Smart pills
Howard Brazee
pills - including ethical considerations.
One ethicist talks about the possibility that some people may have bad
effects - but isn't that the case with virtually *all* drugs?
Certainly drugs I take because of my heart do bad things to me.
We have sports governing boards that proscribe such drugs as steroids
- and some talk about beta blockers as well. I don't know how much
of this is because of extensive abuse and how much is less rational.
Beta blockers are used by some people with stage fright. I've heard
suggestions that golfers would benefit by them. But there's "stage
fright" type pressure for most any sport.
But physicians can prescribe steroids for regular people when we need
to get stronger quicker. This tends to be to recover to "normal".
But we do lots of things to get better than our personal normal. And
we don't disallow athletes from getting Lasek surgery.
So I see a continuation of allowing people to take cognitive drugs to
improve those who have problems. And other people taking them to
gain advantage. Intellectually, I don't see a real difference.
How long will it be before smart pills are accepted? Which will be
preferred - temporary changes or permanent changes?
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Wayne Throop
: Beta blockers are used by some people with stage fright. I've heard
: suggestions that golfers would benefit by them. But there's "stage
: fright" type pressure for most any sport.
However, aiui beta-blockers work by blocking adrenaline response.
Which I doubt would be a net benefit for most physically active sports.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Erik Max Francis
> So I see a continuation of allowing people to take cognitive drugs to
> improve those who have problems. And other people taking them to
> gain advantage. Intellectually, I don't see a real difference.
There was an _Ethics in America II_ episode on this very subject (see
learner.org if you're in the US and you can watch it for free).
With cognitive enhancing drugs, there are a few counterarguments. Some
claim that there's only so much the brain can do and we should avoid
pushing those limits; I don't really know enough about the subject to
know whether that holds any weight at all. But there _are_ perverse
incentives that could be introduced by such drugs. If lots of people
take it and do better in, say, college applications or on the job, that
puts pressure on those that aren't to take them too. This penalizes
those who can't take them (for medical reasons or simply not being able
to afford them) or for those who won't (for personal or ethical reasons).
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis
Did you ever love somebody / Did you ever really care
-- Cassandra Wilson
Mike Ash
Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
> But there _are_ perverse
> incentives that could be introduced by such drugs. If lots of people
> take it and do better in, say, college applications or on the job, that
> puts pressure on those that aren't to take them too. This penalizes
> those who can't take them (for medical reasons or simply not being able
> to afford them) or for those who won't (for personal or ethical reasons).
IMO the only reason to worry about them is if they have bad side effects
(and this is entirely possible!), not simply because they might be
unfair.
Perform a thought experiment. Everybody on the planet magically gets an
IQ* of 250, except you; you stay the name. Is this a good thing or a bad
thing?
It should be pretty clear that it's a good thing. You probably won't
find much in the way of employment anymore, but the world will undergo
an amazing transformation which will benefit you.
That's obviously an extreme case. Repeat the experiment, except
everybody (other than you) gets boosted by 1 IQ point. I think that the
benefit still outweighs the downside.
In short, society isn't a zero-sum game. People who can't take
intelligence-enhancing drugs aren't penalized, they just aren't being
augmented.
The major problem is, of course, in convincing people of this. Whether
I'm correct or not, I feel comfortable in saying that most people will
not see things this way.
* Yeah, IQ is a limited and error-prone measurement of intelligence, but
just pretend I'm using a better scale.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Erik Max Francis
> In article <JLydnTyO6POfvUXX...@giganews.com>,
> Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>
>> But there _are_ perverse
>> incentives that could be introduced by such drugs. If lots of people
>> take it and do better in, say, college applications or on the job, that
>> puts pressure on those that aren't to take them too. This penalizes
>> those who can't take them (for medical reasons or simply not being able
>> to afford them) or for those who won't (for personal or ethical reasons).
>
> IMO the only reason to worry about them is if they have bad side effects
> (and this is entirely possible!), not simply because they might be
> unfair.
Yes, side effects are a good point. Especially long-term side effects
that can only be discovered as people use them for long periods. If
everyone starts using them and they, say, cause Alzheimer's after 15
years, that's notta-so-good.
> Perform a thought experiment. Everybody on the planet magically gets an
> IQ* of 250, except you; you stay the name. Is this a good thing or a bad
> thing?
>
> It should be pretty clear that it's a good thing. You probably won't
> find much in the way of employment anymore, but the world will undergo
> an amazing transformation which will benefit you.
Mind you, I was just proffering the objection as one that seems to have
a legitimate point, not necessarily that I personally would avoid the drug.
Taking your hypothetical I'm not sure this is a convincing argument in
the extreme case you give. It doesn't matter to (hypothetical) me much
if society is more productive and GDP is rising faster than it otherwise
would be if I have no income simply because I choose not to take a
mind-altering drug. I suppose you could set up a welfare system for
those who choose not to take the drug, but I don't particularly like the
implications of a protected class either. I'm certainly not benefited
by it; I'll never work again.
