Debate around brain enhancement drugs
At O'Reilly's Emerging Technology Conference last week, I hosted a panel on the future of "mind hacks," from cognitive fitness programs to smart drugs to neuro-implants. One of the panelists was Timo Hannay, publishing director of Nature.com, who talked about a recent heated debate taking place on the journal's site around the ethics of using brain drugs for wakefulness, focus, and other cognitive "enhancements." Nature is continuing that discussion with a public "brain boosting drugs" survey. Today's New York Times "Week In Review" takes a look at the controversy. From the New York Times:
“Suppose you’re preparing for the SAT, or going for a job interview — in those situations where you have to perform on that day, these drugs will be very attractive,” said Dr. Barbara Sahakian of Cambridge, a co-author with Sharon Morein-Zamir of the recent essay in Nature. “The desire for cognitive enhancement is very strong, maybe stronger than for beauty, or athletic ability.”Link to the New York Times, Link to Nature News and Opinion Forum, Link to "Brain Boosting Drugs Survey" (Thanks, Alvaro "SharpBrains" Fernandez!)
Jeffrey White, a graduate student in cell biology who has attended several institutions, said that those numbers sounded about right. “You can usually tell who’s using them because they can be angry, testy, hyperfocused, they don’t want to be bothered,” he said...
One person who posted anonymously on the Chronicle of Higher Education Web site said that a daily regimen of three 20-milligram doses of Adderall transformed his career: “I’m not talking about being able to work longer hours without sleep (although that helps),” the posting said. “I’m talking about being able to take on twice the responsibility, work twice as fast, write more effectively, manage better, be more attentive, devise better and more creative strategies.”
That last quote sounds like placebo side effects.
This doesn't make sense to me. If the brain works so much better with a bit more dopamine (with no side effects), then why isn't it that way in the first place?
I was diagnosed with ADD some time ago and I was prescribed Ritalin. I don't take it regularly since it doesn't seem to make much difference as far as my supposed ADD is concerned, but I have used it a few times when cramming overnight and it's great, much better than caffeine. But after using Ritalin this way to avoid sleeping, I'm pretty tired and I need a good night sleep to fully recover; it also tends to fuck up my mood. For these reasons I only use it as a last recourse. I don't see how someone could use it everyday and benefit unless they have a problem in the first place (i.e. ADHD).
I take omega3 fish oils & ginkgo. I'm not sure they qualify as enhancements as much as supplements giving me essential 'stuff' to make my brain work as it is supposed to rather than how it does on my junk diet.
"The fire that burns twice as bright burns only half as long . . ."
#1 has never taken 60mg amphetamine before!
It all sounds good until your body stops producing its own serotonin or some yet undiscovered neuropeptide that regulates a vital function. It seems pretty arrogant and risky to start adding chemicals when our knowledge of brain biology is so primitive. Given recent studies suggesting that some common antidepressants not only fail to alleviate depression, but make the patient worse, I'll take a pass on this one.
I just had a flashback to 1993, Mondo 2000, and nootropic bars...
to #6 - The big problem with anti depressants is that they are very easy to mis-subscribe. Like a lot of easy fix pills, they have loosely described symptoms that anyone can have. After all, who isn't stressed out, depressed or is tired from time to time? The worst thing is that a lot of these drugs that treat depression, or my favorite restless-leg-syndrome, have really bad side effects for people that stop taking them, so once you start you may never be able to stop.
All in all i'd be very skeptical about taking newly developed drugs until some serious long term studies are done on them.
Does anyone else have Jonathan Coulton's song "I Feel Fantastic" in their head after reading this? ;-)
"The steak tastes better when I take my Steak Tastes Better pill!"
Considering how much people love their (prescription) drugs -- whether they like to admit it or not -- we continue this farce of a war on "recreational drugs" because something in the popular psyche resists acknowledging that we're all a bunch of tool using cyborgs.
This is also why oral contraceptives (i.e. "the pill") has been such a political battleground -- it's an openly admitted recreational drug for altering the "natural" function of a human body to a "synthetic" one deemed preferable by the body's owner. (Unlike when diseases are invented to fit within normative medical ethics... such as Erectile Dysfunction for an excuse to use Viagra.) While in a strictly positivist medical analysis, oral contraceptives are safer than aspirin and could be sold Over The Counter (OTC).
