3 ms·
> The end state is everyone taking drugs, and nobody being any better off academically. Will society be better off though? I mean, the same point can be made f
by luckylion 5y ago
> The end state is everyone taking drugs, and nobody being any better off academically.
Will society be better off though? I mean, the same point can be made for using any new technology. I use a computer so now you need to use a computer to stay competitive. Now we both use a computer, so we're at a stale mate once again. But we're both working much more efficiently on a much higher level, and society is definitely better off even if neither of us has any lasting advantage over the other.
Whether that's the case with academics and stimulants, I don't know. Would Paul Erdős have made the same contributions without stimulants? Would we be settling on Mars if everyone optimized for maximum brain output?
- chii 5y ago> the same point can be made for using any new technology. The difference is that some technology don't harm the user, while others do. Drugs tend to harm your biology, usually - that's why taking steroids isn't recommended. So is society willing to sacrifice (some people' s) health for such progress?
- luckylion 5y ago> So is society willing to sacrifice (some people' s) health for such progress? Strong yes. We accept health issues in shift workers, traffic deaths etc because of economic benefits. With moderate use, I don't think stimulants are having worse effects than that, and they have a much higher pay off. I have a vague feeling that the general rejection is similar to that regarding anti-depressants. People are much more hesitant to use drugs that target what we think of as "the mind" than anything else. Very few people refuse antibiotics, but many refuse to take anti-depressants.