I think your less extreme examples were more convincing -- where the
drug is less potent and a smaller fraction of people choose to take it.
> In short, society isn't a zero-sum game. People who can't take
> intelligence-enhancing drugs aren't penalized, they just aren't being
> augmented.
Yes, there's an overall societal benefit for lots of people being
smarter. But there's an individual-by-individual discrepancy between
people who choose to take the drug and those who choose not to. Whether
the societal benefit outweighs the individual penalty for not partaking
depends on the details.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis
Nothing spoils a confession like repentence.
-- Anatole France
Mike Ash
Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
> Mike Ash wrote:
> > In article <JLydnTyO6POfvUXX...@giganews.com>,
> > Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
> >
> >> But there _are_ perverse
> >> incentives that could be introduced by such drugs. If lots of people
> >> take it and do better in, say, college applications or on the job, that
> >> puts pressure on those that aren't to take them too. This penalizes
> >> those who can't take them (for medical reasons or simply not being able
> >> to afford them) or for those who won't (for personal or ethical reasons).
> >
> > IMO the only reason to worry about them is if they have bad side effects
> > (and this is entirely possible!), not simply because they might be
> > unfair.
>
> Yes, side effects are a good point. Especially long-term side effects
> that can only be discovered as people use them for long periods. If
> everyone starts using them and they, say, cause Alzheimer's after 15
> years, that's notta-so-good.
I think they're the major, perhaps the only, significant point. If a
drug were available to boost intelligence and it does nothing else,
there's little reason not to take it. But if it turns your brain to
cheese after a while, then suddenly you're faced with unfortunate
incentives. This is what should be the major driving force behind
banning of performance-enhancing drugs in sports, and it carries over.
It's fine to enhance your performance, but you don't want to force
people into it if there are harmful aspects to it.
> > Perform a thought experiment. Everybody on the planet magically gets an
> > IQ* of 250, except you; you stay the name. Is this a good thing or a bad
> > thing?
> >
> > It should be pretty clear that it's a good thing. You probably won't
> > find much in the way of employment anymore, but the world will undergo
> > an amazing transformation which will benefit you.
>
> Mind you, I was just proffering the objection as one that seems to have
> a legitimate point, not necessarily that I personally would avoid the drug.
>
> Taking your hypothetical I'm not sure this is a convincing argument in
> the extreme case you give. It doesn't matter to (hypothetical) me much
> if society is more productive and GDP is rising faster than it otherwise
> would be if I have no income simply because I choose not to take a
> mind-altering drug. I suppose you could set up a welfare system for
> those who choose not to take the drug, but I don't particularly like the
> implications of a protected class either. I'm certainly not benefited
> by it; I'll never work again.
>
> I think your less extreme examples were more convincing -- where the
> drug is less potent and a smaller fraction of people choose to take it.
Well, there's a reason I gave both. :) I don't see how never working
again is such a big deal, though. Such a society should be able to
provide for you in a fashion at least as comfortable as you enjoy now,
and perhaps more. Of course, this raises the question of whether they
WILL. Seems likely, given current trends, but I suppose that's not a
given.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>With cognitive enhancing drugs, there are a few counterarguments. Some
>claim that there's only so much the brain can do and we should avoid
>pushing those limits; I don't really know enough about the subject to
>know whether that holds any weight at all. But there _are_ perverse
>incentives that could be introduced by such drugs. If lots of people
>take it and do better in, say, college applications or on the job, that
>puts pressure on those that aren't to take them too. This penalizes
>those who can't take them (for medical reasons or simply not being able
>to afford them) or for those who won't (for personal or ethical reasons).
Doesn't that apply to eyeglasses, weight training, education, and
bandages (for the injured) as well?
George W Harris
>> I think your less extreme examples were more convincing -- where the
>> drug is less potent and a smaller fraction of people choose to take it.
>
>Well, there's a reason I gave both. :) I don't see how never working
>again is such a big deal, though. Such a society should be able to
>provide for you in a fashion at least as comfortable as you enjoy now,
>and perhaps more. Of course, this raises the question of whether they
>WILL. Seems likely, given current trends, but I suppose that's not a
>given.
There are other drawbacks. All new popular
entertainment will likely be incomprehensible to you. You
probably won't be able to understand directions or
packaging information. In fact, you're likely to be
treated as someone with an IQ of 40 would be treated
today.
>
>--
>Mike Ash
>Radio Free Earth
>Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Mike Ash
George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:09:43 -0400, Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>
> >> I think your less extreme examples were more convincing -- where the
> >> drug is less potent and a smaller fraction of people choose to take it.
> >
> >Well, there's a reason I gave both. :) I don't see how never working
> >again is such a big deal, though. Such a society should be able to
> >provide for you in a fashion at least as comfortable as you enjoy now,
> >and perhaps more. Of course, this raises the question of whether they
> >WILL. Seems likely, given current trends, but I suppose that's not a
> >given.