However, the dialogue between The Chronicle of Higher Ed and Nature about Modafinil and Orexin-A is basically just a rehash of the nootropic articles R.U. Sirius used to write for Mondo 2000. In other words, "You mean knowledge workers use performance enhancing drugs such as Adderall? No shit!"
Are we going to have to start making students pee into a cup after taking the SAT now? Physical performance enhancing drugs are banned for good reason, and not just because they are bad for you.
I would imagine that these drugs for your noggin will rightly get banned too..
A good-naturedly critical article about coverage of your talk appeared earlier this week on the liberal political humor blog Sadly, No:
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/8960.html
Also, the Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics (CCLE) has been working on these issues for quite some time now. Give them some of your money and/or attention.
A combination of meditation and a good imbedded brain wave entrainment program works mind as a muscle. You can train yourself as a brain driver instead of a pill popper. The Monroe inst. programs, Anna Wise mind mirror, and Dr. Jeffrey Thompson all have good products that you can trust.
“I’m talking about being able to take on twice the responsibility, work twice as fast, write more effectively, manage better, be more attentive, devise better and more creative strategies.”
Can it set the arm you break while patting yourself on the back?
In my experience, people who use amphetamines (Adderall, Ritalin, etc.) as "brain enhancers" are just fooling themselves. The guys who were doing this when I was in college were quite far away from being the best students.
ZUZU (#12)
One answer is that the use of enhancements violates a persons autonomy. If you know that some people are choosing to use a drug to score higher on the SAT, you would feel compelled to do the same. That would force you into taking a risk you might otherwise not take.
For more reasons please goto:
http://www.thedoctorwillseeyounow.com/articles/bioethics/perfdrugs_10/
As for the bit about stifling medical innovation because some kid isn't allowed to take a pill to effectively cheat on an exam: You're kidding right?
@ 18 David Caroll
That's an absolutely ridiculous conclusion.How would you know, in advance, what any one particular person "would feel compelled" to do?
You're merely arguing for equal outcome -- everyone equally mediocre.
(My mind reels at how you've managed to doublethink what "autonomy" means. Seriously. Real autonomy and self-ownership requires morphological freedom.)
Currently only a few drugs are legal in the USA, most of which are terrible for you and provide no enhancement. Of the illegal ones, few provide any worthwhile effect and. The logic behind illegality in drugs has been and always will be insane. This relates here to the most extreme of degrees. Now regulation and prohibition of drugs will not only limit one's consciousness expansion and recreation, they will actively forbid people from legally exploring the possibilities for those willing to explore the potential benefits of modern pharmacology for the human brain.
In short, it's my body and I'll put whatever I damned well like in it. There is no worthy justification to the contrary. This is the clearest example this argument will ever see.
Oh, I'm getting a very strong whiff of objectivism here Zuzu. Is that where we're headed? 'Cause if it is can we get to accusations of groupthink already?
hehe, I wonder if we're fast approaching a Bioshock analogy though? ;)
More seriously, could I broach the suggestion of reading Twilight of the Idols?
or perhaps, Human Action?
ZUZU (#18 ):
Careful. You'll call me a communist next.
I don't think I am going to convince you so before you make me read all of Wikipedia, I will withdraw.
@19 Zuzu:
It's not equal outcome, it's ensuring a level playing field!
Of course we can predict that if it was to become known that someone in a competition had an undetectable unnatural advantage, that others would feel compelled to eliminate that advantage by engaging in the same practice.
To say that wouldn't happen is just absurd. We see this all the time. Baseball has/had rampant steroid use because a significant number of players were using, and others wanted to eliminate that advantage. People crowd around at the door to make sure they get in to some event. Do you honestly believe that people will sit back and say, "This person, and perhaps many others, have an advantage over me in this important competition that I could easily eliminate, but I will choose not to." It's absurd, because it isn't rational.
@21 Noen:
Yeah, Ayn Randians just aren't as much fun when they're not in giant armored suits carrying creepy little girls around in underwater cities.
There always seems to be a "window of opportunity" between the time when a drug is first developed and marketed as a cure-all or performance enhancing drug and its inevitable banningg. Check out the history of cocaine, heroin, LSD and mescalin which all started out as legal medications and only became illegal when the addiction problems became apparent. Any psychoactive drug tends to follow the same path after a while. First the hype, then the banning (or severe restriction).
