Live data from Hacker News

Brain-boosting drugs for healthy people

abcnews.go.com

21–30 of 68 posts

Re: Brain-boosting drugs for healthy people

#21
post #3

There could be nasty side-effects twenty years down the road, so I'd rather abstain. It would totally suck to be forced to take those drugs to remain cometitive, so I hope they will keep those drugs in limited circulation until their safety can be proven beyond doubt.

No drug stays in development for 20 years (AFAIK), so the risk of nasty side-effects after 20 years is there with all newish drugs. And in practice, how often does that turn out to be a problem? In my understanding, almost never.

If you're so risk-averse that this isn't good enough for you, you should feel free not to take them, but insisting that others don't take them crosses over into the territory of "meddlesome".

Re: Brain-boosting drugs for healthy people

#23
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, not everything on earth should be done by the private businesses. This one can be financed by the public, knd of like the nuclear bomb and stuff. Legal mind-enhancing drugs are a great danger to society. They will put everyone in the position where they have to take those drugs, or risk perpetual unemployment. If side effects surface decades later they will cripple entire population of the country because no on…

"Legal mind-enhancing drugs are a great danger to society. They will put everyone in the position where they have to take those drugs, or risk perpetual unemployment." Replace "drugs" with "education", and ask what should be done. Ban learning?

By contrast to drugs, "education" has thousands of years to prove it's long-term medical safety. Different drugs have proven to have all kinds of nasty side-effects to a point where it is normal to hold them all suspect by default.

Re: Brain-boosting drugs for healthy people

#24
post #21
post #3

There could be nasty side-effects twenty years down the road, so I'd rather abstain. It would totally suck to be forced to take those drugs to remain cometitive, so I hope they will keep those drugs in limited circulation until their safety can be proven beyond doubt.

No drug stays in development for 20 years (AFAIK), so the risk of nasty side-effects after 20 years is there with all newish drugs. And in practice, how often does that turn out to be a problem? In my understanding, almost never. If you're so risk-averse that this isn't good enough for you, you should feel free not to take them, but insisting that others don't take them crosses over into the territory of "meddlesome"…

You did not read my post, did you? Let me repeat it here for you:

[quote]

It would totally suck to be forced to take those drugs to remain cometitive, so I hope they will keep those drugs in limited circulation until their safety can be proven beyond doubt.

[end of quote]

If these drugs are allowed, everyone will have to chose between employment + drugs or drug-abstinence + unemployment. There will be no opt-out. At all.

Re: Brain-boosting drugs for healthy people

#25
post #3

There could be nasty side-effects twenty years down the road, so I'd rather abstain. It would totally suck to be forced to take those drugs to remain cometitive, so I hope they will keep those drugs in limited circulation until their safety can be proven beyond doubt.

First of all, the effects of these drugs have already been studied for many years. Modafinil was first experimentally used in the treatment of narcolepsy in 1986, so over 20 years ago.

Second, what do you mean proven beyond doubt? Testing these drugs is a statistical process, so what kind of confidence interval are you willing to accept? Keep in mind, that becoming more confident in your statistics means more testing, which makes the drug more expensive to bring to market and takes longer as well. Even then, a few drugs are going to pass the FDA approval process and cause unintended side effects, and people are going to argue for an even longer approval period.

You have to consider the opportunity cost of keeping these drugs in limited circulation. Most people don't take this into account, and there's plenty of research that shows that the FDA's requirements are actually probably too stringent, because government bureaucracies tend to be too risk averse. I think it takes an average of 12 years for a drug to pass FDA inspection and get to market, so imagine if it was 20 years. This means that during those extra 8 years, people weren't able to reap the benefits of a drug like Modafinil to stay awake. How many driving deaths could be prevented during those 8 years if people weren't driving while sleepy? Or what about the productivity gains from scientists or hackers that can get away with 4 hours of sleep a night instead of 8, without reducing their cognitive abilities?

I'm not saying there couldn't be unforeseen nasty side-effects of using the drugs fourty years from now, but given the evidence it seems like it's probably a negligible risk for most people.

Re: Brain-boosting drugs for healthy people

#26
post #16

I find it disturbing that this is even controversial. First, the notion that there is an optimal "healthy" state is make-believe. We all get old and die, so in a sense we are all terminally ill. We should have a right to improve our minds and bodies as long as there is room for improvement. More to the point, brain types fall on a spectrum. ADHD is just one extreme. Equating "median" with "healthy" is a fallacy. Cons…

Here's the point you've missed: I can, and do , abstain from caffeine and pretty much all other drugs. Mind-enhancing drugs will become compulsory for everyone who want to keep their jobs - else competition will elbow them out. Imagine that in society with 99% uptake of a certain drug the sideffects start showing up after 40 years of intake. What then? Two full generations of cripples? Even the people who wanted to a…

Why would mind enhancing drugs become compulsory to keep your job? As someone already pointed out, caffeine is a mind enhancing drug, and I've never heard of anyone get fired for not drinking a latte. Or what about alcohol? You could certainly make the argument that drinking alcohol can help you professionally, either by making you more extroverted or social at events, or because you like to go to happy hour with your co-workers.