>
> There are other drawbacks. All new popular
> entertainment will likely be incomprehensible to you. You
> probably won't be able to understand directions or
> packaging information. In fact, you're likely to be
> treated as someone with an IQ of 40 would be treated
> today.
You mean, given room and board, not expected to work, and with people
who help me to do whatever things I enjoy doing?
(OK, maybe only the ones with rich families get that treatment, I don't
know.)
Good points, all.
Erik Max Francis
Yes, the objection is that this assumes facts not in evidence. Even if
I can't work and am taken care of (by no means a given), it hardly means
that life will be pleasant. If you're living in a world where everyone
else is much smarter than you, then you're the mentally retarded guy on
the corner that everyone stares at. Perhaps they have utter contempt
for those foolish enough not to take the medicine that they will
mistreat me badly, deliberately or out of neglect. Smarter doesn't
necessarily mean nicer or more compassionate.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis
Diplomacy and defense are not substitutes for one another. Either
alone would fail. -- John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963
Erik Max Francis
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:25:52 -0700, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com>
> wrote:
>
>> With cognitive enhancing drugs, there are a few counterarguments. Some
>> claim that there's only so much the brain can do and we should avoid
>> pushing those limits; I don't really know enough about the subject to
>> know whether that holds any weight at all. But there _are_ perverse
>> incentives that could be introduced by such drugs. If lots of people
>> take it and do better in, say, college applications or on the job, that
>> puts pressure on those that aren't to take them too. This penalizes
>> those who can't take them (for medical reasons or simply not being able
>> to afford them) or for those who won't (for personal or ethical reasons).
>
> Doesn't that apply to eyeglasses, weight training, education, and
> bandages (for the injured) as well?
Sure. I'm not sure why that would be surprising, though.
It obviously also applies to cases like steroid use in sports as well,
though there's more of a conflict of interest going on with those
enforcing the rules there, which makes things a little more cloudy.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Yes, the objection is that this assumes facts not in evidence. Even if
>I can't work and am taken care of (by no means a given), it hardly means
>that life will be pleasant. If you're living in a world where everyone
>else is much smarter than you, then you're the mentally retarded guy on
>the corner that everyone stares at. Perhaps they have utter contempt
>for those foolish enough not to take the medicine that they will
>mistreat me badly, deliberately or out of neglect. Smarter doesn't
>necessarily mean nicer or more compassionate.
And if we all take medicine to make us smarter or stronger, or to
correct our vision or to get rid of bad breath or to not be psychotic
- there will still be differences.
Erik Max Francis
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:22:50 -0700, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, the objection is that this assumes facts not in evidence. Even if
>> I can't work and am taken care of (by no means a given), it hardly means
>> that life will be pleasant. If you're living in a world where everyone
>> else is much smarter than you, then you're the mentally retarded guy on
>> the corner that everyone stares at. Perhaps they have utter contempt
>> for those foolish enough not to take the medicine that they will
>> mistreat me badly, deliberately or out of neglect. Smarter doesn't
>> necessarily mean nicer or more compassionate.
>
> And if we all take medicine to make us smarter or stronger, or to
> correct our vision or to get rid of bad breath or to not be psychotic
> - there will still be differences.
Reread his hypothetical and my responses. He was very explicit and was
arguing the extreme case; in fact, I said in my earlier reply that the
less extreme cases were far more convincing, and he disagreed.
Eivind
> Well, there's a reason I gave both. :) I don't see how never working
> again is such a big deal, though. Such a society should be able to
> provide for you in a fashion at least as comfortable as you enjoy now,
> and perhaps more. Of course, this raises the question of whether they
> WILL. Seems likely, given current trends, but I suppose that's not a
> given.
Social status is a powerful motivator for human beings.
It's not a given that being materially somewhat better off, but socially
degraded from a respected member of one of the upper classes and to
something akin to a child, is a net benefit for the individual.
Eivind
Suzanne Blom
"Mike Ash" <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote in message
news:mike-84FDFA.1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <JLydnTyO6POfvUXX...@giganews.com>,
> Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>
>> But there _are_ perverse
>> incentives that could be introduced by such drugs. If lots of people
>> take it and do better in, say, college applications or on the job, that
>> puts pressure on those that aren't to take them too. This penalizes
>> those who can't take them (for medical reasons or simply not being able
>> to afford them) or for those who won't (for personal or ethical reasons).
>
> IQ* of 250, except you; you stay the name. Is this a good thing or a bad
> thing?
>
> It should be pretty clear that it's a good thing. You probably won't
> find much in the way of employment anymore, but the world will undergo
> an amazing transformation which will benefit you.
>
the type that people either can't automate or won't want to take the trouble
to do so. I've known several mentally retarded people with jobs. Of
course, those jobs may not be the kind you want to do either.