Please. Go easy on your EBEs
I personally don't see why people consider performance enhancement to be wrong. Certainly, most performance-enhancing drugs today wreck your body and/or mind, which is a good reason to restrict or ban them. But if a perfectly safe, effective, reasonably-priced performance-enhancing drug with no significant negative side effects came onto the market, why shouldn't we use it? I mean, we condone the use of other mind-altering substances, like alcohol and caffeine, and those have negative side-effects.
Sports fans point out that competition forces everyone to use the drug, just to maintain an even playing field. But if it gives the crowd a better show, and this is offset only by the cost of the pill, it could easily be worth it.
In the academic world, this is even more true, as researchers purportedly make lasting contributions to human knowledge. Why shouldn't they be allowed to make better contributions? Because it would be unfair to people who choose not to do so?
The one remaining problem that I can see is that it would widen the gap between rich and poor in an area where that gap is already too wide. This is a serious issue, but I think that it could still be worthwhile.
@#17: I'm not going to argue that speed should be an accepted way to get ahead academically, but have you heard of Paul Erdos?
The great mathematician Paul Erdos took amphetamines and claimed they were helpful to his thought processes. From his Wikipedia bio:
"After 1971 he also took amphetamines, despite the concern of his friends, one of whom (Ron Graham) bet him $500 that he could not stop taking the drug for a month.[4] Erdős won the bet, but complained during his abstinence that mathematics had been set back by a month: "Before, when I looked at a piece of blank paper my mind was filled with ideas. Now all I see is a blank piece of paper." After he won the bet, he promptly resumed his amphetamine habit. "
The guy lived to be 83 and made many significant contributions to several branches of mathematics.
While it proves nothing in regard to the idea that people can safely take certain drugs and be just fine for it, a genius like Paul Erdos did get away with it and seemed better for it.
He probably just liked the tingly feeling he got from them.
@ #22 Zuzu
Well, I am greatly relieved. I just wanted to know in light of... previous unpleasantness, so I asked.
As far as class consciousness and all that... it seems to work pretty well for me to look at who has power, who doesn't and how that all plays out. Because when I look around... it's robber barons and their toaddies as far as the eye can see. I see no reason to change that assessment yet.
Re: psyche enhancing drugs - I don't trust big pharma to tell us the truth about anything any more. Not if they think they can make a buck. It's only recently that we learned that Prozac and related drugs are little better than placebo. They sat on that research for a long time. Billions of dollars given to them for nothing. Adderall, Ritalin, all the rest, it's just different types of speed. Take your go pills kids.
It's all a fraud I think. Big pharma, nutrition, insurance. Nothing more than one big confidence game with the GOP and Dems in on the take. Hell, they have been perfectly happy to sell us drugs that killed people, and they knew it and worked hard to keep that from the public, and people think they can trust them with their minds? Are you insane?
"check out the history of cocaine, heroin, LSD and mescalin...became illegal when the addiction problems became apparent.
LSD and mescaline are not addictive. No chemical dependence and repeat abusers are likely to have an underlying mental illness and are trying to self-medicate, or to relieve withdrawal from other drugs.
Adderall is illegal in just about every country except the U.S. Even in Mexico Adderall and Ritalin are tightly controlled and require a script from a Mexican physician. Oxycontin is highly addictive and many times more expensive than morphine-- although DEA actively investigates prescribers of morphine than oxy. You will find drugs are outlawed and controlled for Political reasons more often than Public Health. "Mari Jane" and its non-psychoactive hemp is exhibit #1
CUVTIXO, Adderal and Ritalin are schedule two controlled substances in the US. This is the same schedule that morphine, oxycodone, and hydromorphone are on. The cheapest opioid painkiller is methadone, also CII. The DEA keep a very close eye on all of the painkillers which are not adulterated with toxic NSAIDs (which kill 7,000 Americas each year).
These drugs all require a script, which is limited to a maximum of one month at a time etc.
i have heard for a long time of medical students and interns using 'supplements' (not just vitamin b) to increase alertness and mental acuity during long hauls. i've heard that for some, there is practically no way for them to withstand the physical and mental pressures without an amphetamine boost.
i'm not a doctor, so i don't really know. that's just what i heard.
#30
>
Nutrition is a fraud?
Say what?
Why is everyone so concerned with performance? Have a nap. Learn to meditate. Do a little exercise to get some oxygen to your brain. Enjoy life.
