Gosh. Thoughts: just because a lot of people feel depressed a lot of the time, is that necessarily bad? Maybe they have a lot to be depressed about. Maybe we should be more concerned with bettering their lot rather than just switching on their dopamine receptors. Human progress is a product of dissatisfaction. The man who bursts into the city state and announces to the contented but deluded helots: "But you should not be happy; you are slaves!" would decrease the sum of human happiness, but who would say that he was not acting morally? On the other hand, maybe induction of a gentle mania would be a benefit - most artists are slightly manic. They have to be, otherwise they would give up before succeeding. Was anyone else reminded by the website of the Iain Banks Culture novels, in which Culture citizens can synthesise any drug they like inside their bodies by a mere effort of will?
UK government just commissioned v interesting report on future of drug use (including cognition enhancers and history & future of psychoactive substances - see http://www.foresight.gov.uk/Brain_Science_Addiction_and_Drugs/index.html). Sorry can't remember html to put in link.
I agree that unhappiness and dissatisfaction has a purpose - and presumably from an evolutionary perspective unhappiness is the feeling which encourages us to change our situation (although depression would seem to be a bit of a malfunction) and is therfore necessary. (Although I'm not sure that 'human progress' is an unalloyed good).
Even depression - A very enlightened lecturer on my Pharmacology course, when we were doing anti-depressants, made us read a load of articles on artists, scientists, etc who suffered from depression, who arguably wouldn't have achieved what they did had they been 'normal'. And then have a debate on the ethics of anti-depressant use, which I don't think are clear cut. But does this mean I wouldn't take anti-depressants? No, probably not.
The site's a bit too slick in it's arguments. And this argument that we should just eliminate unhappiness is like a massive sleight of hand. But I do think that drug laws are the result of a load of social, economic and historical factors, rather than medical, scientific, or even valid moral rationales. People can adjust their mental state with alcohol, or valium, perfectly legally, but other things they can't.
I'll confess that (shock, horror) I am a recreational drug user at times. I have a degree in pharmacology, many years of experience and a social group which includes other recreational drug users who I can ask about the effects of drugs I've never taken before.
I feel I can make a more informed choice about what mental state I want to be in and what I do to my body than a bunch of MPs in hock to ill-informed prejudice and Daily Mail headlines. And I view the fact that I cannot do so legally as an unwarranted invasion of my privacy and my human rights. Never mind the fact that because of the legal issue a significant percentage of the population are barred from working in the police force, becoming judges, etc, which is even more an affront to our human rights.
So whilst I don't go all the way with them, I do agree with part of their point.
Very well put Soph. Moreover, our drug laws (inconsisent at best; utterly stupid at worst) lead to more problems not fewer--eg, massive exploitation of drugs by organised crime and terrorist groups, impure substances, and a horrendous problem in prisons--eg, a mate who works in prisons knows of one inmate who has made £1 million smuggling heroin into prison. I agree, we need informed choice not nannying do-gooders who don't live in the real world.
If you should see anything amazing in aPieceOfThem, do post about it in aPOU for heaven's sake. It updates far more frequently than any of us look at this page. Unless it's a really slow day.
6 comments:
Gosh. Thoughts: just because a lot of people feel depressed a lot of the time, is that necessarily bad? Maybe they have a lot to be depressed about. Maybe we should be more concerned with bettering their lot rather than just switching on their dopamine receptors. Human progress is a product of dissatisfaction. The man who bursts into the city state and announces to the contented but deluded helots: "But you should not be happy; you are slaves!" would decrease the sum of human happiness, but who would say that he was not acting morally? On the other hand, maybe induction of a gentle mania would be a benefit - most artists are slightly manic. They have to be, otherwise they would give up before succeeding.
Was anyone else reminded by the website of the Iain Banks Culture novels, in which Culture citizens can synthesise any drug they like inside their bodies by a mere effort of will?
UK government just commissioned v interesting report on future of drug use (including cognition enhancers and history & future of psychoactive substances - see http://www.foresight.gov.uk/Brain_Science_Addiction_and_Drugs/index.html). Sorry can't remember html to put in link.
here it is again
http://www.foresight.gov.uk/Brain_Science_Addiction_and_Drugs/index.html
Sod it;
look up http://www.foresight.gov.uk
and take it form there
I agree that unhappiness and dissatisfaction has a purpose - and presumably from an evolutionary perspective unhappiness is the feeling which encourages us to change our situation (although depression would seem to be a bit of a malfunction) and is therfore necessary. (Although I'm not sure that 'human progress' is an unalloyed good).
Even depression - A very enlightened lecturer on my Pharmacology course, when we were doing anti-depressants, made us read a load of articles on artists, scientists, etc who suffered from depression, who arguably wouldn't have achieved what they did had they been 'normal'. And then have a debate on the ethics of anti-depressant use, which I don't think are clear cut. But does this mean I wouldn't take anti-depressants? No, probably not.
The site's a bit too slick in it's arguments. And this argument that we should just eliminate unhappiness is like a massive sleight of hand. But I do think that drug laws are the result of a load of social, economic and historical factors, rather than medical, scientific, or even valid moral rationales. People can adjust their mental state with alcohol, or valium, perfectly legally, but other things they can't.
I'll confess that (shock, horror) I am a recreational drug user at times. I have a degree in pharmacology, many years of experience and a social group which includes other recreational drug users who I can ask about the effects of drugs I've never taken before.
I feel I can make a more informed choice about what mental state I want to be in and what I do to my body than a bunch of MPs in hock to ill-informed prejudice and Daily Mail headlines. And I view the fact that I cannot do so legally as an unwarranted invasion of my privacy and my human rights. Never mind the fact that because of the legal issue a significant percentage of the population are barred from working in the police force, becoming judges, etc, which is even more an affront to our human rights.
So whilst I don't go all the way with them, I do agree with part of their point.
Very well put Soph. Moreover, our drug laws (inconsisent at best; utterly stupid at worst) lead to more problems not fewer--eg, massive exploitation of drugs by organised crime and terrorist groups, impure substances, and a horrendous problem in prisons--eg, a mate who works in prisons knows of one inmate who has made £1 million smuggling heroin into prison. I agree, we need informed choice not nannying do-gooders who don't live in the real world.
Post a Comment