If you haven’t already heard of REAL IDs, you will know about them soon. An act was passed in 2005 requiring all citizens to have them. The REAL ID will be required to board airplanes, open bank accounts, and to enter any federal building. The video below believes that these ID cards are the end goal of an elite ruling class. It also mentions RFID chips that can be used to track our movements. Fortunately these chips are not part of the legislation, but they are still a real possibility.
The events that have lead to REAL IDs may not be the conspiracy this video makes them out to be. But, REAL IDs will give the government a more effective way of controlling what you can and cannot do. Such IDs shouldn’t exist in a “land of the free”. The government doesn’t need to know where you are, and you shouldn’t need their permission to open a bank account. The more control we give to the government, the less control we have over our lives.
Nootropics are becoming common, but are still relatively new and unstudied. Few studies have been done on humans, and most of the studies that have been done have used small populations.
Piracetam has been studied more than most nootropics, and some of the findings sound very promising. These studies have indicated it might improve memory, increase intelligence, help dyslexia and improve alzheimers. Specifically, there has been a lot of research on the benefits of using Piracetam after having a stroke. Unlike many studies, these can be human based and utilize larger populations.
Brain enhancing drugs seem inevitable. It makes sense for it to be possible to help our brains by both providing the chemicals they use and by speeding up reactions.
Now. Before you start downing a bottle of Piracetam every day, be warned that there has not been much research on its long term affects.
Early research on piracetam’s mechanism of action in rats led scientists to hypothesize that the cognitive enhancing qualities of piracetam are related to its effects on adrenal steroids. One study found that removing the adrenal glands of rats that had previously been administered piracetam inactivates any effect of the associated effects on learning and cognition. (5) Another study involving adrenalectomized rats confirmed hypothesis of piracetam moderation by adrenal steroids, rats would not respond to piracetam at any dosage. (6) Further research in this area suggested that piracetam’s mechanism of action may be due to intervention in steroid-sensitive gene transcription/protein synthesis. (7) This area of animal research has diminished/lost attention due to recent research using piracetam as a treatment for many different types of disorders in humans.
It seems likely that Piracetam depends on the adrenal glands, which emit various hormones to enhance human performance when we are under stress. This means that our brains might not directly utilize Piracetam. Piracetam might triggers our adrenal glands to produce a chemical(or chemicals) that increase brain activity.
This is why I’m skeptical about long term affects. Over use of the adrenal glands leads to many health problems. However, there is no proof that Piracetam causes any part of the body to detioriate due to being overworked. Piracetam is probably very good for short term use. Drugs that temporarily boost cognitive ability? People may need to start passing a drug test before taking the SAT.
It is possible that we will discover drugs that enhance mind performance without any bad side effects. In which case, there would be no reason to restrict use. Unless of course, you want to force a portion of the population to be less intelligent.
Dan Gilbert on how we rarely manage to accurately forecast how happy we will be in the future:
Even if you are not a hedonic utilitarian, you’d probably agree that genuine human happiness is a significant good. Any discussion of a future action, event, or technology carries at least an implicit judgment about its effect of people’s wellbeing. The biases Gilbert indicates suggest that we are overly cautious about negative events and overly optimistic about positive ones.
Futurist reactions to technology provide a clear example of this tendency to exaggerate benefits and harms. Futurists tend to be Luddites or technophiles. A publication bias might be assisting this phenomenon — opinions expressing indifference aren’t as viable for publication — but both biases play a part in shaping the landscape of thought. Numerous anecdotes chronicle how individuals have underestimated the impact of technologies like cars, computers, or microwaves on the way we conduct our life. Despite this mistake, we often overestimate how the change created by a specific technology will alter our wellbeing.
Even though this argument mirrors what Gilbert had to say about technology, he is still too negative about technology in general. I agree that there is no one device that allows us to spend more time with our families, but technologies that increase worker productivity also increase the overall level of wealth, which gives individuals the chance to consume more leisure time. Occupants of wealthier countries report higher levels of satisfaction, (2), and individuals rate themselves about 1 point higher on a 10 point scale for each doubling of wealth. If technology continues to develop at the rate it has over the past 150 years, happiness levels will rise, particularly in poorer nations.
In the case of specific technologies, two cases are worth considering. First of all, gadgets of the type usually featured in magazines like Popular Science do not significantly change our state of wellbeing. As cool as they might initially seem, we become accustomed to them and soon return to our level of happiness prior to having them. On the other hand, more mundane innovations that alleviate chronic problems are more likely to improve our lives. Even though we quickly adapt to one-time events like winning the lottery, losing a limb, or purchasing a home theatre system, we don’t adapt to long commutes, continual noise, or long bouts of bad weather. Given this, flush toilets and air-conditioning have probably done more to improve our wellbeing than consumer electronics ever have.
Hat tip to Will Wilkinson, who has done some wonderful research on the significance of happiness research, for the video.
——————————————– blejkrajli is currently shopping for a laptop, despite the knowledge that brand-new circuits and transistors do not bring happiness.
1. They wear out, and suffer one severe or a series of cascading ‘mechanical’ failures
2. They are unable to recover from self-inflicted trauma
3. They are unable to recover from trauma caused by other people or human activity
4. They are unable to recover from trauma caused by a non-human biological agent
5. They succumb to ’system failure’ caused by an inherent genetic defect
I am not sure if this list would include non-human, non-biological causes of death like radiation from the sun. Examples like that may or may not fall under the first category, depending on the definition of “mechanical failure”. Regardless, this list is a strong starting point for the argument Dave makes in his article.
There has been a lot of effort, and thus a lot of progress in categories 4 and 5. But when trying to figure out how to help people live longer and healthier lives, we tend to ignore numbers 2 and 3.
Most people pay very little attention to what they are taking into their bodies. People are quick to drink pop from an aluminum can(Alzheimers) or to fill up a glass of fluorinated water. These same people can be very conscentious about washing their hands to kill bacteria or getting regular doctor checkups to make sure all their parts are working properly.
This article discusses quite a few ways that we poison ourselves. And there are many more.
The four leading causes of death in the U.S. are: heart disease, cancer, stroke and chronic lower respiratory disease. All of these are strongly linked to what we consume!
Heart disease is often caused by what we eat, cancer is linked to taking in radionuclides and other carcinogens, stroke is often related to smoking, diabetes(has a strong diet factor) and chronic lower respiratory disease is usually caused by breathing bad air.
Longevity might be linked tighter to diet and exposure to non-biological compounds, than to genes and harmful bacteria. Bacteria and genes have been around a long time. Our evolution is based on successful gene use. Likewise, it’s been proven that people who are not exposed to bacteria are unhealthy. In contrast, the widespread and hefty consumption of artificial compounds is new.
