Lawliet comments on My main problem with utilitarianism - Less Wrong

-2 Post author: taw 17 April 2009 08:26PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (84)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Lawliet 17 April 2009 11:40:49PM 2 points [-]

Current drugs will only give you a bit of pleasure before wrecking you in some way or another.

CronoDAS should be doing his best to stay alive, his current pain being a down payment on future real wireheading.

Comment author: ciphergoth 18 April 2009 01:28:57AM 5 points [-]

Current drugs will only give you a bit of pleasure before wrecking you in some way or another.

Some current drugs, like MDMA, are extremely rewarding at a very low risk.

Comment author: timtyler 18 April 2009 04:29:37PM 7 points [-]

"Probably the gravest threat to the long-term emotional and physical health of the user is getting caught up in the criminal justice system."

Comment author: Pablo_Stafforini 18 April 2009 10:40:12PM 0 points [-]

MDMA is known to be neurotoxic. It's definitely not the way to attain maximum happiness in the long run, unless your present life expectancy is very short indeed.

Comment author: loqi 18 April 2009 11:00:17PM 1 point [-]

MDMA is known to be neurotoxic.

I think that is incorrect. Please substantiate.

Comment author: CronoDAS 18 April 2009 11:37:46PM *  1 point [-]

From the same page cited by timtyler above:

Ever more alarming animal studies conducted over a decade by George Ricaurte, a neurotoxicologist at John Hopkins University School of Medicine, suggest that taking high and/or frequent doses of MDMA causes damage to the terminals of serotonin axons in the brain. Cerebrospinal fluid 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA), serotonin's major metabolite which serves as a marker of central serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine, 5-HT) neural function, may be lower in human MDMA users than in putatively matched controls. The number of serotonin transporter sites, structural protein elements on the presynaptic outer axonal membrane that recycle the released neurotransmitter, may be reduced too. Long-term MDMA-induced changes in the availability of the serotonin transporter may be reversible; but it is unclear whether recovery is complete. Currently the balance of neurochemical and neuroanatomical evidence, and functional measures of serotonin neurons, suggests that it is imprudent to take MDMA or other ring-substituted methamphetamine derivatives without also taking neuroprotective precautions. Arguably, it is best to take MDMA infrequently and reverently or not at all - Dr Shulgin once suggested a maximum of four times a year.

Yes, the page goes on to describe reasons to be skeptical of the studies, but I think that I don't want to risk it - and I don't know how to get the drugs anyway, especially not in a reasonably pure form. I've also made a point of refusing alcoholic beverages even when under significant social pressure to consume them; my family medical history indicates that I may be at unusually high risk for alcoholism, and I would definitely describe myself as having an "addictive personality", assuming such a thing exists.

Comment author: loqi 19 April 2009 12:11:48AM 1 point [-]

Ah, thanks for the relevant response. I was carelessly assuming a stronger definition of neurotoxicity along the lines of the old 80s propaganda ("one dose of MDMA = massive brain damage").

Comment author: Pablo_Stafforini 18 April 2009 11:37:10PM 0 points [-]

The most recent meta-analysis acknowledges that "the evidence cannot be considered definitive", but concludes:

To date, the most consistent findings associate subtle cognitive, particularly memory, impairments with heavy ecstasy use.

For practical purposes, this lingering doubt makes little difference. Hedonists are well-advised to abstain from taking Ecstasy on a regular basis even if they assign, say, a 25% chance to the hypothesis that MDMA is neurotoxic.

I myself believe that positive subjective experience ("happiness", in one of its senses) is the only thing that ultimately matters, and would be the first to advocate widespread use of ecstasy in the absence of concerns about its adverse effects on the brain.

--

Gouzoulis-Mayfrank, E.; Daumann, Neurotoxicity of methylenedioxyamphetamines (MDMA; ecstasy) in humans: how strong is the evidence for persistent brain damage?, J. Addiction. 101(3):348-361, March 2006.

Comment author: ciphergoth 19 April 2009 12:03:25PM 1 point [-]

Yes, I think the sort of "eight pills every weekend" behavour that is sometimes reported is definitely inadvisable. However, there are escalating hazards and diminishing returns; it seems to me that the costs/benefits analysis looks quite the other way for infrequent use. The benefits extend beyond the immediate experience of happiness.

Comment author: outlawpoet 17 April 2009 11:50:31PM 2 points [-]

It depends on what you mean by wrecking. Morphine, for example, is pretty safe. You can take it in useful, increasing amounts for a long time. You just can't ever stop using it after a certain point, or your brain will collapse on itself.

This might be a consequence of the bluntness of our chemical instruments, but I don't think so. We now have much more complicated drugs that blunt and control physical withdrawal and dependence, like Subutex and so forth, but the recidivism and addiction numbers are still bad. Directly messing with your reward mechanisms just doesn't leave you a functioning brain afterward, and I doubt wireheading of any sophistication will either.