4 ms·

It is a bit weird that doctors are only supposed to prescribe these drugs for medical conditions and not enhancement. If the effects are beneficial and the drug

• dsplittgerber 17y ago
  Because our society has not debated the consequences of cognitive enhancement, and we are worse off for it. There are moral arguments for and against enhancement, but the way it currently is prohibited, yet tolerated (nearly everyone who really wants to can game the prescription requirement), is the worst way to handle it. So why not allow healthy people to take it? Because it distorts the competition - not who studied the most wins, but he who enhanced himself best. If you allow some enhancement, why not others forms? What about artificial limbs for athletes? Where does enhancement stop? What about everyone then feeling pressured to enhance themselves to still be able to compete, if they want to or not?
  • deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
    • dsplittgerber 17y ago
      I concur. If I were at Harvard Law School or someplace similar, where supposedly 1/3+ of a class take cognitive enhancement drugs, I'd really try to start a ruckus about it. Either expressly allow it or prohibit it effectively (require signing a form allowing the school to revoke your JD in case someone can proove you took drugs etc.; any way to increase the moral tresholds for taking them; ethics courses and honor codes obviously don't work). Alas, ignoring the problem and thereby severly distorting the outcome of any mental competition is what's going to happen for the next decade.
  • AngryParsley 17y ago
    I'd say the status quo is bad but not the worst. It would be better if cognitive-enhancing drugs were available for anyone who wanted them. It would be worse if using drugs for cognitive enhancement was illegal. I don't think the sports analogy maps. Sports are artificial competitions and usually zero-sum. Commerce is cooperative. Intelligent individuals often benefit the less lucky. They invent new technologies that end up helping everyone. If you allow some enhancement, why not others forms? My sentiments exactly. What about artificial limbs for athletes? I guess that would be the Paralympics, but I don't have a problem with it. Cyborg kickboxing sounds more interesting than any modern day event. Where does enhancement stop? Hmm... matrioshka brains I guess. Although I'm willing to compromise and limit people to Jupiter brains. What about everyone then feeling pressured to enhance themselves to still be able to compete, if they want to or not? The same can be said for getting a college degree or some other kind of certification. Yes, people feel bad when they have low status, but the benefits of enhancement technologies outweigh the costs. I'd rather live in a world where Einsteins were 1 in 10. That world would have a better chance of solving humanity's problems.
  • bmj 17y ago
    Why talk about artificial limbs for athletes? There is a long list of banned substances, and there is no limit to the number of arguments you can find for and against the use of PEDs (Performance Enhancing Drugs) in sports.
  • jamesbritt 17y ago
    "What about artificial limbs for athletes? Where does enhancement stop?" Sports is all about artificial restrictions. Not just banning drugs, but banning certain moves and behavior. That's what makes it a sport, and not real life. The idea is to see what people do under controlled conditions. Now, exactly what those restrictions should be is a useful question. But the existence of restrictions in sports is a given, by definition. "What about everyone then feeling pressured to enhance themselves to still be able to compete, if they want to or not?" That's how it's always been. Modern drugs are new, but the idea of self-modification to improve one's lot in life is not. Dressing better, having a better build, being more handsome or beautiful, being (or seeming) smarter; all quite historic pursuits. The world's a better place for it, overall.
• xtho 17y ago
  Because the job of a medical doctor is to treat people who are ill. Unless you have enough money to hire a personal assistant for biophysical issues.
  • joeyo 17y ago
    The job of a doctor is to treat people who are ill because the job of a doctor is to treat people who are ill? Welcome to tautology club.
    • Calamitous 17y ago
      The first rule of Tautology Club is: The first rule of Tautology Club. http://xkcd.com/703/ http://xkcd.com/703/
    • Locke1689 17y ago
      I think that the job of a doctor is defined to be treating people who are ill. If you want to change the definition that's fine, but you need to make an argument for that.
• sker 17y ago
  Because the bible says that you cannot take anything that alters your behavior or your body, something like that, and that has been inherited through centuries even if it's not cited as the main reason, but it is the source of the war on drugs. Millennia old beliefs are the source of many current traditions held by society (specially drugs and sex related). I would love for someone to prove me wrong or at least state otherwise.
  • decode 17y ago
    "the bible says that you cannot take anything that alters your behavior or your body" I think most people wouldn't take such an interpretation of the Bible, but even if you did, your explanation doesn't line up with current societal mores. There are many mind and body altering substances that are not only tolerated, but celebrated. Almost all of modern Western medicine is based on introducing substances or therapies to the body that alter the mind or body. Everything from cold medicine to antibiotics alters the body. There are also numerous mind-altering substances used, such as narcotics, anesthetics, anti-psychotics, and anti-depressants. All of these are fully embraced by the vast majority of people, as well as the medical establishment. But even if we stay away from medicine, there are plenty of examples of accepted mind-altering recreational substances. Nicotine, caffeine, and alcohol are the most obvious, but there are many other less severe substances (look at the ingredients on some energy drinks). By and large, the use of all of these substances is accepted. If it were simply the case that cultural history prevented society from accepting mind-altering substances, none of the above would be accepted. The explanation must be more complicated.