Anti-depressants don't work and end up making you more depressed. Oops. Drugs for ADD make the ADD worse. Oops. Sports drugs have serious health consequences. Oops. Marijuana smoke is more carcinogenic than tobacco smoke. Oops. Cholesterol lowering drugs increase the rate of heart attacks and strokes. Oops. I'm pro legalizing drugs but, except for alcohol which repeatedly proves to be beneficial in moderate quantities, you're an idiot if you take drugs that you don't really need. In vitro does not equal in vivo.
Part of the question not being much discussed here (except possibly by Noen) is: "What kind of society do you want to live in?"
One answer is a society that is the logical result of the kind of atomistic autonomy desired by those who say "Go for it!" to anyone who wants to do anything to alter their physiochemical state.
Another answer is more cautious, conservative, and sceptical, worried that enhancing intelligence without enhancing wisdom is more likely to produce the next thalidomide or Enron than a cure for HIV.
I'm firmly on the side of the sceptics, for a couple of reasons.
For one, the notion of "autonomy" being put forward is illusory, for the reasons already given by others. The replies to those reasons are only relevant if we are willing to suspend our ability to draw valid statistical inferences.
In a world where really effective cognitive enhancing drugs are permitted, it is a matter of statistical certainty that anyone not taking them will not get into the best schools, because their SAT scores will be mediocre. As we are already talking about a completely irrational selection process (using SATs is not rationally justifiable) what will result is a self-perpetuating culture of people unwise enough to take cognitive enhancers to pass critical exams. There is no reason why we should expect they will do the same when the stakes are different: for example, when they are making life-and-death decisions in engineering or medicine.
The atomistic autonomists fail to take any of this social, statistical, evolutionary reality into account.
Please note that I am not against people using cognitive enhancers: I am against them using them to gain access to institutions whose members are already highly privileged. If they want to cure HIV without the benefit of a university education I would be the last person to stop them. But y'know: most people who take these things aren't going to cure HIV.
For those who would argue that no one would be forced to take performance enhancing drugs, I suggest you look at the world of body building. There are "open" and "natural" competitions, and the difference is purely a matter of drugs. There's no point in putting naturals into an open competition because they can't put on mass the way drug users can.
So having open use of cognitive performance enhancers would mean that no one would be able to not use them if they wanted to pass the artificial hurdles that we place on university access. This is, of course, primarily a critique of the way we grant access to universities, which is anti-scientific and stupid. But until those and other anti-scientific means of gate-keeping are fixed, the use of cognitive performance enhancers should not be allowed to influence who passes through them.
when deciding to use a drug; question one: would I give it to my kid?
@ 34 Stovis
Yes, everything you think you know about diet, what makes you fat or doesn't, what's good for you or not, is most likely false. A lot of nutrition science is based on badly structured studies.
There is no "clean re-install" for your mind. If you mess up hacking your brain that's it, you're done, thanks for being a warning of what not to do. There are no do overs, no replacing damaged wetware. And in light of the fact that we don't know nearly enough and in my opinion can't trust all the players in the game, it strikes me as reckless for me to experiment with my mind.
actually,no. You brain can repair and grow around damage and do amazing things. The synaptic patterns of addictions , for example,can be re-written.
These are true possibilities.
The penalty for taking them as true certainties is a vegetative coma.
#37
Takuan, I gotta tell you, most of the drugs in my life are/were vastly inappropriate for kids. Following your logic, I wouldn't have taken any at all, and that would have been someone else's life.
I cannot know in advance what particular strategy is best for everyone. But I can experiment in my own life and use the feedback to adapt accordingly. Life is exploratory, not some "safe" routine to be carried out mechanically with as few "mistakes" as possible. "The funny thing about regret is, it's better to regret the things you have done than to regret the things you haven't done."
Dear`Arkizzle
I see you take my point.
Yes, do what thou wilt, dare all. Just understand what you risk.
We have incredible capacity to mend damage. There is a price for every experience. The rule of thumb regarding looking to the next generation may keep us alive and somewhat functional longer - as individuals. I also propose it for species survival. Only as a brake,, mind you. I think we owe in part our collective progress and survival to consciousness expanding and altering substances. Certainly a large part of the richness of our cultures.
What I find extremely worrisome is the normalization of brain targeted drugs. Ritalin for any child not comatose and biddable. Tranquilizers for the ordinary working person, anti-depressants for anyone dealing with the glorious birthright of pain and misery called having a life. The idea of a competitive edge from drugs is even more of a slippery slope. It will become an arms race and develop its own life and power.
