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.
You can responsibly use amphetamine or modafinil without serious side effects. Amphetamine enhances the mental performance of millions of our children and few people seem to be complaining about long term side effects.
The military has studied the use of amphetamine and modafinil in extreme situations. If you go without sleep for three days, there's going to be serious side effects, with or without any drug. I doubt that any of the scientists on stimulants are using it that extremely, which means the side effects are limited.
(The reporter is a little more skeptical. Then again, the military tend to be big users of statistics, so I expect they have some reason to believe this.)
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?
"If substance X is supposedly so beneficial, why doesn't the body manufacture it by itself?"
Well, it does. Many nootropic drugs work either by stimulating the production of, or blocking the absorption of, otherwise normally occurring brain chemicals.
I believe, for example, that methylphenidate (Ritalin) stimulates the production of dopamine, while bupropion (Wellbutrin) blocks dopamine reuptake.
I used to do a fair amount of wetware hacking, and one of the concerns was avoiding the crash that comes when your brain is depleted of one or another chemical.
One path to a better brain, then, is to feed it the material it needs to produce the more interesting (noradrenalin, dopamine, etc.) stuff.
But wouldn't it be trivial for evolution to change the quantities of those chemicals in the brain? Meaning, if other quantities were preferable, evolution would have adjusted those quantities long ago?
Why would it be broken, though? It seems with diabetic, at least with type II, Insulin is not necessary, just change the way you eat. Likewise with the brain I would rather know the causes of the problem, than experiment with drugs.
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.
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.