Smart drugs and professors/ research students.

Is it acceptable for professors and research students to use smart drug? If the person is a research student, isn't this the same as an athlete using steroids. What if the person stops? Or has to spot afterwards: you basically have a person who is not up to the standard they should be for their qualifications, and/or job. Should a professor or doctor using smart drugs be fired? I was just thinking that a person getting a degree with smart drugs should not have the degree. If that person then uses that knowledge later on without the drug they could be a danger to society and themselves. I for one would not want an aeronautical engineer who studied using smart drugs.

I believe that smart drugs only enhance what's already there. So, I don't feel it is cheating at all. I have used smart drugs, perferbly piracetam, it's an oldy but goody.

reply to post by chrismicha77


Steroids only enhance what is already there: they do not make your legs longer and you have the same dna. What about the safety issues of people in important jobs who can no longer do there subject because they only were able to do it using smart drugs. Lets not pretend that everyone takes them forever or that they are all able to.

I can see it now someone walks into a job at a top bank with a degree and grade they wouldn't have got without smart drugs. The bank thinks they are employing Albert Einstein, they end up with Homer Simpson.

reply to post by s12345


I might dislike the drug you are using, but I would defend with my life your right to use it.

reply to post by JackTheTripper


I am not using any drugs at all.

reply to post by s12345


Ehh.. It was a paraphrase on Voltaire.. It's a concept. I didn't imply directly you'd use anything, but if you'd choose to do so, you I'd defend your right to use the drug you've choosen even if I didn't like (the) drug(s).
I bety you didn't know that '___' can also be used as nootropic in subpsychedelical doses?

www.erowid.org...

How much different ppls drug/nootropic use has influenced your life to the positive (or the negative) direction?

www.miqel.com...

FRANCIS CRICK, the Nobel Prize-winning father of modern genetics, was under the influence of '___' when he first deduced thedouble-helix structure of DNA nearly 50 years ago.

It to me that the people taking such drugs cannot guarantee that always will. Someone with a medical condition will move hell and high water to get their medication: although her in the uk such medication is free. This being the case, the people will not be able to function to the level they did when using the smart drugs. How about a student learning complicated mathematics, from someone who got their degrees using smart drugs but who no longer feels the need to use them, now they have their job. Plus they have not existed long enough to assess any long term damage. It think it is highly unlikely that anyone ever gets a free ride.

reply to post by s12345


You sound just jealous and want to control people for their own sake. I don't tolerate that.
That is simply wrong. As wrong is helping people who don't express they need help, ie, without them asking for help. In other words: the only thing I don't tolerate is intolerance.

Jelousy would be saying that people don't achieve things without smart drugs: this is obviously false. However I do wonder in the ethics of these drugs when it means people could be hired for degrees they could not obtain without smart drugs; leaving people using services with the wrong people. How many of those involved in the banking collapse were on smart drugs at university. Just a thought but what if it were caused by the use of smart drugs at university.Think of that, a Quant who obtained their degrees including phd's using smart drugs. I'm sure this will help to explain my thinking better

reply to post by s12345


I'd have to quote chrismicha77 as a fact: smart drugs only enhance what's already there. They only seem to speed up the memory recollection and processing idea synthesis. The idea of bank collapsing per se is idiotic metaphor (see zeitgeist the addendum for the idea about fiat money), but as a metaphorical idea I get your point and that fear is invalid. You're asking to be certain (or predict) of the future.

Steroids only enhance what is already there or is this really about a large number of people who are not intelligent enough to achieve things naturally and so instead if taking there place in society seek to cheat, destrying natural selection and putting in it's place a permanently medicated stupid society.

reply to post by s12345


FFS, smart-drugs do not make you any more intelligent you already are. If you are stupid and use them, you won't get any smarter but just function better without using so much effort. Why you just cannot understand and accept this?

Maybe you shoud test some nootropics yourself so you can get rid of that biased attitude...

But if you function better without so much effort, then that is enhancement. It comes down to the same thing would you want a surgeon that qualified with smart drugs and no longer uses them?

reply to post by s12345


Yet again, somewhat poor metaphor. The surgeon may have used nootropics while qualifying or even while training but eventually practice makes master - one adopts the general idea of the learning/mastering the process which has then transformed to routine. Then the need of the use of nootropics is obsolete.

Then again, we know that main regulator for brain chemistry levers is based on histamine (and hence the best sleeping aid is first generation antihistamine). If the surgeon has allergy and decides to take antihistamine which passes the brain blood barrier, his/her brain histamine level and thus every other neurotransmitter levels and thus congitive function is also decreased. Consequentlyit may (or may not) affect to his decision which may (or may not) result in his/hers patients death. Should the doctor be allowed to practice his/hers profession while taking any drug?

If the setting would be the above, I would definately want to get "treated" by the doctor who's on nootropic rather than the one who is on common OTC-drug but with impaired rational thinking.

Does it not come down to a matter of fairness. The more money someone has the better chance they are of being able to pay for university, adding smart drugs in makes it even more unfair. The less clever with money will not just be able to pay for their degree, but buy themselves an easier time. University was supposed to train people to think. Taking a smart drug means the people are not being trained to think but medicated to. It is supposed to stretch the person giving them a life time advantage, not a one until the smart drugs run out.

By the way the golden ratio is 1 to 1.66666 recurring or 0.6666 to 1 which ever you want and has nothing to do with p. I think?Was used by an american depression era designer or architect.