Influence your thoughts and feelings

[Guest]

Check it out;
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/futurebody/ar...88743-3,00.html

The possibilities are endless. Need to get sober in a jiffy? Swallow some pills. You are a computer geek at work and play, but the office is holding an inter-company tournament in soccer so take some pills to play at least satisfactorily.
Need something stronger than caffeine without the jitters? It isn't long before you will have a variety of choices available
How about opera? Does your wife want to see it, even though you hate it? The pills will make you understand it better than she will.

[Jeunemaitre]

Check it out;
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/futurebody/ar...88743-3,00.html

The possibilities are endless. Need to get sober in a jiffy? Swallow some pills. You are a computer geek at work and play, but the office is holding an inter-company tournament in soccer so take some pills to play at least satisfactorily.
Need something stronger than caffeine without the jitters? It isn't long before you will have a variety of choices available
How about opera? Does your wife want to see it, even though you hate it? The pills will make you understand it better than she will.
[right][snapback]86216[/snapback][/right]

Okay, so what's your position? Usually you can get away with simple links to humor, but this is something that seems like a discussion might be in order. Not sure if your new alias will suffer the same fate as your previous one, but this topic is actually one that might stay open.

Personally, I wouldn't be so quick to believe everything you read. As the article mentions, the introduction of SSRIs seemed to be a new thing in pharmacotherapy because they carried rather benign side-effect profiles (fluoxetine - Prozac, paroxetine - Paxil, and sertraline - Zoloft are the biggest names in the class). However, after years of use, we understand more about the less noticeable, though sometimes more bothersome events that go along with the SSRI treatment. The next step has come in antidepressants and we now have drugs like duloxetine (Cymbalta) and venlafaxine (Effexor) that moderate the effects of serotonin as well as nor-epinephrine (or nor-adrenalin depending on where you are in the world). The problem is that our bodies use a relatively limited number of chemicals in a huge variety of ways that you'll always be affecting more than just one reaction in the body. Take the class of anti-hypertensive meds referred to as alpha-blockers: not used very frequently in moderate patients, but they occupy a certain position in the management of difficult to treat high blood pressure. You know where Viagra (sildenafil) Levitra (vardenafil), and Cialis (tadalafil) came from? The same class of drugs as the alpha-blocker anti-hypertensives. This class of drugs also fostered the selective alpha-blockers used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH - non cancerous enlarged prostate).

Bottom line of my position: no matter what new classes of drugs promise, given enough treatment experience, the unintended effects of the drugs will come to light, and many of them will be serious (NSAIDS for example). Meds are not the answer to every non-problem the human race comes across.

[Guest]

Okay, so what's your position?  Usually you can get away with simple links to humor, but this is something that seems like a discussion might be in order.  Not sure if your new alias will suffer the same fate as your previous one, but this topic is actually one that might stay open.

Personally, I wouldn't be so quick to believe everything you read.  As the article mentions, the introduction of SSRIs seemed to be a new thing in pharmacotherapy because they carried rather benign side-effect profiles (fluoxetine - Prozac, paroxetine - Paxil, and sertraline - Zoloft are the biggest names in the class).  However, after years of use, we understand more about the less noticeable, though sometimes more bothersome events that go along with the SSRI treatment.  The next step has come in antidepressants and we now have drugs like duloxetine (Cymbalta) and venlafaxine (Effexor) that moderate the effects of serotonin as well as nor-epinephrine (or nor-adrenalin depending on where you are in the world).  The problem is that our bodies use a relatively limited number of chemicals in a huge variety of ways that you'll always be affecting more than just one reaction in the body.  Take the class of anti-hypertensive meds referred to as alpha-blockers: not used very frequently in moderate patients, but they occupy a certain position in the management of difficult to treat high blood pressure.  You know where Viagra (sildenafil) Levitra (vardenafil), and Cialis (tadalafil) came from? The same class of drugs as the alpha-blocker anti-hypertensives.  This class of drugs also fostered the selective alpha-blockers used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH - non cancerous enlarged prostate).

Bottom line of my position: no matter what new classes of drugs promise, given enough treatment experience, the unintended effects of the drugs will come to light, and many of them will be serious (NSAIDS for example).  Meds are not the answer to every non-problem the human race comes across.
[right][snapback]86227[/snapback][/right]

There is an answer to every problem (with enough experiments; failures and successes). I believe many people would be willing to invest in a drug that increased their processing speed, memory formation as well as retainment, and possibly motor skills. Making for interesting stock options.:whistling:
These aren't options that your kids can see, if you are around in 2 decades many of them will be a reality for the average consumer.