The same way I know I am cheating when I go armed instead of relying on naked flesh, I also fear the idea of depending on molecular adjustment over native wit.
However, we'll never know how many people die because of a lack of new drugs and diverse drug development pipelines because of how the thalidomide tragedy was spun to serve the agenda of expanding FDA power to require proving efficacy and not just safety -- because those deaths caused by unavailability of drugs are blamed on the disease rather than a lack of drugs. (c.f. Peter Rost)
Don't you remember what happened with COX-2 inhibitors (e.g. Vioxx)??? Merck published that larger long-term population studies revealed the risk of MI, but the FDA wanted to bury those results to save face and not expose that they are, as we all are, quite fallible. The FDA preferred to let people die to maintain their God-like perception among the public -- security theater as it were.ZuZu -- me too! I have always loved that Athletes routinely advertised Wheaties as making them bigger, stronger and faster (which they knew was not the case), but when we REALLY DID find something that makes you big, stronger and faster -- that's cheating. I have people in my life who have benefited from drugs, and who have suffered because of. It doesn't mean you go to the extreme either way ... Maybe some day athletes will advertise "hey kids -- make sure you have your fast-twitch muscle fiber enhancer every morning!" ...
That's much of bullshit in this business of brain enhancement drugs or "smart drugs". I myself tried a wide range of combinations and the most noticeable effect I experienced was strong nausea from hidergine (even in 1mg doses).
Not to mention that nobody can assure anything about long term effects.
Best thing is to eat well, sleep well and exercise enough.
#45
and sex (if you're lucky)
Sex is the superset of "eat well, sleep well, exercise enough". :D
I teach a class at a university in Nashville on issues involving technology and human identity, focusing primarily on issues of so-called "human enhancement" such as are talked about here. I think a major reason why enhancement is so problematic is that it helps to shatter the egalitarian myth ("All [people] are created equal...") that underlies so much of popular thought in America and other democratic nations.
The problem, though, is that this is indeed a myth (if taken factually, rather than as an ideal). Not only are all people not born with equal capacities, it is not the case that people's strengths and weaknesses "balance out". No one is perfect, sure, but some people are extremely lucky in having many strengths and few significant weaknesses, while others are extremely unlucky for the opposite reason.
Instead of trying to deny this and pretend that competition is fair if people stick with what they're born with, a true egalitarian might well advocate research into enhancement technologies along with public subsidies to allow individuals who want to compete not to have to be winners in the genetic lottery. I am of course oversimplifying here, but my point is that it is by no means clear that advocates of HE technologies are necessarily elitist or undemocratic.
I am convinced that this will be one of the foremost ethical problems of the 21st century (which is why I study it). Our unquestioned assumptions about what counts as "human" or as "natural" are in for a bumpy ride, particularly as the biological and brain sciences (not to mention the possibility of cybernetic or nano-enhancements) become more refined and produce safer and more effective tools to increase human abilities.
I suspect that there will be many bans implemented in the EU and US, but public opinion in SE Asia is much friendlier to genetic, neurological, and other enhancements. This may well contribute to the rise of China and its neighbors over a declining West which will simply not be able to compete in our global economy.
One thing is for sure: this issue is not going away anytime soon.
#42
Takuan, you know, when I read your comment (#37, your other comment hadn't surfaced yet) I thought it seemed, at face value, uncharacteristically 'sensible', from your keyboard.. :)
I missed your implied point and agree entirely with the things you wrote back.
I wonder how long it will be, because it will happen, before we have forgotten about personal (ha!) computers, and are chasing the Moores-Law WetWare GHz curve, waiting for Apple et al to release the new iThink OS, or for linux to finally get the latest SpeedBrain drivers ported over..
We will integrate technology into our bodies, more and more, provided we (and our current technological drive) continue to exist.
As to, "The penalty for taking them as true certainties is a vegetative coma":
Please god (little 'g'), please let Microsoft become defunct before we have computer-in-brain capabilities.. Dear sweet Jeebus, please..
So like every other argument involving the advancement of human capabilities we have luddites in one corner and progressives in the other.
I'll stick to that drug that "enhances" my capabilities in the opposite direction: beer.
So many arguements, about dietary SUPPLEMENTS!!!!!