Dan Goodman
>
> "Mike Ash" <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote in message
> news:mike-84FDFA.1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > In article <JLydnTyO6POfvUXX...@giganews.com>,
> >Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
> >
> > > But there are perverse
> > > incentives that could be introduced by such drugs. If lots of
> > > people take it and do better in, say, college applications or on
> > > the job, that puts pressure on those that aren't to take them
> > > too. This penalizes those who can't take them (for medical
> > > reasons or simply not being able to afford them) or for those who
> > > won't (for personal or ethical reasons).
> >
> > Perform a thought experiment. Everybody on the planet magically
> > gets an IQ* of 250, except you; you stay the name. Is this a good
> > thing or a bad thing?
> >
> > It should be pretty clear that it's a good thing. You probably won't
> > find much in the way of employment anymore, but the world will
> > undergo an amazing transformation which will benefit you.
> >
> I think you will find employment, actually, but it will be grunt
> labor of the type that people either can't automate or won't want to
> take the trouble to do so. I've known several mentally retarded
> people with jobs. Of course, those jobs may not be the kind you want
> to do either.
In Poul Anderson's _Brain Wave_ and Aldous Huxley's _Brave New World_,
the question comes up of who will operate elevators if everyone's IQ is
really high. For some reason, I haven't seen this in recent sf.
--
Dan Goodman
Journal at:
dsgood.livejournal.com
dsgood.dreamwidth.org
dsgood.insanejournal.com
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>In Poul Anderson's _Brain Wave_ and Aldous Huxley's _Brave New World_,
>the question comes up of who will operate elevators if everyone's IQ is
>really high. For some reason, I haven't seen this in recent sf.
Very good.
Mike Ash
"Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
Since the rise of the Western obesity epidemic, it has become clear that
very smart people will take the stairs instead, thus eliminating the
need for both elevators and their operators.
Howard Brazee
>> In Poul Anderson's _Brain Wave_ and Aldous Huxley's _Brave New World_,
>> the question comes up of who will operate elevators if everyone's IQ is
>> really high. For some reason, I haven't seen this in recent sf.
>
>Since the rise of the Western obesity epidemic, it has become clear that
>very smart people will take the stairs instead, thus eliminating the
>need for both elevators and their operators.
I rarely take elevators (and am trim and healthy), but then I don't
work 100 floors up from the entrance. But the term "obesity
epidemic" pushes one of my buttons. Leftists can be just as
Righteous as rightists can be, hurting people "for their own good" for
not being the way they *should* be.
Very expensive experiments done attempting to "cure" these people in
whole school districts have failed miserably. Twin studies never
show one fat twin and one skinny twin. But skinny people can feel
superior to fat people, and doesn't that make them smug?
Mike Ash
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:14:57 -0400, Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>
> >> In Poul Anderson's _Brain Wave_ and Aldous Huxley's _Brave New World_,
> >> the question comes up of who will operate elevators if everyone's IQ is
> >> really high. For some reason, I haven't seen this in recent sf.
> >
> >Since the rise of the Western obesity epidemic, it has become clear that
> >very smart people will take the stairs instead, thus eliminating the
> >need for both elevators and their operators.
>
> I rarely take elevators (and am trim and healthy), but then I don't
> work 100 floors up from the entrance. But the term "obesity
> epidemic" pushes one of my buttons. Leftists can be just as
> Righteous as rightists can be, hurting people "for their own good" for
> not being the way they *should* be.
It was a joke, son.
> Very expensive experiments done attempting to "cure" these people in
> whole school districts have failed miserably. Twin studies never
> show one fat twin and one skinny twin. But skinny people can feel
> superior to fat people, and doesn't that make them smug?
So you're saying it's genetic, but there weren't hordes of fat people
wandering around 100 years ago beacuse...?
Erik Max Francis
> In article <8vk3e554m751mkq6o...@4ax.com>,
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:14:57 -0400, Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> In Poul Anderson's _Brain Wave_ and Aldous Huxley's _Brave New World_,
>>>> the question comes up of who will operate elevators if everyone's IQ is
>>>> really high. For some reason, I haven't seen this in recent sf.
>>> Since the rise of the Western obesity epidemic, it has become clear that
>>> very smart people will take the stairs instead, thus eliminating the
>>> need for both elevators and their operators.
>> I rarely take elevators (and am trim and healthy), but then I don't
>> work 100 floors up from the entrance. But the term "obesity
>> epidemic" pushes one of my buttons. Leftists can be just as
>> Righteous as rightists can be, hurting people "for their own good" for
>> not being the way they *should* be.
>
> It was a joke, son.
For what it's worth, I wasn't sure either.
>> Very expensive experiments done attempting to "cure" these people in
>> whole school districts have failed miserably. Twin studies never
>> show one fat twin and one skinny twin. But skinny people can feel
>> superior to fat people, and doesn't that make them smug?
>
> So you're saying it's genetic, but there weren't hordes of fat people
> wandering around 100 years ago beacuse...?