[Jeunemaitre]

There is an answer to every problem (with enough experiments; failures and successes). I believe many people would be willing to invest in a drug that increased their processing speed, memory formation as well as retainment, and possibly motor skills. Making for interesting stock options.:whistling:
These aren't options that your kids can see, if you are around in 2 decades many of them will be a reality for the average consumer.
[right][snapback]86235[/snapback][/right]

Your opening statement assumes that between person variation in mental processing speed is a problem. I would dispute that assumption. For the time being though, lets enforce another of your assumptions (an implicit one) that I will refer you back to my previous post for an argument against a bit later.

What amount do you think people would be willing to pay for such a compound? Personally I think you're opening a new door onto the social inequity of healthcare (but extrapolated to fictitious therapies). Clearly those with more money can obtain superior care, regardless of need. Is this ethical? I don’t have an answer for that, but anyone else is welcome to try. Moving to the active discussion, is it ethical that the rich could improve their mental functioning while those unable to afford such medication would be left unenhanced? This line of medical advancement is a Pandora’s box of potential abuses including misuse and addiction, but I don't know that we need to go much further in that line of thought. Let's go back some...

(here's that back-reference)
I've already cautioned that the introduction of new medication will always soon be followed with the introduction of the side-effects of that medication, whether they are short-term and transient (dizziness) or long-term and permanently debilitating (liver damage due to accumulation of drug). Any medication whether it targets a molecule in the body, or a specific receptor type will affect more than the intended reaction. You're implicit assumption is that medication that would improve human mental performance could be sufficiently refined to target a specific set of mental processes. I challenge that assumption with the following: the history of pharmacotherapy indicates that such tailoring is not possible. Whether we're talking about antibiotics, which also kill the healthy bacteria that everyone naturally cultivates for digestion, or mood stabilizers like lithium, which can be highly toxic if concentrations rise too high, not one example of a perfectly tailored medication is available, and I see no reason to believe that this trend will subside. Therefore you must take into account the potential side effects of a processing enhancer: [I had put together quite a list, but the specifics are not important here].

[This is where I'm running out of steam on the issue]
The potential for stock options is the wrong thing to consider here: the viability of the idea is much more important. I find it unbelievable that such drugs could be developed without succumbing to some of the "failures" that you mention. And even if they did, we then revert to the discussion about equity in use, etc.

[Sir_Die_alot]

Weren't you just banned?

[Guest]

Your opening statement assumes that between person variation in mental processing speed is a problem.  I would dispute that assumption.  For the time being though, lets enforce another of your assumptions (an implicit one) that I will refer you back to my previous post for an argument against a bit later. 

What amount do you think people would be willing to pay for such a compound?  Personally I think you're opening a new door onto the social inequity of healthcare (but extrapolated to fictitious therapies).  Clearly those with more money can obtain superior care, regardless of need.  Is this ethical?  I don’t have an answer for that, but anyone else is welcome to try.  Moving to the active discussion, is it ethical that the rich could improve their mental functioning while those unable to afford such medication would be left unenhanced?  This line of medical advancement is a Pandora’s box of potential abuses including misuse and addiction, but I don't know that we need to go much further in that line of thought.  Let's go back some...

(here's that back-reference)
I've already cautioned that the introduction of new medication will always soon be followed with the introduction of the side-effects of that medication, whether they are short-term and transient (dizziness) or long-term and permanently debilitating (liver damage due to accumulation of drug).  Any medication whether it targets a molecule in the body, or a specific receptor type will affect more than the intended reaction.  You're implicit assumption is that medication that would improve human mental performance could be sufficiently refined to target a specific set of mental processes.  I challenge that assumption with the following: the history of pharmacotherapy indicates that such tailoring is not possible.  Whether we're talking about antibiotics, which also kill the healthy bacteria that everyone naturally cultivates for digestion, or mood stabilizers like lithium, which can be highly toxic if concentrations rise too high, not one example of a perfectly tailored medication is available, and I see no reason to believe that this trend will subside.  Therefore you must take into account the potential side effects of a processing enhancer: [I had put together quite a list, but the specifics are not important here]. 

[This is where I'm running out of steam on the issue]
The potential for stock options is the wrong thing to consider here: the viability of the idea is much more important.  I find it unbelievable that such drugs could be developed without succumbing to some of the "failures" that you mention.  And even if they did, we then revert to the discussion about equity in use, etc.
[right][snapback]86252[/snapback][/right]

Ethics should not get in the way of the greater good. Generally anyone that takes these kind of drugs will have to be warned of the possible side effects in advance and if they ignore these potential problems, then it is their choice. What's right and wrong ? Morals are different for everyone. So far the side-effects haven't stopped many drugs from being marketed.
As for the prospect of those who have money gaining a benefit while those who do not becoming even less competitive; it simply has never been an issue and I see no reason why this should retard scientific technology. Sounds like something a communist would be saying, "Everyone is equal".

