

Brain Enhancement Is Wrong, Right?  - robg
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/weekinreview/09carey.html?ex=1362718800&en=753abf3a269f71c3&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

======
aflag
Academia is different from sports. Despite what many people may think,
academia and science are not a game. Your goal is not to be better than
someone, but to do good research. If you feel the need to take drugs and
you're willing to take its risks, then by all means do. It's not cheating.

Now, requiring people to use substances that might be bad for them is not a
good idea. People have to have the freedom to choose if they will take those
substances or not. Neither should be mandatory. The reason for this is that we
want people to be able to make their own decisions and do whatever pleases
them the most; may it be using drugs or not.

~~~
daniel-cussen
Good point. Academia is not a zero-sum game.

~~~
Alex3917
Knowledge is not a zero-sum game. Academia, not so much.

~~~
daniel-cussen
Very true. That's a lot more accurate.

------
tptacek
I offer no judgement, but note that if performance-enhancing drugs become the
norm in academia and industry, those who opt not to chemically alter (and
perhaps harm) themselves are obviously going to be marginalized.

That's why steroids are a problem in sports. It's not that kids "look up" to
Barry Bonds. It's that they're not stupid, and they quickly realize the only
way to succeed is to dope.

Staying up all night coding sounds awesome to me. Having 2x focus sounds
awesome. When research assures me I'm not going to be clinically depressed for
the remainder of my life as a result of medicating, I might even consider
taking pills for work. But I'll feel guilty about the future I'm creating for
my kids.

~~~
JulianMorrison
I would accept a world where you need enhancement to get ahead, for the same
reason I accept a world where you need a phone and a car to get ahead. Some
people may grumble, but everyone is better off.

~~~
tptacek
We'd all get a little bit further if child labor were allowed, too.

~~~
JulianMorrison
Personally I'd allow it. There's no huge sector of starving families as in the
19th century. Parents would let their kids take jobs - as work experience and
character formation. Plus it would divert the unteachables from an education
they merely disrupt.

I know, off topic, just tweaking your nose for such a primly self-righteous
response.

------
robg
I'm surprised no one's said it yet: Who says you're enhanced?

As far I know, few studies have shown actual improvement in mental or physical
performance without serious side effects. I think even the military, which has
studied both amphetamines and steroids, has found that the side effects far
outweigh the benefits.

As a big baseball fan, I think the current PED controversy is illustrative.
Many folks think they're getting a benefit and are willing to go to great
lengths for that edge. But it's not clear they're getting anything other than
an confidence boost. You wouldn't take the pill if you didn't think it would
work or is working. So you keep taking it.

I think the same is true of neurocosmetics. It easier to believe they work.
Still, I'd rather take a nap than a pill. And I'm more worried about
neuroimplants - in fifty years.

~~~
Tichy
I always ask myself: if substance X is supposedly so beneficial, why doesn't
the body manufacture it by itself? Or just creates the effect the drug is
supposed to create to begin with?

~~~
noonespecial
Perhaps it used to, and is broken now. Putting the chemical back is fixing it,
like a diabetic with insulin.

~~~
robg
No doubt this is true to an extent - some folks need the assist. But this
article is about much more than that. A diabetic doesn't take insulin to get
an edge in business or sports or academics.

~~~
noonespecial
If all the world were diabetic, the edge would be to the one with the insulin,
no?

------
__
Dr. Chatterjee: "The way this is likely to be framed is: 'Look, we want smart
people to be as productive as possible to make everybody's lives better. We
want people performing at the max, and if that means using these medicines,
then great, then we should be free to choose what we want as long as we're not
harming someone.' I'm not taking that position, but we have this winner-take-
all culture and that is the way it is likely to go."

Huh? "Winner-take-all culture"? This seems like a moral issue.

I suspect that a lot of human suffering -- or at least missed potential -- is
due to our cognitive biases and other mental shortcomings. I suspect there are
many leaders, inventors, and researchers who would improve the human condition
far more if they could think faster, remember better, and get tired less.
Fighting against a drug that could unleash this potential energy and save huge
numbers of lives seems immoral.

------
mhartl
It's worth noting that caffeine, in proper doses, enhances both physical and
mental performance. So be careful of the slippery slope: slide far enough down
and you'll kill your cappuccino.

~~~
anewaccountname
I've heard food can have the similar effects, let's ban that too.

------
Electro
I think the effects must be weighed. Is it wrong for a molecular biologist to
take drugs if it means he can invent a cure for cancer in 5 years instead of
20? I believe one person should be allowed to do whatever they want with their
body as long as it doesn't negatively effect other people, and in said example
he might die younger but he'll have saved around 114 million people from
death.

We're not talking about handing someone over to some evil aliens or they'll
murder 114 million innocents. We're talking about someone saying, "My death
will be worth saving 114 million people from an early death." I can't fault
someone choosing to do that.

------
wallflower
Reminds that marijuana is classified as a performance-enhancing drug by many
national (NBA) and multi-national sport governing boards

~~~
robg
I once had a Carribean taxi driver tell me that marijuana is the only drug
(there are some he probably hasn't tried) that you don't have to process or
change in any way. You can ingest it directly from the ground for the same
effects. Try that with caffeine, chocolate, tobacco, alcohol, cocaine, heroin,
etc. And of course, the psychotropics that "enhance" takes that processing to
a whole new level.

~~~
kingnothing
Heroin is processed opium. Opium comes from poppy seeds, and the processing
for that is minimal.

Cocaine is made from the coca plant; the leaves of which can be chewed raw for
a similar, but markedly weaker, effect.

I doubt tobacco has to be processed to be smoked.

Psilocybin mushrooms require no processing.

Peyote requires no processing.

Alcohol be found naturally from rotting, fermented fruit fallen from trees.
There's a video on Youtube of animals getting drunk from eating it.

I'm sure there are several other plants that will get you high that I'm
unaware of. Just thought I'd throw a little knowledge out there for anyone who
might be interested.

~~~
robg
I didn't say he was right! But it is an interesting observation, to me,
because he's mostly right, based on quantities.

Good luck collecting enough poppy seeds. Same deal on the coca leaves, but try
eating a mouthful. Same deal there on tobacco. The same logic applies to
caffeine, chocolate, and alcohol. The drug is extremely weak in it's natural
form so it requires a decent amount of work to get something really
psychoactive.

To him, you can simply pull a marijuana bud off a plant, like an apple from a
tree, and eat it for the full effect. That's quite a contrast.

Psilocybin and peyote apply but I don't think he's ever had the opportunity,
especially since they don't grow like a weed.

His point: Nature has done a pretty remarkable job providing for our physical
and mental health. Why muck with that?

~~~
delackner
Actually plain Coca leaves have been chewed for (insert very long time frame)
by people in its native areas for a variety of medicinal and performance
enhancing effects.

------
JulianMorrison
Of course it isn't. What a silly idea. Enhancement is always good, that's why
it's enhancement and not harm.

~~~
kirubakaran
Dude your profile is interesting. I have similar interests and similar
singularitarian ideas :-)

------
lutorm
If you read that article, you'd think that drugs are the only way to enhancing
brain performance... I enhance my brain all the time, but with exercise
instead of drugs.

The article seems to be based on the premise that unless you take drugs you
can't do anything about the performance of your brain, when there's a wealth
of research indicating otherwise. Maybe if people didn't have the
misconception that intelligence is something fixed and innate, they would
actually try to train their brain instead of taking drugs?

------
rms
Surprised no one has mentioned Erdos yet.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Erdős>