Because relatively speaking, food was much more expensive then. To the
point that there have been numerous periods in history where standards
of beauty were much more on the portly side -- it's because it proved
that they could afford it.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis
Tim Little
> So you're saying it's genetic, but there weren't hordes of fat
> people wandering around 100 years ago beacuse...?
I think you'll find that obesity has through all of history been
strongly associated with the wealthy, for whom tasty (and generally
high-energy) food has been readily available whenever they want it,
with the margin between "what I want, now" costing only a tiny
fraction of income greater than "what I need, when I need it".
Now by that standard most of us are wealthy. Turns out being wealthy
doesn't bring with it being healthy & wise; how surprising.
Animals (including humans) are biologically predisposed to eat more
than they need in times of plenty. That's a necessity for dealing
with seasonal variations. Different people have this to different
degrees and with tastes for different foods, and different abilities
of their metabolism to cope with the prehistorically implausible
situation where the plenty never ends.
- Tim
Mike Ash
Tim Little <t...@little-possums.net> wrote:
Which is all a very long and involved way of saying that there are
important factors involved other than genetics.
Mike Ash
Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
> >> Very expensive experiments done attempting to "cure" these people in
> >> whole school districts have failed miserably. Twin studies never
> >> show one fat twin and one skinny twin. But skinny people can feel
> >> superior to fat people, and doesn't that make them smug?
> >
> > So you're saying it's genetic, but there weren't hordes of fat people
> > wandering around 100 years ago beacuse...?
>
> Because relatively speaking, food was much more expensive then. To the
> point that there have been numerous periods in history where standards
> of beauty were much more on the portly side -- it's because it proved
> that they could afford it.
In other words, obesity isn't just genetics, but also other things.
Tim Little
> Which is all a very long and involved way of saying that there are
> important factors involved other than genetics.
In the context of the thread, quite the opposite. The other factors
are important, but relatively constant across most of modern society
(unlike the difference between 2009 and 1909 mentioned only in the
immediately preceding post).
Within a wealthy and free society, the largest remaining factor is the
differing degrees of the predisposition to overeat and ability of
their metabolism to cope. That's mostly genetics. However, some
segments of society portray obesity as a matter of conscious choice
under *equal* conditions. Genetic factors in metabolism make the
conditions very unequal, and non-conscious decision factors (many of
which are also genetically based) are a major influence.
- Tim
Erik Max Francis
> In article <O9qdnTPl457F1n_X...@giganews.com>,
> Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Very expensive experiments done attempting to "cure" these people in
>>>> whole school districts have failed miserably. Twin studies never
>>>> show one fat twin and one skinny twin. But skinny people can feel
>>>> superior to fat people, and doesn't that make them smug?
>>> So you're saying it's genetic, but there weren't hordes of fat people
>>> wandering around 100 years ago beacuse...?
>> Because relatively speaking, food was much more expensive then. To the
>> point that there have been numerous periods in history where standards
>> of beauty were much more on the portly side -- it's because it proved
>> that they could afford it.
>
> In other words, obesity isn't just genetics, but also other things.
People genetically inclined to overeat won't be fat if food isn't easily
accessible. So I'm not really sure where you're going with this.
One could argue that _all_ people are genetically inclined to overeat,
because that's exactly what fat is for -- storing energy. You eat a lot
when it's plentiful so that you can store up the energy it contains and
use it during times when food is hard to come by. Pretty much any
animal will overeat if given the opportunity; ask my cats.
Joy Beeson
wrote:
> In Poul Anderson's _Brain Wave_ and Aldous Huxley's _Brave New World_,
> the question comes up of who will operate elevators if everyone's IQ is
> really high.
There's another passage in _Brave New World_ in which an Alpha
observes an Epsilon being coached by a machine to take the elevator to
the correct floor, and asks why they haven't developed an elevator
that doesn't need an operator. The other Alpha said "But if we did,
our Epsilons would have nothing to do."
I presume that the contrast between the two scenes was deliberate.
Joy Beeson
--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://roughsewing.home.comcast.net/ -- sewing
http://n3f.home.comcast.net/ -- Writers' Exchange
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
A.G.McDowell
(trimmed)
>
>I rarely take elevators (and am trim and healthy), but then I don't
>work 100 floors up from the entrance. But the term "obesity
>epidemic" pushes one of my buttons. Leftists can be just as
>Righteous as rightists can be, hurting people "for their own good" for
>not being the way they *should* be.
>
necessarily self-righteous, or even a value judgement, if it amounts to
extrapolating future rates of diabetes, cancer, and heart disease or
even just waving the old chestnut of caloric restriction around. Leftist
self-righteousness starts when people start being forced to be healthy
for their own good.
>Very expensive experiments done attempting to "cure" these people in
>whole school districts have failed miserably. Twin studies never
>show one fat twin and one skinny twin. But skinny people can feel
>superior to fat people, and doesn't that make them smug?
