or begin to consume things that are traditionally considered inedible, all due to the use, or misuse, of such technology.
It's not that just traditionally 'bad tasting' foods, or challenging flavours could easily become delectable by inducing pleasure, but things that are not healthy to eat, as well as things that we are really not supposed to eat, could become tolerable, yet unhealthy or even poisonous. Not only would brussel sprouts taste better, but how about cat litter? You want that to taste good? Sure, why not. There may be no way to differentiate when the chip is switched on. There is a reason certain things taste terrible - they might kill us and we evolved to not like them.
One more example - let's pretend that you absolutely love the duck-a-l'orange from that bistro around the corner, and it has a sauce with a special twist you still haven't been able to figure out. If you can believe it, you could love it a hell of a lot more if you had a taste-related pleasure-magnifying/simulating chip implanted. However, I am not sure whether this technology would stifle your attempt to pick out the 'twist' to the sauce or if it would allow you to perceive flavour better, thereby finally allowing you to figure out that sauce. On the one hand, increasing your pleasure may increase your attention to the flavour. On the other hand, it may leave you awash in reverie over a little taste. I think of these two possibilities are exemplified by cases such as being stimulated by a drug, song, film or sex. Sometimes the pleasure from sensory input can have the effect of causing you to see and understand material in a new and invigorating way with full attention. Other times it gets your mind worked up enough that the content of what you're perceiving loses it's status as the primary focus of your attention as you get lost in a wave of pleasure.
Finally, is it true that we would be collectively at a greater risk for food addictions than we are now? As I said previously, we already modify and amplify our perception of taste and pleasure. As BrainStimulant notes, we drink beer with our shitty pizza, it tastes great. We smoke a doobie with our shitty pizza, it tastes great. There is also the basic drive for food - we need it and are wired to seek it out, as well as specific flavours - fat, sugar, etc. If we were to amp up our pleasure systems, it seems as though we could make all foods literally irresistible. The next post however,
Brain Stimulant: Is the Pleasure Molecule Dopamine?, may make you think otherwise, as it touches on the discussion of pleasure and desire, outlining what neurotransmitters and receptors are involved in the pleasure experienced from taste.
The article starts by questioning whether or not dopamine is involved in pleasure. Apparently, pleasure and desire may be separate phenomena. Dopamine is responsible for our desire (and therefore addictive behaviour), while the mu-opioid and endocannabinoid receptors are responsible for taste pleasure. It is claimed that dopamine plays a minimal role in our experience of pleasure from taste sensation. If this is true, we could selectively enhance our brain chemistry for pleasure, and circumvent desire, which forces us to engage in addictions. As stated above, we already act on these receptors today with marijuana and alcohol, and we can even see the obverse effect demonstrated in amphetamine and cocaine use, which are heavy on dopamine. Although we must note that alcohol is addictive - like heroin, our opioid and dopamine receptors are involved (but here I trail off because these drugs are not exclusive in the receptors they affect and complicate the picture unnecessarily). For the most part, it seems that things that are tasty, are not necessarily addictive, especially since they avoid the desirous dopamine. The problem of food addiction is much more complex than this, as we derive pleasure in a less simplistic way, in which memories come into play and the role of hunger and its mechanisms complicate the matter even more.
So what does this all amount to? Sadly, I'm not really sure, and what I am certain about is that it is something beyond my realm of knowledge in physiology, neuroscience, and philosophy.