[Guest]

Weren't you just banned?
[right][snapback]86293[/snapback][/right]

Please stay on topic.

[Munkay]

Please stay on topic.

That's a yes, Sir_Die_Alot. And SPACE, try not to patronize people on the lurkerlounge ;)

"k thx lol."

Cheers,

Munk

[LemmingofGlory]

Please stay on topic.

STAY OFF MY LAWN!

[Walkiry]

Ethics should not get in the way of the greater good.
[right][snapback]86310[/snapback][/right]

You have to be #$%&ing kidding me...

[Jeunemaitre]

Ethics should not get in the way of the greater good. Generally anyone that takes these kind of drugs will have to be warned of the possible side effects in advance and if they ignore these potential problems, then it is their choice. What's right and wrong ? Morals are different for everyone. So far the side-effects haven't stopped many drugs from being marketed.
  As for the prospect of those who have money gaining a benefit while those who do not becoming even less competitive; it simply has never been an issue and I see no reason why this should retard scientific technology. Sounds like something a communist would be saying, "Everyone is equal".
[right][snapback]86310[/snapback][/right]

I'm half sorry that you got your new name banned, but I first have to agree with Walkiry: Ethics should not get in the way of the greater good. I mean really, huh?!?! :wacko:

1. Again we have to go back and look at your assumption that this would serve the greater good, which is the debate I've tried to avoid by looking at whether it even served the individual good.

2. Side-effects have indeed stopped drugs from being marketted. I don't mean taken off the market, I mean dead after phase II trials. The majority of new compounds die in phase I and II trials because they're either not powerful enough (poor efficacy) or they're too powerful (too many/severe side-effects).

3. Simply has never been an issue... I'm sorry so by that theory, access to medicine rightfully belongs to those who can afford it. Okay, lets follow that one step further: drug prices should be set the same around the globe, and let the market decide what should be paid, let those who are willing pay what they want to and let those who can't die. So, what about vaccination? Anyone who can't pay can't go to school (at least in the US where vaccination is required for enrollment in most public school systems, your jusrisdiction may vary). You see where the chain is going here?

4. Why am I getting deeper into an argument with someone who just lost their ability to argue back? I'm dissapointed that SPACE didn't think to try a new handle before introducing a topic that would not (on it's own) cause his immediate ejection. I was hoping that later he might even call me a hypocrit, which maybe I am, and maybe I'm not. Regardless. At this point I'm just going to shut up.

By the way, what's wrong with a little communism now and then? Don;t knock it til you've tried it. :whistling:

[Alrin]

I am going to dare a reply here and this is just my humble opinion.
I firmly believe that the idea of enhancing drugs/products is something to continue striving for. However, its current implementation is seriously flawed. Why? We don't know the human body well enough.
Nothing is impossible. Only our own minds set the limits to what we (humans) can accomplish. The current form of enhancing products are designed by people that do not have enough understanding on what's going on. Or they don't care, and are only in it for the money.

As for understanding, I think we are a bit ways off on that still. You go ahead and try to explain applied mathematics to a native indian that lived 500 years ago in the Amazonas. Not going to work. You do not think in the same manner.

Anyway, I'm gonna stop before I get too philosophical, because even though I think Man has great potential I am absolutely 100% certain we will destroy our own race in this constant world-wide political pissing contest thats going on.

Without wax, Alrin.

[Ashock]

By the way, what's wrong with a little communism now and then?  Don;t knock it til you've tried it.  :whistling:
[right][snapback]86347[/snapback][/right]

Is that a joke or not?



-A

[Brother Laz]

As for the prospect of those who have money gaining a benefit while those who do not becoming even less competitive; it simply has never been an issue and I see no reason why this should retard scientific technology. Sounds like something a communist would be saying, "Everyone is equal".
[right][snapback]86310[/snapback][/right]

Yes, that makes perfect sense. If you mention anything that would in any way slightly question the dominion of the current rich, then you are a communist. Add to this the unspoken premise that 'communist' is somehow an insult like 'stalinist'.

Isn't one of the ideals of the US the idea that 'everyone can make it' there? What you're doing is preventing any of the poor from ever being successful, since being successful requires Einsteinoxyl and the poor can't afford it. Might as well fence off the ghettos and gas them all, because you're condemning all of them to a life of unemployment and starvation.