>
the final confrontation between science and religion. I am currently
reading through a book called "Handbook of Self-Regulation," which
describes psychological theories and applied studies aimed at helping
people struggle with obesity, alcoholism, drug addiction, aggression,
etc. For millennia, religions have been funded by governments and civic
leaders trying to make their people better behaved. (Established
religions, well aware of their lack of obvious achievement in this area,
have tended not to commit themselves to such an outcome). If science can
come up with practical strategies that can be shown to actually work,
religion will look even less relevant. (It may also tone down some of
the shouters that say "If evolution is true, then morality is
pointless").
Question: I would genuinely like to know what the traditional religious
advice is to people seeking to behave better. Is there some standard
book recommended to future pastors? (No answers from
uk.religion.christian).
Obesity: Nobody is exempt from the law of conservation of energy, in
either direction. I keep an eye on my weight, eat a boring diet with no
refined sugar, and exercise. If I feel smug, it is because I eat less
than I want to after a business trip that has bumped my weight up, until
it gets down to where I want it.
--
A.G.McDowell
Dan Goodman
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:27:23 -0500, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In Poul Anderson's _Brain Wave_ and Aldous Huxley's _Brave New
> > World_, the question comes up of who will operate elevators if
> > everyone's IQ is really high.
>
> There's another passage in _Brave New World_ in which an Alpha
> observes an Epsilon being coached by a machine to take the elevator to
> the correct floor, and asks why they haven't developed an elevator
> that doesn't need an operator. The other Alpha said "But if we did,
> our Epsilons would have nothing to do."
>
> I presume that the contrast between the two scenes was deliberate.
I hadn't remembered that! Thanks.
Mike Ash
Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
> Mike Ash wrote:
> > In article <O9qdnTPl457F1n_X...@giganews.com>,
> > Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>> Very expensive experiments done attempting to "cure" these people in
> >>>> whole school districts have failed miserably. Twin studies never
> >>>> show one fat twin and one skinny twin. But skinny people can feel
> >>>> superior to fat people, and doesn't that make them smug?
> >>> So you're saying it's genetic, but there weren't hordes of fat people
> >>> wandering around 100 years ago beacuse...?
> >> Because relatively speaking, food was much more expensive then. To the
> >> point that there have been numerous periods in history where standards
> >> of beauty were much more on the portly side -- it's because it proved
> >> that they could afford it.
> >
> > In other words, obesity isn't just genetics, but also other things.
>
> People genetically inclined to overeat won't be fat if food isn't easily
> accessible. So I'm not really sure where you're going with this.
Where I'm going with this is a response to Howard Brazee's statements:
> Very expensive experiments done attempting to "cure" these people in
> whole school districts have failed miserably. Twin studies never
> show one fat twin and one skinny twin. But skinny people can feel
> superior to fat people, and doesn't that make them smug?
Wherein he appears to claim that obesity is completely genetic and
cannot be helped in any way, so any attempts to fix it or even to draw
attention to it are part of an Evil Leftist Conspiracy.
Fact is, obesity is controlled by other factors than genetics. You CAN
have one fat twin and one thin twin. You CAN make a fat person thin
again. You have free will. Just because you're genetically inclined to
overeat doesn't mean you have to. This is all I'm trying to say.
Mike Ash
Tim Little <t...@little-possums.net> wrote:
> On 2009-10-24, Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
> > Which is all a very long and involved way of saying that there are
> > important factors involved other than genetics.
>
> In the context of the thread, quite the opposite. The other factors
> are important, but relatively constant across most of modern society
> (unlike the difference between 2009 and 1909 mentioned only in the
> immediately preceding post).
Of course, this is the root cause of the obesity epidemic.
> Within a wealthy and free society, the largest remaining factor is the
> differing degrees of the predisposition to overeat and ability of
> their metabolism to cope. That's mostly genetics. However, some
> segments of society portray obesity as a matter of conscious choice
> under *equal* conditions. Genetic factors in metabolism make the
> conditions very unequal, and non-conscious decision factors (many of
> which are also genetically based) are a major influence.
I'm not trying to portray obesity as a matter of conscious choice under
*equal* conditions, but it definitely is a matter of conscious choice
under *unequal* conditions. Those who are naturally obese *can* become
thin even surrounded by an abundance of food. It may take vastly greater
motivation and willpower than for one who is naturally thin, but it can
be done. Howard Brazee appears to be claiming that those who are
naturally prone to obesity simply cannot be made otherwise, in any
fashion, by any means, which is completely silly.
Howard Brazee
>
>In other words, obesity isn't just genetics, but also other things.
Isn't everything?
But some things we are allowed, and encouraged to scorn, despite
having a large genetic component.
Howard Brazee
>> Very expensive experiments done attempting to "cure" these people in
>> whole school districts have failed miserably. Twin studies never
>> show one fat twin and one skinny twin. But skinny people can feel
>> superior to fat people, and doesn't that make them smug?
>
>Wherein he appears to claim that obesity is completely genetic and
>cannot be helped in any way, so any attempts to fix it or even to draw
>attention to it are part of an Evil Leftist Conspiracy.
