opinions-political-cognitionEnhancingDrugs

There are now a few mildly but indisputably cognition-enhancing prescription drugs on the market (this article excludes psychedelic drugs, which some people believe to be cognition-enhancing, at least for certain modes of cognition, but which other people believe to be cognition-degrading in every respect).

I regret to say that I can't offer much personal advice about them. It's not that I'm opposed to them, it's just that the drugs are generally stimulants, and I don't have trouble focusing on work (in fact, I have some of the opposite problem -- I work vigorously for long periods so much that I've injured my hands from typing -- and I have trouble falling asleep). But I'd like to discuss the public policy implications.

People seem to fret about this. It seems that the fretting comes partially from the fact that people are using these drugs off-label, without involving genuinely involving doctors to monitor their use -- and partially from an analogy with performance-enhancing drugs in sports.

I think both of these reasons are silly.

First, the use of drugs without a doctor. We've had non-prescription cognition-enhancing drugs for a long time -- for example, caffeine. How many caffeine users chat weekly or even monthly with their doctor about their caffeine use? Not many. I think this is mostly due to a misunderstanding that some people have; they think there is a biological distinction between regulated drugs and unregulated ones (such as caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, allergy pills, etc). (In fact, I take an even more radical stance; any chemical that interacts with your body, for instance food, is changing you. There is no philosophical distinction between the sleepiness that you get from eating a heavy meal, and the sleepiness that you get from taking a pill -- the practical distinction is just that, in the absence of other information, you can assume that eating food is safer than pills because food is something that our ancestors encountered and evolved to handle).

But back to the naughty caffeine users. Even people who understand that caffeine is a drug don't talk to their doctor all the time about it because the costs don't justify the benefits. If there were no costs to involving a knowledgable expert in every aspect of your drug regimen, then sure, you'd be a fool not to. But the fact is that there are costs. You have to go see the doctor, it costs a lot of money, it takes time, it's inconvenient. Caffeine isn't that dangerous, and its effects are not unpredictable or counterintuitive -- therefore you can effectively monitor your own usage, even if you lack an M.D..

It would be surprising if there were no synthetic drugs left to be discovered that shared these properties with caffeine. So we should expect that there are, and will be, various synthetic cogntive enhancer drugs that users can take without medical supervision, just like caffeine. (note: i'm not saying that the current crop is necessarily "safe"; some of the current crop is essentially speed, which afaik does damage you. but then so does chronic cigarette smoking.)

Second, the analogy with performance-enhancing drugs in sports. This concern is like saying people shouldn't drive cars because they'll have an unfair racing advantage over bicyclers. In most situations, we don't think only in the context of a competitive thinking competition, but rather we actually are thinking for its own sake, or for some purpose.

Now, I do think there's a deeper form of #2 that causes concern. The problem is that, once all of your peers start using these drugs, you'll have to use them too, just to keep up.

This is a problem, but the thing is, this drugs really aren't the core of the problem. Consider another example: now that there are mobile phones, people are being asked to make themselves more available outside of working hours. Hmm, maybe the problem is mobile phones AND drugs. Or another example: now that there are computers, people are being asked to type, even though it eventually may injure their hands. Or another example: now that there are planes, people are being asked to spend time away from their families on business trips. Or another example: now that we have cities, people who want a job have to move to these nasty overcrowded places because that's where the jobs are, even though many would prefer to live in the countryside. Or another example: now that we have candles, people are being asked to work late into the night, even though it would be healthier for them to sleep at night.

You see where I'm going here. Each of these technological developments is, in itself, a good thing, because it lets humans do something that they otherwise could not. In each case, the problem is that the competitive dynamics of our economic system force people to optimize their job performance at the expense of other life goals.

So, I do think there is a problem here. But the problem is our economic system, not the availability of technology.