The day after Christmas, the New York Times published a column by Judith Warner in which she discusses the ethics of using cognition-enhancing drugs beyond the boundaries of their prescriptions.
The drugs in question – Ritalin, Adderall and Provigil – are prescribed for attention-deficit disorder (the first two) or narcolepsy (the third). People unafflicted, however, are taking these drugs because they increase one’s mental focus, information retention and retrieval and boost alertness for prolonged periods.
Proponents claim these drugs don’t have the negative side effects associated with previous generations of “uppers” like Benzedrine and Dexedrine. Ms. Warner refers to both sides of the debate without taking one (although drifts toward the pro-drug end of the spectrum).
The “pro” side argues that eschewing mind-enhancing drugs is akin to “pharmacological Calvinism,” that doing so is volunteering for unneeded hardship and besides, if one drinks coffee or deliberately eats nutritious food or gets enough sleep, one engages in the same process, just not to the same extent. If you were about to undergo heart surgery and your surgeon had the opportunity to take a brain-enhancing drug, you’d want him or her to take it, right?
The “con” side argues that resorting to chemical enhancement to keep pace with our hyperactive e-mailing, cell-phoning, texting, instant-messaging lifestyle misses the point. If we’re overwhelmed, we need to take control to slow down our stimuli, not accelerate our biology. Sure, we might get more done, but a) how much more is really worth doing and b) how much of ourselves will we lose in the process? This side argues that most of us are not heart surgeons and hiding behind the “heart surgeon” excuse is reminiscent of carrying a cell phone “just for emergencies,” only to use it for non-stop blather.
I feel more attracted to the “con” side of this debate, but I suppose I shouldn’t knock it until I’ve tried it. (I haven’t tried it.) Ms. Warner’s column reminded me of an article Aldous Huxley wrote 50 years ago for The Saturday Evening Post. In it, he recommends the use of peyote, mescaline and lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) to aid human understanding of transcendence, of awareness beyond the self.
“When administered in the right kind of psychological environment,” Mr. Huxley wrote, “these chemical mind changers make possible a genuine religious experience.” Pay close attention to the first clause of that sentence. In the years since, any number of people have experimented with Mr. Huxley’s mind-changers and some found, as he did, that it led them to a place of enlightenment and greater benevolence.
Others – the majority – have used peyote, mescaline and LSD merely as mind candy and have emerged from the experience no better, perhaps worse, than before they started.
Contemplative monk Thomas Merton wrote to Mr. Huxley about the article. (He didn’t subscribe to The Saturday Evening Post; someone sent him a copy.) Fr. Merton also didn’t want to knock without trying (he hadn’t tried), but he doubted a true transcendent experience could be “procured” simply by the ingestion of a drug.
Fifty years on, I think Merton was more accurate than Huxley. I hasten to add that this was not the fault of the drug, but of the attitude of the majority of ingestors. Modern pharmacology has given us the opportunity to enhance both the cognitive and contemplative sides of our minds – to say nothing of Viagra – but it seems we have failed to adequately prepare ourselves for their best use.
All this reminds me (perhaps it’s inevitable) of the current financial crisis. We are where we are because too many people leveraged their assets, whether it was a house or a hedge fund, trying to cash in on the go-go market while it boomed.
It seems, in all these matters, we know what to do and how to do it. What we don’t know is “why,” and the answer to that question makes all the difference.
I Want More
The day after Christmas, the New York Times published a column by Judith Warner in which she discusses the ethics of using cognition-enhancing drugs beyond the boundaries of their prescriptions.
The drugs in question – Ritalin, Adderall and Provigil – are prescribed for attention-deficit disorder (the first two) or narcolepsy (the third). People unafflicted, however, are taking these drugs because they increase one’s mental focus, information retention and retrieval and boost alertness for prolonged periods.
Proponents claim these drugs don’t have the negative side effects associated with previous generations of “uppers” like Benzedrine and Dexedrine. Ms. Warner refers to both sides of the debate without taking one (although drifts toward the pro-drug end of the spectrum).
The “pro” side argues that eschewing mind-enhancing drugs is akin to “pharmacological Calvinism,” that doing so is volunteering for unneeded hardship and besides, if one drinks coffee or deliberately eats nutritious food or gets enough sleep, one engages in the same process, just not to the same extent. If you were about to undergo heart surgery and your surgeon had the opportunity to take a brain-enhancing drug, you’d want him or her to take it, right?
The “con” side argues that resorting to chemical enhancement to keep pace with our hyperactive e-mailing, cell-phoning, texting, instant-messaging lifestyle misses the point. If we’re overwhelmed, we need to take control to slow down our stimuli, not accelerate our biology. Sure, we might get more done, but a) how much more is really worth doing and b) how much of ourselves will we lose in the process? This side argues that most of us are not heart surgeons and hiding behind the “heart surgeon” excuse is reminiscent of carrying a cell phone “just for emergencies,” only to use it for non-stop blather.
I feel more attracted to the “con” side of this debate, but I suppose I shouldn’t knock it until I’ve tried it. (I haven’t tried it.) Ms. Warner’s column reminded me of an article Aldous Huxley wrote 50 years ago for The Saturday Evening Post. In it, he recommends the use of peyote, mescaline and lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) to aid human understanding of transcendence, of awareness beyond the self.
“When administered in the right kind of psychological environment,” Mr. Huxley wrote, “these chemical mind changers make possible a genuine religious experience.” Pay close attention to the first clause of that sentence. In the years since, any number of people have experimented with Mr. Huxley’s mind-changers and some found, as he did, that it led them to a place of enlightenment and greater benevolence.
Others – the majority – have used peyote, mescaline and LSD merely as mind candy and have emerged from the experience no better, perhaps worse, than before they started.
Contemplative monk Thomas Merton wrote to Mr. Huxley about the article. (He didn’t subscribe to The Saturday Evening Post; someone sent him a copy.) Fr. Merton also didn’t want to knock without trying (he hadn’t tried), but he doubted a true transcendent experience could be “procured” simply by the ingestion of a drug.
Fifty years on, I think Merton was more accurate than Huxley. I hasten to add that this was not the fault of the drug, but of the attitude of the majority of ingestors. Modern pharmacology has given us the opportunity to enhance both the cognitive and contemplative sides of our minds – to say nothing of Viagra – but it seems we have failed to adequately prepare ourselves for their best use.
All this reminds me (perhaps it’s inevitable) of the current financial crisis. We are where we are because too many people leveraged their assets, whether it was a house or a hedge fund, trying to cash in on the go-go market while it boomed.
It seems, in all these matters, we know what to do and how to do it. What we don’t know is “why,” and the answer to that question makes all the difference.
© 2009, Mark Floegel