Regardless of how effective drugs like LSD and psilocybin are, they make it difficult to maintain traditional societal hierarchies of power and control and thus will be stamped out.
I think what OP is saying is that if every single person in a given society was to take psilocybin/LSD (or psychedelics in general) then that society would not look like society as it does 'traditionally'. The other posters to this comment thread ask how "hallucinating" would do this, but they need to realize that it is not visions or hallucinations that is the variable of change during episodes of influence under these drugs, but it is the change in thinking that incorporates the qualities of goodness, unity, beauty, hope, acceptance (I think all of these words can be compressed into the word 'love') that would be detrimental to the status quo if everyone were to feel this way.
I think this is the sort of thing one is meant to consider and reflect upon, not the sort of thing one subjects to Standard Internet Argument Protocol.
Evidence for what? The effects produced or how society would change if the effects (in change of thinking) was prevalent in all the members of the society?
Not necessarily. I get how it makes you question authority and generally see life in a different light, but it doesn't exactly do so in a way that it would lead to society breaking down. The long term effects are manifested more internally than externally IMHO.
"How does making you see things that aren't real challenge any hierarchies?"
While LSD and psilocybin do sometimes cause people to hallucinate, this is only one small part of the psychedelic experience. The real value is in how the drugs change your thinking. It would take an entire book to explain this, but here are a few YouTube videos to give you the basic idea:
It's difficult to explain how exactly they challenge hierarchies, but the 35,000 foot overview would be that psychedelics tend to make one more prosocial, whereas hierarchies tend to be fueled by antisocial behaviors. They also tend to give one self-confidence and internalize one's locus of control, whereas again hierarchies can only exist when people lack self-confidence and have relatively external locii of control. Essentially hierarchies are built on the backs of those trying to fill some sort of void in their lives, whereas psychedelics undermine this by giving one perspective and making one whole.
Here is the best description I've found:
"What is the psychedelic experience? For me it's the full and overwhelming realization of all the beauty, love, and pain, the wonder and possibility, of the human experience. For the first time you see your life truly objectively, what's going wrong, and what's going right. You grasp and grapple with how you can do better, and you are overcome by the newfound desire to strengthen your community, your relationships, and your karma. And so it proceeds for the next 4 to 6 hours.
And as the raw intensity of the experience fades, it leaves behind this lasting sense of optimism, hope, and strength, a sense that something essential has been renewed, replenished, and maybe even reborn. Above all you're left with a need to make things better, to help others, and to improve your life. And at last you have the strength and vigor you need, without which action was not possible.
The morning after taking LSD it's not uncommon for people to re-enroll in school, restart their job search, or reunite with old friends. There is this sense that whatever was holding us back is dead, we've come to terms with it, and now the power is back in our hands.
It's an experience that will shake your faith in society while simultaneously restoring your faith in yourself, the meaningfulness of existence, and your ability to make a difference.
Agreed. Going on a hallucinogenic trip is a life-changing experience that does not favour rigid structures in your mind nor the society. It's an experience so far out of the common framework of language and rational thinking that it's hard to exactly pinpoint what changes inside of you, but for me one of the biggest eye-openers was seeing myself from an outer perspective, seeing all the little selfish thinking that drives me most of the time. And appreciating the unique experience of life not filtered by my rational and rigid self for a few moments. This experience does not favour the traditonal society where a lot of people would love you being reduced to a part of the machine, for various selfish and misguided reasons.
It should be said that a trip can also be the worst experience of your life; you can live through the biggest fears you could not imagine that even existed. I have been tripping about five times in my life and most of the trips were of mixed nature. I have felt the supreme beauty and I have felt the supreme fear. In retrospective both are worth it.
Use of LSD would be terrifying for governments with strict hierarchies like China. But I think that for countries where social mobility is encouraged (like US) psychedelics would not ruin anything. Example: Steve Jobs and Bill Gates both admitted to use of LSD.
"see things that aren't real" is a very poor characterization of the psychedelic experience. One attempt at describing a small part of its many aspects: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2498783
Fundamentally, the clinical definition of "hallucination" does not apply to 90% of the effects of psychedelic drugs. "Perceptual disturbances" would be the correct term.
A hallucination is the perception of something that is not there at all, and it generally means that the thing is sincerely perceived as real.
Psychedelic experiences typically fulfil neither of these criteria.
Many people genuinely believe that when they take these substances they are communing with the universe, with god(s), aliens, ancestors, or the deep levels of their own subconscious.
To call such experiences mere "hallucinations" or "perceptual disturbances" is both reductionist and dismissive.
To tell someone to their face that their experiences amounted to nothing more than perceptual disturbances would be at best rude, and at worst cruel, agreed.
However I think it's appropriate vocabulary when attempting objective analysis of neurological/psychological phenomena. Reductionism is an inevitable and valid criticism of any such analysis.
(When I said "real" in this instance I was referring to the physical existence of objects perceived, your ability to reach out and touch them. I wasn't trying to make a value judgement about the validity or authenticity of anyones subjective experiences.)
"I think it's appropriate vocabulary when attempting objective analysis of neurological/psychological phenomena"
Without getting in to a deep conversation on objectivity, neurology, and psychology, I'll just say that I don't think these issues are so clear cut as to allow anyone to definitively say that he's on the side of truth and the phenomena he describes are "nothing but X", whatever that "X" may be.
"When I said "real" in this instance I was referring to the physical existence of objects perceived, your ability to reach out and touch them."
There are plenty of things that, even according to the "scientific" world view, purportedly exist and yet can't be touched or directly percieved, such as x-rays and atoms.