>
>Fact is, obesity is controlled by other factors than genetics. You CAN
>have one fat twin and one thin twin. You CAN make a fat person thin
>again. You have free will. Just because you're genetically inclined to
>overeat doesn't mean you have to. This is all I'm trying to say.
We can "cure" people of lots of stuff. Some people try and even
succeed to "cure" people of homosexuality or whatever is considered
wrongthink. Obviously including obesity. But don't think you're
doing them a favor by telling them how bad they are if they don't
starve themselves. I don't see a significant difference between
liberals who want to cure obesity and conservatives who want to cure
homosexuality. Just a different flavor of Righteous control over
others.
Howard Brazee
>I'm not trying to portray obesity as a matter of conscious choice under
>*equal* conditions, but it definitely is a matter of conscious choice
>under *unequal* conditions. Those who are naturally obese *can* become
>thin even surrounded by an abundance of food. It may take vastly greater
>motivation and willpower than for one who is naturally thin, but it can
>be done. Howard Brazee appears to be claiming that those who are
>naturally prone to obesity simply cannot be made otherwise, in any
>fashion, by any means, which is completely silly.
I said that expensive large scale attempts to change this have failed.
And I condemned the Righteous people who make things miserable for
those who are naturally much heavier than I am.
Mike Ash
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:14:34 -0400, Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >In other words, obesity isn't just genetics, but also other things.
>
> Isn't everything?
>
> But some things we are allowed, and encouraged to scorn, despite
> having a large genetic component.
What are your feelings on the scorning of stupidity (not the mental
retardation kind, but just the regular run-of-the-mill fool kind),
sloth, belligerence, pedophilia, and psychopathy/sociopathy?
I bet at least 2 out of 5 have a large genetic component, and quite
possibly all of them.
Erik Max Francis
> In article <1at9e5h4v2aldk2hv...@4ax.com>,
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:14:34 -0400, Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In other words, obesity isn't just genetics, but also other things.
>> Isn't everything?
>>
>> But some things we are allowed, and encouraged to scorn, despite
>> having a large genetic component.
>
> What are your feelings on the scorning of stupidity (not the mental
> retardation kind, but just the regular run-of-the-mill fool kind),
> sloth, belligerence, pedophilia, and psychopathy/sociopathy?
>
> I bet at least 2 out of 5 have a large genetic component, and quite
> possibly all of them.
Well, most of those have a lot more directly negative qualities to other
people than mere obesity. The last three four are inclinations toward
criminal behavior in general, which is completely reasonable to be
scornful of. It doesn't matter _why_ such criminally inclined people
are what they are, if they engage in criminal behavior, society _should_
scorn them, because they represent a threat. Big difference between
that and something you simply personally disapprove of, even if it's
something that is to some extent self-destructive on their part. In
free societies people are supposed to be free to do things that the
greater society might deem unwise, so long as they're not infringing on
anyone else's rights.
If you encounter someone truly obese then you may find them distasteful
and disapprove of their eating habits. If you're sufficiently
sensitive, you may find yourself really grossed out to the point of not
being able to, say, finish your meal. That's a bit less intrusive than
people inclined to start fights, rape children, and people genuinely
disconnected from reality and/or inclined to exploit you with no
remorse. Those are all rather more directly applicable to you, rather
than just people who are fat (obsese) or gross (sloth). (I'm using the
generic _you_ throughout.)
I think Howard's point is that people get awfully uppity and judgmental
about obesity in particular, and it usually comes from skinny people (by
genetics or habit or both) who simply can't understand why overweight
people can't stop eating; I have a few friends who clearly _are_
genetically inclined to be underweight and simply don't understand the
problem since they have no frame of reference to compare it to. It
_does_ seem to me to used by some subset as a reason to get on their
high horse simply because there's no other stirrups available at the moment.
The exaggeration of the "obesity epidemic" as a media scare story isn't
exactly helping; yes, people in Western nations, and America
particularly, are fat. It's because they're comparatively wealthy and
food is cheap. Go figure. It's a damn sight better than the alternative.
Mike Ash
Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
I forgot a good one: alcoholism. As noted medical commentator Mitch
Hedberg said, "Alcoholism is a disease, but it's the only one you can
get yelled at for having. 'Damn it, Otto, you're an alcoholic.' 'Damn
it, Otto, you have lupus.' One of those two doesn't sound right."
Anyway, yes, my list runs a continuum from less to more justified. That
was part of the point: that whether something deserves scorn, in
society's view, is not really related to whether it's caused by genetics
and can't be helped by the person being scorned. Certainly, murderous
psychopaths deserve scorn (and more) even though they were born that way
and can't help being who they are. On the other hand, it's pretty well
socially acceptable, and common, to scorn someone whose life is terrible
simply because he's incredibly lazy, even though this may well be
genetic (or ingrained as part of his upbringing, which is basically
equivalent as far as whether he can help it or not) and he really can't
get off his butt and go to work on a regular basis.
