Just want to echo someone else's sub-thread:
Adderall is not at all similar to Huxley's description of Soma. Soma was about feeling good and not having to think of the evil things that make the BNW society possible, not efficiency.
> ... I have talked to pharmacologists about this matter, and a number of them say that it’s probably quite possible that it may be possible to, by pharmacological means, which will do no harm to the organism as a whole, to increase the span of attention, to increase the powers of concentration, perhaps to cut down on the necessity for sleep, and the various other things which may lead to a very considerable increase in general mental efficiency.
Also, Huxley's Soma is very close to the medicine Soma (Carisoprodol), in my experience. It's a beautiful, relaxing, euphoric high. Probably highly addictive.
That's also what I thought - Wasn't Soma more of a way to make people question less and just remain in a blissed out but maybe sort of out of it state at all times ? Seems very different than amphetamines
The link (including the transcript of Huxley’s lecture) doesn’t seem to be about Soma, unless I’m missing something. Huxley produced a lot of work outside of Brave New World, lots of it concerned with drugs and altered states of consciousness (so much so that personally I don’t think I’ve done enough drugs to understand his perspective, as I find him distinctly, and almost uniquely among such high-profile authors that I’ve tried, unreadable)
amphetamines feel a lot like people putting NO2 on their cars, or overclocking their computers. You might just fine in the end, but the likelihood of wear & tear catching up to you increases. It should be treated just like any other medicine, don't use it unless you really have to, and expect adverse effect (known or unknown).
To continue the analogy, a Dodge Challenger with a 50-shot of nitrous on it that gets used once a day is gonna still come out looking better at any milage/age than the same engine in a Promaster van because you can't drive around at 17k gross in a Challenger so the area under the abuse curve is way lower even if it peaks ever so slightly higher.
An office worker on meth-lite (or whatever you want to call it) is still accumulating less wear and tear than a laborer, something the human body is clearly capable of being for a lifetime if you're somewhat smart about it.
Adderall, caffeine, heck cocaine based stimulants, are probably all fine if you're not over-using the living crap out of them and stacking large amounts of them on top of other things that'll beat the body up over time.
Many people don't realize that any argument they can think of against a given medication has been gone over a thousand times by thousands of medical professionals. The truth is, they just don't trust the medical system as a whole.
Whether that is good or bad stands to be seen. However, I find that people with this position often reject effective and safe treatments along with the more questionable ones.
Amphetamines are safe, well-studied and non-addictive at prescribed doses. On the other hand, untreated ADHD VASTLY increases likelihood of addiction and many mental disorders.
Definitely DO use this medication if you need it - it's the first medication your doctor will likely ask you to try precisely because an extensive body of research says it's the most effective way for treating ADHD.
This has the same energy as the common incorrect statement “marijuana isn’t addictive”. I assume made by frequent users who want to downplay negatives.
1. People take it as a study drug, without prescription.
2. There may be over medication. Doctors will sometimes feel pushed to prescribe (as is known to happen with antibiotics)
3. At an individual level that is true, but you may need it because of your society and environment. Both ADHD rates and treatment varies between countries (even between regions and states within countries) and has varied a lot over time, which implies some external factor affects it.
Isn't the whole point of amphetamine based treatement for ADHD to correct(or beneficially alter, depending on your point of view) an non-standard brain chemistry?
AFAIK some neurodivergent brains deal with amphetamines differently and the baseline levels of chemical affected by amphetamines is different.
Wear and tear might be a thing, i don't know, but the analogy of putting NO2 in their car feels a bit off.
It'd be more like finally putting premium unleaded in your car after years of "back of the lorry" pseudo-unleaded.
I believe parent commenter was referring to recreational use, i.e., use by people without such diagnoses who want a "performance boost". I heard about that sort of thing being popular when I was in college — people would take Adderall to cram for an exam or to study late into the night.
You're right that, for people with ADHD and related disorders, stimulant medication sort of just adjusts their baselines so they can pay attention like a "normal" person.
Eh, for me the comment rings mostly true. It fixed my ADHD - I was incredibly more productive, present, and "on track" so to speak. I set goals for myself and achieved them (some for the first time) once I was treated.
That said, it completely destroyed my appetite. I picked up ciggies, too. It made me crave nicotine and caffeine. I started pulling all-nighters because I was so productive (or, so into whatever game I was playing.) I got cold sweats often and had some weird uh sexual health side effects. Develeoped a tolerance to 5-10mg very quickly, so went up to 15-20mg, which also felt weakened after a month or so.
So, wasn't lolng before I could tell this was not healthy. Felt like I was in overdrive mode - super mentally active, and productive, but running my body into the ground. I would never do it long-term.
Is that based on a rigorous PhD level understanding of the neurobiology of the brain and the chemistry behind that particular medication, or just something you absorbed though popular culture, eg movies and Instagram reels?
Exactly. The spice lets the quant guild see into the future. This ability is so valuable it has earned them the patronage of House Goldman and House Blackrock.
Everybody who could afford it adopted psychostimulants in WW2. Go pills have been part and parcel since then. Some countries have adopted modafinil, but the US still uses amphetamine.
> In 1919, the Japanese discovered a more potent version of the drug — methamphetamine. The new drug was a crystalline powder soluble in water. In this form, it can be smoked, injected, snorted or taken orally. Users get an intense but brief high when they inject or smoke the drug, but if it's snorted or taken orally by capsule, the high lasts longer.
An army of tweakers. I don't think that this aspect of the War and the Holocaust are discussed enough. Certainly no excuse, but it is very interesting.
> Chronic Meth users have deficits in memory and executive functioning as well as higher rates of anxiety, depression, and most notably psychosis. [0]
In more recent times of horror:
> After the fall of the al-Assad regime in Syria, large stockpiles of the illicit drug captagon have reportedly been uncovered.