  • uber0ne 17y ago
    For there is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so. Hamlet I live by that verse.
  • deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
• ido 17y ago
  A lot (most? all?) of these drugs are habit forming and have serious side effects.
  • _delirium 17y ago
    It's also not at all clear whether their long-term effect will be positive for any particular person, or how to predict it. A large portion are basically milder versions of amphetamines, without nearly as many of the really bad side effects. But they fundamentally do the same thing, upping short-term energy and concentration. One common issue is that people fall into on/off work patterns: you're taking the enhancer and working like mad, or, when you're not, you're totally checked out. There are a lot of kinds of intellectual work for which oscillating between 110% and 0% effort isn't really optimal, though. I think it's somewhat telling that the best success seems to be at high-pressure environments with fairly prescribed tasks, like law school.
  • AngryParsley 17y ago
    Modafinil has fewer side effects and is less habit forming than drugs such as caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol. In fact, modafinil is safer than caffeine: Basti and Jouvet (1988) describe a suicide attempt using 4500 mg of modafinil; the suicidee survived with no long-term effects but temporary nervousness, nausea, and insomnia. That's 45 doses of modafinil and she was fine afterwards. 45 times the typical dose of caffeine would be lethal. Sure, you can argue from ignorance about potential long-term effects, but that argument works for anything that wasn't invented before you were born. Based on the evidence we have now, modafinil appears quite safe. Edit: You are the first reply that didn't start with "because." You broke the pattern! >:(
    • deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
    • andreyf 17y ago
      What does being habit forming and having serious side effects have to do with media lethal dose? Just because you can take a lot of something without it killing you doesn't imply it's safe to take daily for extended periods of time.
• sailormoon 17y ago
  I take modafinil and I find it very useful. Modafinil is an essential tool in the arsenal of any active start-upper. Get it. If you are anything like me you will wonder how you got by without it, and I am not kidding.
  • staunch 17y ago
    Not that it makes you one, but just so you know: all drug addicts can't imagine how they got by, or would want to get by, without their drug of choice.
    • sailormoon 17y ago
      I do not think this is true at all. I've been addicted to drugs before (cigarettes) and I certainly was not happy with that. And I've flirted with alcohol addiction too. Again, that was hardly a positive situation I was comfortable with continuing. I've known others, too, addicted to stronger things. A friend of mine battled a speed addiction for a year. He could very much imagine getting by without it - in fact he quite desperately wanted to, he just couldn't. I would presume the same is true for many, if not most, addicts of heroin. Anyway, my understanding is that modafinil is not a drug of physiological addiction. It's a tool that one uses to overcome certain physical limitations, if and only if that is required. Think of it as a headache pill, but for tiredness. Certainly that is how I and everyone else I know who uses it views it.
  • radu_floricica 17y ago
    That's actually the best argument for the continued illegality of any enhancing drugs. Drugs _have_ side effects, and creating a situation in which people are compelled to take them ensures that at least some will suffer the consequences.
    • sailormoon 17y ago
      Your point is logically sound, but you're judging the (possible) consequences to the few as of inherently higher importance than the benefit to the many. You could say very much the same thing about alcohol - some people just can't handle it and should probably not be allowed to drink it, but you can't deny it to everyone else just because of that. Or we don't, anyway, with alcohol, for historical reasons.
• zaidf 17y ago
  Can you share more about your experiences with modafinil? Why did you begin taking it? How has it helped you?
  • AngryParsley 17y ago
    I forget where I first heard about it, but the idea of something better and safer than caffeine intrigued me. I take modafinil in the following circumstances: 1. If I feel particularly tired in the morning. 2. If I need to get a lot of stuff done in a short amount of time. 3. If I need to study or perform my best for others. (Mostly job interviews or important meetings.) On average, I end up taking it about twice a week. For me it's basically caffeine++. It helps me think faster and stay focused.
• GHFigs 17y ago
  If the effects are beneficial and the drug is safe... There is no drug in existence whose effects are purely and unarguably beneficial. The availability of drugs also has a social impact which goes beyond individual safety or efficacy. Of course, it's not hard to get a prescription if you want one. That's assuming you can afford the doctor and the drug and are willing to be a liar. Or if you're under 18, assuming your parents choose to "enhance" you and you choose to accept "enhancement".