> If you encounter someone truly obese then you may find them distasteful
> and disapprove of their eating habits. If you're sufficiently
> sensitive, you may find yourself really grossed out to the point of not
> being able to, say, finish your meal. That's a bit less intrusive than
> people inclined to start fights, rape children, and people genuinely
> disconnected from reality and/or inclined to exploit you with no
> remorse. Those are all rather more directly applicable to you, rather
> than just people who are fat (obsese) or gross (sloth). (I'm using the
> generic _you_ throughout.)
Certainly being obese is way less bad that being a pedophile. But is it
less bad that being stupid or lazy? The stupid and lazy mostly just harm
themselves too. We have no trouble scorning *those* people, and I've
never, but *never* seen anyone jump to their defense saying that it's
genetic and attempts to cure them have always failed so we'd better not
try.
> I think Howard's point is that people get awfully uppity and judgmental
> about obesity in particular, and it usually comes from skinny people (by
> genetics or habit or both) who simply can't understand why overweight
> people can't stop eating; I have a few friends who clearly _are_
> genetically inclined to be underweight and simply don't understand the
> problem since they have no frame of reference to compare it to. It
> _does_ seem to me to used by some subset as a reason to get on their
> high horse simply because there's no other stirrups available at the moment.
It's an odd point to make in response to the usage of a single phrase,
with no uppitiness or judgement in sight.
> The exaggeration of the "obesity epidemic" as a media scare story isn't
> exactly helping; yes, people in Western nations, and America
> particularly, are fat. It's because they're comparatively wealthy and
> food is cheap. Go figure. It's a damn sight better than the alternative.
There is no "the" alternative. One alternative is to be poor and
starving. Another alternative is to be healthy and wealthy, whether
through greater self-control or through medical intervention.
Michael Stemper
>Mike Ash wrote:
>> So you're saying it's genetic, but there weren't hordes of fat people
>> wandering around 100 years ago beacuse...?
>
>Because relatively speaking, food was much more expensive then.
If you look at the stories that the Brothers Grimm collected, the thing
that's most often desired by the protagonist isn't gold or the hand of
the princess -- it's a meal or even a crust of bread.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
This email is to be read by its intended recipient only. Any other party
reading is required by the EULA to send me $500.00.
Suzanne Blom
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:tnt9e5homsgvp8q84...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 11:34:14 -0400, Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm not trying to portray obesity as a matter of conscious choice under
>>*equal* conditions, but it definitely is a matter of conscious choice
>>under *unequal* conditions. Those who are naturally obese *can* become
>>thin even surrounded by an abundance of food. It may take vastly greater
>>motivation and willpower than for one who is naturally thin, but it can
>>be done.
>
> And I condemned the Righteous people who make things miserable for
> those who are naturally much heavier than I am.
>
of those who are obese have a particular kind of adenovirus which the thin
rarely have. It may be that it is a real epidemic, after all.
Howard Brazee
>What are your feelings on the scorning of stupidity (not the mental
>retardation kind, but just the regular run-of-the-mill fool kind),
>sloth, belligerence, pedophilia, and psychopathy/sociopathy?
In high school I reported on the brand new story "Flowers for
Algernon", and I brought up this very thing. The class argued
against me, saying that retarded people weren't stupid, they were
slow. But getting one higher in an IQ score doesn't mean someone can
be scorned over the person who qualified as retarded.
Erik Max Francis
Well it depends on what else is going on. If he's asking for a handout
simply because he doesn't want to work, then a certain amount of scorn
perhaps might reasonably attach. At the very least he might not get the
handout from people who disapprove, which I suppose counts as something
negative anyway.
>> If you encounter someone truly obese then you may find them distasteful
>> and disapprove of their eating habits. If you're sufficiently
>> sensitive, you may find yourself really grossed out to the point of not
>> being able to, say, finish your meal. That's a bit less intrusive than
>> people inclined to start fights, rape children, and people genuinely
>> disconnected from reality and/or inclined to exploit you with no
>> remorse. Those are all rather more directly applicable to you, rather
>> than just people who are fat (obsese) or gross (sloth). (I'm using the
>> generic _you_ throughout.)
>
> Certainly being obese is way less bad that being a pedophile. But is it
> less bad that being stupid or lazy? The stupid and lazy mostly just harm
> themselves too. We have no trouble scorning *those* people, and I've
> never, but *never* seen anyone jump to their defense saying that it's
> genetic and attempts to cure them have always failed so we'd better not
> try.
I think the difference is when it crosses the line between doing
something that people or society in general might consider inappropriate
and doing actual harm to other people, or asserting a requirement that
other people treat you specially because of it. An alcoholic (as per
your new example) slowly drinking himself to death won't get much scorn
from me, but an alcoholic father who beats his wife and children in fits
of rages certainly will and warrants a call to the police to boot.
If you're doing something that some deem stupid, or society deems
stupid, or which is even objectively stupid, then in a free society you
should be free to do that. Just don't be surprised when bad things
happen because of it.