defining large parts of normal human variability as illness is a lie, but if that’s what society needs to work around its taboos against human enhancement, so be it.
I agree that it is better than not getting any human enhancement at all, but it still seems extremely distorted. If I am unsatisfied with my attention span I can get subsidized amphetamine to deal with it—as long as I convince a doctor that my problems are sufficiently severe that I meet the criteria for ADHD. But the benefits from the drug are not at all bimodal: basically there seems to be some kind of sweetspot for dopamine levels, and moving anyone towards it will help them. Since the current discourse speaks of illness instead of suboptimality, we end up with the wrong vocabulary for doing any kind of sensible risk/benefit analysis.
Interestingly, plastic surgery has somehow avoided this trap. Why is it that plastic surgeons can carry out procedures simply because the patients want them too, while psychiatrists can’t prescribe mediation unless the treatment guidelines indicate it?
Because there’s not a fear of people going nuts and killing other people or themselves if their plastic surgery turns out badly, I suspect.
(Note that I’m not commenting on whether the fear is justified—I have a weak-to-moderate belief that it’s not, but it’s probably more of an issue of risk tolerance in most cases.)
Or because consuming “plastic surgery” is under the surveillance of a professional—a surgeon. Maybe if you had a psychiatrist watching over you every time you consumed a pill, the rules would be different.
Isn’t most plastic surgery done on an outpatient basis? As far as I know (which isn’t far), they send the patient home the same day, and expect them to monitor their own condition and seek help if they suspect an infection or other issue, which seems about equivalent to me.
From amounts of psychological drugs sold it seems to me that it’s not at all difficult to convince a doctor to write you a prescription, at least in States.
It seems like a useful lie, society is full of them.
I agree that it is better than not getting any human enhancement at all, but it still seems extremely distorted. If I am unsatisfied with my attention span I can get subsidized amphetamine to deal with it—as long as I convince a doctor that my problems are sufficiently severe that I meet the criteria for ADHD. But the benefits from the drug are not at all bimodal: basically there seems to be some kind of sweetspot for dopamine levels, and moving anyone towards it will help them. Since the current discourse speaks of illness instead of suboptimality, we end up with the wrong vocabulary for doing any kind of sensible risk/benefit analysis.
Interestingly, plastic surgery has somehow avoided this trap. Why is it that plastic surgeons can carry out procedures simply because the patients want them too, while psychiatrists can’t prescribe mediation unless the treatment guidelines indicate it?
Because there’s not a fear of people going nuts and killing other people or themselves if their plastic surgery turns out badly, I suspect.
(Note that I’m not commenting on whether the fear is justified—I have a weak-to-moderate belief that it’s not, but it’s probably more of an issue of risk tolerance in most cases.)
Or because consuming “plastic surgery” is under the surveillance of a professional—a surgeon. Maybe if you had a psychiatrist watching over you every time you consumed a pill, the rules would be different.
Isn’t most plastic surgery done on an outpatient basis? As far as I know (which isn’t far), they send the patient home the same day, and expect them to monitor their own condition and seek help if they suspect an infection or other issue, which seems about equivalent to me.
From amounts of psychological drugs sold it seems to me that it’s not at all difficult to convince a doctor to write you a prescription, at least in States.
It seems like a useful lie, society is full of them.