Come on guys, 99% of these smart-drugs are vitamins or plant extracts.
Just adhere to a healthy diet: 5 fruit/veg a day, lay off the salt, sugar and fat. That glass of wine perhaps and a cup of coffee and you're cruising.
Biomedical technology: As cochlear implants improve, people who use older versions of the technology could face a difficult choice
I'm just in it for the money
Years of learning guitar vs. putting a chip in the head. Please. I wish I could had that chip 8 guitarists ago. Or, as I always say to my right-wing pals on all things progress-vs.-ethical: so you're telling me if you could engineer your child to not have X disease, Y poor vision, etc. -- you wouldn't? people will be ethical for about the first five seconds, and then the competitive and better-better-best drive will take over and we'll deal with the consequences ... I may not know everything but I know human nature ...
#54
ZuZu, that's a great article, and a very interesting indicator of the shape of things to come.
#56
Even forgetting the helping-the-unfortunate or competitive-enhancement angles; I would have a dictionary/encyclopedia implant tomorrow, no question. Or a digital-quality long-term-memory, total recall etc (no, not martian delusions)..
GoogleBrain anyone? (a longstanding joke between my girlfriend and I, when we can't remember something)
Just to throw a turd in the punchbowl, you can't mention cochlear implants without mentioning that there's a movement against them by people who feel that they imply that deaf people are defective.
I took Adderall for a while.
I gotta say, I got a LOT done on it. Was able to do twice as much as I could before.
I've had severe ADHD even before it was called this. in the 70s, I was just called hyperactive by my doctors. Couldn't sit straight for 10 minutes. Heck, I have a hard time driving more than a half hour because the dotted lines on the road start doing something to my head...I've driven off the road before. On the amps? I can drive for 7 hours straight.
But it is weird -- I've learned enough coping strategies that my life is now centered around being able to switch roles every 10 minutes. The only time I need these is if I'm driving or taking a class. If I had tried these earlier, I can't imagine how different my life would have been...
Anyhooo...what was I talking about...already bored.
How are we to trust the judgement of people who may be screwing with their organs of judgement?
Anyhow, there are enormous evolutionary pressures on the human brain: it has 2% of the mass and uses 20% of the energy of the body it resides in; and it is so large that just giving birth is risky to a human mother. If it wasn't generally as efficient as it could be at getting a human being through life, evolution would make it so fairly quickly. Tweaking your brain chemistry to achieve some temporarily useful effect is almost certainly going to have some kind of penalty, elsewhere or -when.
Myself, I'll stick to judicious use of caffeine and sugar, but don't let me stop the rest of you brave pharmaceutical pioneers.
#59
Having never heard the argument before, my first thoughts are: "how utterly ridiculous".
That someone should not enjoy the benefits of technology - to improve the senses 99% of the world enjoys - just to make a point about equality and social-semantics, seems incredibly selfish of the group involved.
Should people not take medication to improve their health, because, somehow, people who have ailment-x don't have "defective" immune systems?
Deaf people are NOT defective, but parts of their hearing-system are.
what was that story again, the blind/deaf/mute village called Keller.....??
Zuzu @42
Actually, we can be pretty sure the answer is "not very many", because we know that drugs have little positive and possibly even negative impact on lifespan. Americans are far more heavily medicated than Canadians, and we (Canadians) live longer than Americans.
"It doesn't work! We need to do more of it!" is a not good basis for policy.
My comment on most people taking these things not curing HIV was based in part on empirical data on how the average person uses their university education today. Military research, individual medical research and litigation all get vastly more people involved in them than vaccine development, public health, civil engineering, or peaceful conflict resolution.
Intelligence is not wisdom, and the pursuit of intelligence at any cost is unwise. Structuring major social institutions around pursuit of intelligence at any cost is extremely unwise. And that is what the atomistic autonomists are asking us to do.
--386--
In microeconomics, the opportunity to gain and the risk of loss are considered substitutable, but according to behavioral finance our psychological evolution generally has us irrationally biased against risk. We fear losing something we have more than we fear losing an opportunity to gain something we don't have yet. I think this translates to features or abilities so-called "normal" people take for granted, like hearing.
Ultimately the trick is to throw out this notion of "normalcy" or "healthy" and recalibrate our concepts of medicine around a subjective theory of value of self-ownership. In other words, as I mentioned earlier: morphological freedom.