Even in the sports industry, where performance enhancing drugs are relatively pervasive, you don't see steroids becoming compulsory for athletes. I know professional athletes who don't even take protein shakes.

Re: Brain-boosting drugs for healthy people

#27
post #24
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No drug stays in development for 20 years (AFAIK), so the risk of nasty side-effects after 20 years is there with all newish drugs. And in practice, how often does that turn out to be a problem? In my understanding, almost never. If you're so risk-averse that this isn't good enough for you, you should feel free not to take them, but insisting that others don't take them crosses over into the territory of "meddlesome"…

You did not read my post, did you? Let me repeat it here for you: [quote] It would totally suck to be forced to take those drugs to remain cometitive , so I hope they will keep those drugs in limited circulation until their safety can be proven beyond doubt. [end of quote] If these drugs are allowed, everyone will have to chose between employment + drugs or drug-abstinence + unemployment. There will be no opt-out. At…

Sure there will be opt-out. If drugs double your productivity, then a non-user's salary will be half of a user's salary, and no less than that. That's just basic economics. Which is as it should be. They create double the wealth; they get double the money.

Of course this will suck for you, because from your point of view, it will be as if the number of programmers in the world has just vastly increased, creating competition for you and driving down your salary. Presumably just as candle-makers' salaries were driven down by the invention of the light bulb (which could make you blind after 20 years--nobody knew for sure).

Re: Brain-boosting drugs for healthy people

#28
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the point you've missed: I can, and do , abstain from caffeine and pretty much all other drugs. Mind-enhancing drugs will become compulsory for everyone who want to keep their jobs - else competition will elbow them out. Imagine that in society with 99% uptake of a certain drug the sideffects start showing up after 40 years of intake. What then? Two full generations of cripples? Even the people who wanted to a…

Why would mind enhancing drugs become compulsory to keep your job? As someone already pointed out, caffeine is a mind enhancing drug, and I've never heard of anyone get fired for not drinking a latte. Or what about alcohol? You could certainly make the argument that drinking alcohol can help you professionally, either by making you more extroverted or social at events, or because you like to go to happy hour with you…

  Why would mind enhancing drugs become compulsory to keep your job?
Because some drugs could be bad for my health? Maybe not right now, maybe 40 years later.

Re: Brain-boosting drugs for healthy people

#29
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the point you've missed: I can, and do , abstain from caffeine and pretty much all other drugs. Mind-enhancing drugs will become compulsory for everyone who want to keep their jobs - else competition will elbow them out. Imagine that in society with 99% uptake of a certain drug the sideffects start showing up after 40 years of intake. What then? Two full generations of cripples? Even the people who wanted to a…

Why would mind enhancing drugs become compulsory to keep your job? As someone already pointed out, caffeine is a mind enhancing drug, and I've never heard of anyone get fired for not drinking a latte. Or what about alcohol? You could certainly make the argument that drinking alcohol can help you professionally, either by making you more extroverted or social at events, or because you like to go to happy hour with you…

Whether caffeine improves performance is questionable. It certainly does for caffeine addicts - they can't funciton without a fix, but those who are not hooked function well enough.

Even then, caffeine does not have long-lasting side-effects as has been proven over few hundred years.

Re: Brain-boosting drugs for healthy people

#30
post #27
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You did not read my post, did you? Let me repeat it here for you: [quote] It would totally suck to be forced to take those drugs to remain cometitive , so I hope they will keep those drugs in limited circulation until their safety can be proven beyond doubt. [end of quote] If these drugs are allowed, everyone will have to chose between employment + drugs or drug-abstinence + unemployment. There will be no opt-out. At…

Sure there will be opt-out. If drugs double your productivity, then a non-user's salary will be half of a user's salary, and no less than that. That's just basic economics. Which is as it should be. They create double the wealth; they get double the money. Of course this will suck for you, because from your point of view, it will be as if the number of programmers in the world has just vastly increased, creating comp…

I don't think it works that way. If you sell half as much stuff as others sales agents in the store you will get fired rather than get your salary cut in half. But ok, let's suppose it's true.

Let's take this to extreme - suppose that there is a ticking bomb in these drugs and after 20 years of intake one becomes a medical ruin, similar to crystal meth addicts. So you can take the drugs and die in 20 years from now, or you can abstain and live for another 20 years (40 years total). Those who abstain will be priced out of their lives, but most will give up and start taking drugs - let's be real.

Nobody knows about it now, so there will be no push-back until 20 years later, and when the time comes everyone will be medically ruined by then (except the youngest kids).

And you are really stretching it wrt lighbulbs making people blind - it's not in the same ballpark of likelyhood as drugs ruining people's health.

Post reply on HN