[not that there's much difference with the current situation, where only *95%* of the poor face a life of unemployment and starvation due to not having the educational background [having grown up in ghetto school], despite being told a million times by the political right that 'the educational options are there, if you don't use them you're a lazy parasite'.

By the way, those with the least education will always fall off the cart no matter how high this 'least education' is. These days you're undereducated if you don't have an university degree, within 20 years it'll be a post-doc]

Back on topic. The problem is that regardless of consequences, once a drug like this hits the market, it'll be almost a requirement. It's not hard to imagine a conversation between a prospective employee and the interviewer: 'So, I assume you use Einsteinoxyl?' 'No, it's untested and some have reported that it kills rats in six months, so I don't trust it' 'Whatever, if you get cancer after six months, we'll just fire you and hire someone else. Not our problem. However, neither us nor anyone else will hire anyone not using Einsteinoxyl. So are you gonna take it or shall I find a fridge for you to live in?'

Don't forget, the job market is in the hands of the employers. If they push the new drug, it will be shoved down our throats come hell or high water.

PS: @Ashock: I'm sure he meant communism, not stalinism. Nah, the true evil is capitalism: Hitler was backed by the weapon moguls, ergo capitalism is nazism! See the flaw?

[Edit: size tags not working as I thought they would]

[Ashock]

PS: @Ashock: I'm sure he meant communism, not stalinism. Nah, the true evil is capitalism: Hitler was backed by the weapon moguls, ergo capitalism is nazism! See the flaw?

[Edit: size tags not working as I thought they would]
[right][snapback]86367[/snapback][/right]

Don't ever think that stalinism was what made communism evil. It was ALL evil. Stalin made it somewhat worse, but not too much.

If you're interested, read some books by Viktor Suvorov (not his real name). I think there should be English transalations for at least some of his books. He was a GRU (Glavnoye Razvedochnoye Upravlenie, a more serious establishment than the KGB) agent who defected to Britain in the late 70's. This is a good starting point. Let's just say that you will never look at communism in general the same way again. I'd recommend Ledokol (Icebreaker) and Aquarium first. This guy is by far the most knowledgeble and revolutionary historian/writer on this topic that I've ever read, and I've read a lot. Just a nice sort of a "Communism 101".


-A

[--Pete]

HI,

Sounds like something a communist would be saying, "Everyone is equal".
[right][snapback]86310[/snapback][/right]

Hey, I think I know who that communist was! It was Thomas Jefferson, right?

;)

--Pete

[Minionman]

Don't ever think that stalinism was what made communism evil. It was ALL evil. Stalin made it somewhat worse, but not too much.

If you're interested, read some books by Viktor Suvorov (not his real name). I think there should be English transalations for at least some of his books. He was a GRU (Glavnoye Razvedochnoye Upravlenie, a more serious establishment than the KGB) agent who defected to Britain in the late 70's. This is a good starting point. Let's just say that you will never look at communism in general the same way again. I'd recommend Ledokol (Icebreaker) and Aquarium first. This guy is by far the most knowledgeble and revolutionary historian/writer on this topic that I've ever read, and I've read a lot. Just a nice sort of a "Communism 101".
-A
[right][snapback]86378[/snapback][/right]

Communism seems to combine the problems of dictators (too much power in one person's hand's lots of killings, less arguments about the best way of doing things), and people who are completel sure that their government philosphy is right down to the last detail (or something along those lines), rarely happens in other governments it seems.

[jahcs]

Communism seems to combine the problems of dictators (too much power in one person's hand's lots of killings, less arguments about the best way of doing things), and people who are completel sure that their government philosphy is right down to the last detail (or something along those lines), rarely happens in other governments it seems.
[right][snapback]86437[/snapback][/right]

To bad our democratic republic is sliding further toward socialism with every government program and Supreme Court decision. ;)

[Chaerophon]

3. Simply has never been an issue... I'm sorry so by that theory, access to medicine rightfully belongs to those who can afford it. Okay, lets follow that one step further: drug prices should be set the same around the globe, and let the market decide what should be paid, let those who are willing pay what they want to and let those who can't die. So, what about vaccination? Anyone who can't pay can't go to school (at least in the US where vaccination is required for enrollment in most public school systems, your jusrisdiction may vary). You see where the chain is going here?

Well, if they can afford it, then God must love them more, right?

COMMUNIST!!!

[Chaerophon]

Just clarifying; are you saying that the motivations behind "communisms": are inherently 'evil'? Or are you restricting your characterization to the implementation of the Sino/Soviet variants? I find it hard to believe that the likes of Plato, More, Saint-Simon, Fourier, Engels and Marx were motivated by intentions that can be explicitly characterized as fundamentally 'evil'.