> The stockpiles, found by Syrian rebels, are believed to be linked to al-Assad military headquarters, implicating the fallen regime in the drug’s manufacture and distribution. [1]
Benzedrine (an amphetamine inhaler) was the first antidepressant marketed (although at the time I believe they used the term "psychic energizer" for antidepressants)
You've probably also heard of 3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine, though its abbreviated name (MDMA) is likely more familiar.
It's a huuuuuge family of substances though, particularly if you go one step more generic and start with Phenylethylamine as the backbone (amphetamine is a shortening of alpha-methyl-phenethylamine), the family includes hallucinogens like mescaline, empathogens like MDMA and its close cousins, the whole 2C family, the cathinones and their derivatives ('mephedrone' had a cultural moment 10-15 years back). And some real nasties like PMA, PMMA and bromo-Dragonfly.
Why does a space engineering lecturer believe he has novel thoughts on ADHD treatment inspired by an author from a medical era he didn’t bother to do cursory research of?
No, my question is why someone with a job unrelated to subject didn’t bother to do enough research to find out something as simple as the fact that amphetamines were already used to boost productivity in Huxley’s era before writing as if he had some authority on the subject.
One would think that if you are not an authority in a subject you want to write on, you should do at least the equivalent of a child’s book report research before espousing your opinion and immediately looking like an ass.
Readit News
> ... I have talked to pharmacologists about this matter, and a number of them say that it’s probably quite possible that it may be possible to, by pharmacological means, which will do no harm to the organism as a whole, to increase the span of attention, to increase the powers of concentration, perhaps to cut down on the necessity for sleep, and the various other things which may lead to a very considerable increase in general mental efficiency.
https://www.organism.earth/library/document/realizing-human-...
It turns out to refer to a drug in fiction which is named after the Vedic ritual drink.
Original Vedic "soma" is indeed more like a drink of inspiration and ecstasy, with myths similar to the norse "Mead of poetry".
"somasya tA mada indraS cakAra" - "In the exhilaration of soma, Indra has done these great deeds" - is a rig-vedic refrain.
An office worker on meth-lite (or whatever you want to call it) is still accumulating less wear and tear than a laborer, something the human body is clearly capable of being for a lifetime if you're somewhat smart about it.
Adderall, caffeine, heck cocaine based stimulants, are probably all fine if you're not over-using the living crap out of them and stacking large amounts of them on top of other things that'll beat the body up over time.
Whether that is good or bad stands to be seen. However, I find that people with this position often reject effective and safe treatments along with the more questionable ones.
Definitely DO use this medication if you need it - it's the first medication your doctor will likely ask you to try precisely because an extensive body of research says it's the most effective way for treating ADHD.
Less likely to be addictive, definitely not non-addictive.
https://talbottcampus.com/resources/how-adderall-addiction-s...
This has the same energy as the common incorrect statement “marijuana isn’t addictive”. I assume made by frequent users who want to downplay negatives.
1. People take it as a study drug, without prescription.
2. There may be over medication. Doctors will sometimes feel pushed to prescribe (as is known to happen with antibiotics)
3. At an individual level that is true, but you may need it because of your society and environment. Both ADHD rates and treatment varies between countries (even between regions and states within countries) and has varied a lot over time, which implies some external factor affects it.
If you're getting Adderall from "a guy I know" instead of with a prescription, that's the problem. you keep taking more until you're satisfied.
AFAIK some neurodivergent brains deal with amphetamines differently and the baseline levels of chemical affected by amphetamines is different.
Wear and tear might be a thing, i don't know, but the analogy of putting NO2 in their car feels a bit off.
It'd be more like finally putting premium unleaded in your car after years of "back of the lorry" pseudo-unleaded.
You're right that, for people with ADHD and related disorders, stimulant medication sort of just adjusts their baselines so they can pay attention like a "normal" person.
That said, it completely destroyed my appetite. I picked up ciggies, too. It made me crave nicotine and caffeine. I started pulling all-nighters because I was so productive (or, so into whatever game I was playing.) I got cold sweats often and had some weird uh sexual health side effects. Develeoped a tolerance to 5-10mg very quickly, so went up to 15-20mg, which also felt weakened after a month or so.
So, wasn't lolng before I could tell this was not healthy. Felt like I was in overdrive mode - super mentally active, and productive, but running my body into the ground. I would never do it long-term.
Dead Comment
Deleted Comment
> Chronic Meth users have deficits in memory and executive functioning as well as higher rates of anxiety, depression, and most notably psychosis. [0]
In more recent times of horror:
> After the fall of the al-Assad regime in Syria, large stockpiles of the illicit drug captagon have reportedly been uncovered.
> The stockpiles, found by Syrian rebels, are believed to be linked to al-Assad military headquarters, implicating the fallen regime in the drug’s manufacture and distribution. [1]
[0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3764482/
[1] https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-drug-captagon-and-ho...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substituted_amphetamine
The most famous in that family seems to be meth(amphetamine)
It's a huuuuuge family of substances though, particularly if you go one step more generic and start with Phenylethylamine as the backbone (amphetamine is a shortening of alpha-methyl-phenethylamine), the family includes hallucinogens like mescaline, empathogens like MDMA and its close cousins, the whole 2C family, the cathinones and their derivatives ('mephedrone' had a cultural moment 10-15 years back). And some real nasties like PMA, PMMA and bromo-Dragonfly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substituted_phenethylamine
Is that your question?
One would think that if you are not an authority in a subject you want to write on, you should do at least the equivalent of a child’s book report research before espousing your opinion and immediately looking like an ass.
Deleted Comment