(This is where I might really start picking some fights with people over the problem of mandates vis-a-vis socialized medicine. I'll just say that the medical establishment is already hard on people in the body modification (BME) community... to the point where clandestine surgeries are performed. Even in a best case scenario, human enhancement under an HHS department will be like Johnny Mnemonic's brain implant being "licensed for dyslexia" according to his traveling papers / passport.)
how utterly ridiculous
It is the normal reaction, but if they're happy, why should they change. You could make an identical argument for plastic surgery. If you knew that people would be nicer to you, you'd get a better job, you'd find a more attractive mate, why wouldn't you have your face completely redone? If you click on my moniker, you'll see my answer to that question. I'm just saying that it's a slippery slope. People should do what makes them happy, and doing something just because it's possible rarely does so.
#62
Wow, that's quite scary.
Yeah, I just can't imagine how hearing a bus coming behind me isn't considered "better" than not.
I don't speak to the ideas of deaf culture or sign-language or the equality of interaction here, and don't want to get into the semantics of "normal" vs "natural" (being deaf is clearly as natural as not, as it occurs naturally), but a useful extra sense just seems better than not having it, whether it's hearing or x-ray vision.
"Heck, I have a hard time driving more than a half hour because the dotted lines on the road start doing something to my head...I've driven off the road before. On the amps? I can drive for 7 hours straight."
Manual or automatic?
I used to drift off a lot when driving. I've switched to a car with a manual transmission and I find it much easier to stay focused. Coincidentally I found an article on PubMed on how those with ADD perform better on a driving simulator with a manual transmission vs. automatic.
Again, however, none of us are gifted with deterministic foresight.
You'd better get R & D on that one.
a useful extra sense just seems better than not having it
Try telling that to someone with eidetic memory.
#66
Agreed, mostly.
It just sounded like the group you mentioned didn't like the treatment in anyone, full stop (or "period" in your parlance).
In the same way as you used plastic surgery to make your point, I will say, some deaf people would be happier to hear, than wave a flag for their lot.
Try telling that to Johnny
It just sounded like the group you mentioned didn't like the treatment in anyone
That was, in fact, the case. Which opens a whole other can of worms. Specifically regarding deaf parents who don't get cochlear implants for their children. As soon as I open my mouth to get outraged about that, I remember how pissed off I get about gender assignment surgery for infants. "How can an intersexual grow up with a normal life," the surgeons bleat. Well, it's a better deal than choosing the wrong gender. When I was at my yoga teacher training, I asked one of the sunyasins how they get off telling us not to eat meat when they sit on sheepskin rugs. Her wise response, "There are many questions. And some answers."
Antious, it's funny you mention it, I actually almost requested eidetic memory in my post above.. GoogleBrain
Turn-on-and-off-able, of course :)
Not all traits are clearly (or universally) beneficial. The content of melanin in your skin has been generally inherited from the consequences of solar environment. Namely, that more melanin is great for UV protection but poor for Vitamin D production, and vice-versa. So which degree of melanin expression is "healthy" will depend on your environmental conditions.
#77
That's a bit fucked up!
Surely gender assignment is something to be chosen by an adult, with caution, rather than a something preventative, chosen for a child by anyone else.
I'd never heard the notion until you mentioned it.
Presumably growing up in an honest environment, having grown with the issue out-in-the-open, and with the knowledge of having a choice at some point is the wiser course of action..
The consequences are indeed awful, as you suggest.
Not all traits are clearly (or universally) beneficial.
That brings us back to the brain enhancing drugs. When you're 20, you want to be awake and alert 22 hours per day. At 50, not so much. If the drugs cause permanent changes, you might spend a century living with your adolescent choices. It's like getting a Winona tattoo, but on your brain.
Takuan-
the story you're thinking of is [u]The Persistence of Vision[/u] by John Varley, found in the collection of the same name.
Surely gender assignment is something to be chosen by an adult, with caution, rather than a something preventative, chosen for a child by anyone else.
Currently, the parents choose a gender and the surgeon 'repairs' the infant. As you might expect, half the time, they choose wrongly and the child grows up with gender dysphoria. Grown up, mutilated intersexuals have advocated for waiting until the child's psychological gender becomes clear, effectively letting the child choose. The problem is that parents don't like hemming and hawing when their friends ask if it's a boy or a girl. Of course, they say that it's for the good of the child. Parental comfort and child suffering have a long history as partners.