[NextUserName]

For every one of you who takes the meds route, there are others who change careers, jobs, or learn exercises and methods to stay on task better. This has been the traditional way to deal with these problems.

I am not saying that I would not do any different if I were in your shoes, but changing your career to match your brain sure sounds more natural, and that is usually a good thing.

It is sad how science and technology has made normal people have a medical condition. A couple of hundred years ago you would have been a farmer rather than a banker. Now you are on mind altering drugs the rest of your life.

[runawaybottle]

Lets just be really clear about one thing, focus related drugs have been pretty common in academia and highly intellectual professions for decades now. Similarly, drugs like Ritalin are legal in Israel and can be had by anyone if they just get a script from a doc (no need for a diagnosis). In the long run I think we as a society need to grow up about this stuff, as use of some of these meds in moderation is fine either for light occasional use by those without severe focus issues, or prescription based moderate use by those that have ADHD.

Instead of sitting around and writing articles about 'omg millions of college kids and high intellectual work professionals take drugs, holy shit no one has ever taken drugs to create things before!', we just need to get real and be responsible about the reality. Don't stigmatize it, and allow people to responsibly explore the option with their doctors and see what works. Now if you disagree with this approach, you must argue that the health effects of moderate use is too severe, or the medication gives people an unfair advantage.

As far as changing careers, sure, that's an option an individual can explore. If they feel like they can deal with life acceptably with some medication, what's wrong with that? Are they assholes now? Frauds? Phillip K Dick was a anphetamine abuser (which no one advocates), but incredible writer. I would never dare suggest someone limit their potential if there are options they can reasonably try.

[NextUserName]

>Phillip K Dick was a anphetamine abuser (which no one advocates), but incredible writer. I would never dare suggest someone limit their potential if there are options they can reasonably try.

This is very telling and I believe that it defines pretty clearly the rift between our convictions on this.

In the near future, we will have the ability to augment our brains via drugs and implants to make us many more times smarter and more productive. We are starting down this path already. Where does our humanity end up after all of this. There will certainly be a tradeoff.

I believe the present and future of humanity is better off letting us reason with out own natural brains vs enhanced/inhibited (enhanced/inhibited always go together because there is always a tradeoff, even if eventually the only side effect is an imbalance of abilities). I am not saying that I never condone the use of ADHD drugs and Antidepressants, but when they are handed out like candy - I see that as being a problem. Clearly you do not, but that is the difference between us.

[Houshalter]

A couple hundred years ago I would have been essentially blind because a lack of these "unnatural" glasses. There's a good chance I'd be dead because of "unnatural" vaccines and antibiotics.

No, technology hasn't made normal people have a medical condition. We already had a medical condition. Science and technology allows us to understand that, and to improve our lives beyond just "give up and get another job".

[NextUserName]

You have to draw a line somewhere don't you? otherwise we've eventually got Gattica.

Does wearing glasses modify the logical center of your brain like Ritalin? How about we start genetically engineering humans to be smarter, stronger, etc. How about we give all short kids hormones so they can be as tall as the rest of their classmates, it's only fair after all. Vaccines do something that nature also does, it is just in a more controlled way, antibiotics are used to save lives so they have a different consideration, again though the thing that I want to underline is that altering the brain's chemistry and behavior is bad.

Some things like modern agriculture seem like good ideas at some level. Tons of food can be achieved cheaply, but it has side effects of pollution and toxins/antibiotics ending up in our bodies, the cycle of life and our ecosystem is damaged. The same with factories. They can produce amazing amounts of goods, but they can also destroy the earth.

Systematically altering thoughts and minds because they don't fit into office jobs well is something that will end up with consequences (it already is starting too).

[Houshalter]

One, who the hell cares? Just because something is natural doesn't make it good. If you want natural, go live in a cave and risk dying whenever you get a cut or a tooth infection. There's nothing wrong with improving things.

Two, again, it's a real condition that seriously affects quality of life. Your argument is about as reasonable as telling crippled people they shouldn't have wheel chairs, or depressed people they shouldn't take anti-depressants, or otherwise blind people have glasses, etc. It's absurd and offensive.