"I don't have delusions of grandeur. I have an actual recipe for grandeur."
The question that never comes up in the movie Limitless? Is it okay to take NZT?
Limitless follows one man's experience with an illicitly-obtained drug called NZT. Though the term is never used in the film, NZT is described (via the portrayal of its effects) as a cognitive enhancer. The actual mechanism(s) of NZT are never explained, and its ability to enhance memory and processing capability are largely portrayed as wonderful. Withdrawal from the drug is a bitch, of course. And then there was that 18-hour memory gap, during which the protagonist may or may not have committed a murder... But you leave the movie with a generally-positive view of cognitive enhancers. No one in the movie ever wonders if it's fair to take NZT. (And they only briefly wonder if it's safe to take NZT.)
Cognitive enhancers - a.k.a. smart pills, neuroenhancers, or study drugs - are getting attention again. Recently the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism released a report that found, among other things, that "[o]verall use of Adderall is increasing on campuses, and the drug is regularly abused by those with or without a prescription." (q) It's not entirely clear what motivated the WCIJ study, though the findings focused on the illegality involved in obtaining the drug, and on the medical dangers of abusing the drug.
Others have raised the issue of fairness though, likening the use of cognitive enhancers to "the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport" saying that "[t]heir use could lead to problems of coercion, where there is pressure on individuals to take the drugs even if they do not wish to. Similarly, if such drugs were available to only a proportion of competitors, they could be seen as giving an unfair advantage, or to be a form of cheating." (q) (I said something similar awhile back.)
At least one university has now labeled the "misuse" of these types of drugs as 'cheating', raising the question of whether or not a ban on "brain boosting drugs" is a good idea. Lamkin attempts to deflect attention away from the drugs, and onto the method and purpose of higher education. "If our goal is to promote students' engagement in education, we should realign student incentives with the appreciation of education's internal benefits, so that students are not rewarded for taking shortcuts." That's great, in theory. However, even if universities and colleges are able to "realign" themselves so as to render the use of smart drugs undesirable, it simply pushes the problem of smart drugs into the arena of the workplace.
It's in the workplace where the protagonist (Eddie Morra) of Limitless meets with success as a result of his use of NZT. He finishes his book in 4 days, makes obscene amounts of money as a day trader, and catches the eye of a wealthy mogul who offers him the opportunity to use his talents in exchange for even more-obscene amounts of money. **SPOILER ALERT** By the end of the movie, Eddie has achieved a level of material success that cannot be taken away from him. His ability also allowed him to make the money that 'bought' him his continued freedom, via the efforts of a top defense attorney, after the missing 18 hours come back to haunt him. He even used his money to engineer a way to wean himself off the drug, avoiding insanity and death while retaining the cognitive enhancements permanently. In short, he won. (Sorry, Kyle. If anything, this movie is effectively an advertisement for cognitive enhancers.)
In arguing for societal acceptance of cognitive enhancement, two assumptions have been made. One, that such drugs will eventually be risk-free, and two, that they will eventually be available to everyone. (Neither assumption is true today.) But, to my mind, the bigger ethical issue is still the one that I addressed over a year ago... How do you argue for the cognitive liberty of the individual when the exercise of that liberty may result in a decrease in liberty for those who follow? This presupposes that cosmetic neurology would restrict rather than broaden the range of what we accept as 'normal'. (Think about a neurological version of The Stepford Wives...)
If there is an argument to be made against enhancement technology, it might very well be that redefining what is possible will also redefine what is acceptable, even tolerable. And consequently, individual liberty may be lost rather than gained.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Monday, March 14, 2011
Free To Be... Smarter Than You
"To clothe the fiery thought
in simple words succeeds,
For still the craft of genius is
To mask a king in weeds."
In honor of Einstein's birthday, I've decided to devote some more blog space to the issue of neurodiversity.
True story: Two employees were internal applicants for the same position. Neither employee was given the position, but for different reasons. Employee 1 was told that she wasn't always 'nice enough' about being smarter than some of the other employees who had been with the company much longer than she had. Employee 2 was told that he wasn't being hired for the position because, despite working in the department for several years, he hadn't already been trained to do the things that the position required. The company was not willing to increase their investment in either candidate, and one might argue that the issue in play in both cases was an unwillingness to tolerate/foster an increased neurodiversity among coworkers. (Of course such a statement was never made openly, but it was agreed that she 'was too abrasive' and he 'was a little slow'.) The end result was that both employees were forced to do essentially the same job for which they had applied, but with significantly less compensation than new hires to the same position.
Now, one employee had a medical diagnosis that falls squarely under the purview of 'neurodiversity' and for which coworkers expressed a certain sympathy. The other had to endure rude taunts and comments. One was given full leeway of expression; the other was expected to stifle whatever made others uncomfortable. One employee was much less likely to object to receiving significantly less compensation, and so was tolerated; the other was simply 'encouraged' to leave.
Discrimination: "The process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently."
Discrimination: "unequal treatment of persons, for a reason which has nothing to do with legal rights or ability. Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination in employment, availability of housing, rates of pay, right to promotion, educational opportunity, civil rights, and use of facilities based on race, nationality, creed, color, age, sex, or sexual orientation." (q) (my emphasis)
So here's your thought question for the day... Were either of these employees discriminated against, and if so, in what way? Or, to rephrase the question, which actions toward/against the employees were acceptable, and why?
in simple words succeeds,
For still the craft of genius is
To mask a king in weeds."
In honor of Einstein's birthday, I've decided to devote some more blog space to the issue of neurodiversity.
True story: Two employees were internal applicants for the same position. Neither employee was given the position, but for different reasons. Employee 1 was told that she wasn't always 'nice enough' about being smarter than some of the other employees who had been with the company much longer than she had. Employee 2 was told that he wasn't being hired for the position because, despite working in the department for several years, he hadn't already been trained to do the things that the position required. The company was not willing to increase their investment in either candidate, and one might argue that the issue in play in both cases was an unwillingness to tolerate/foster an increased neurodiversity among coworkers. (Of course such a statement was never made openly, but it was agreed that she 'was too abrasive' and he 'was a little slow'.) The end result was that both employees were forced to do essentially the same job for which they had applied, but with significantly less compensation than new hires to the same position.
Now, one employee had a medical diagnosis that falls squarely under the purview of 'neurodiversity' and for which coworkers expressed a certain sympathy. The other had to endure rude taunts and comments. One was given full leeway of expression; the other was expected to stifle whatever made others uncomfortable. One employee was much less likely to object to receiving significantly less compensation, and so was tolerated; the other was simply 'encouraged' to leave.
Discrimination: "The process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently."
Discrimination: "unequal treatment of persons, for a reason which has nothing to do with legal rights or ability. Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination in employment, availability of housing, rates of pay, right to promotion, educational opportunity, civil rights, and use of facilities based on race, nationality, creed, color, age, sex, or sexual orientation." (q) (my emphasis)
So here's your thought question for the day... Were either of these employees discriminated against, and if so, in what way? Or, to rephrase the question, which actions toward/against the employees were acceptable, and why?
Thursday, March 10, 2011
It Can't Happen Here
"Without labor nothing prospers."
As most of the country (and quite a bit of the world) knows by now, there is currently a situation in Our Fair State. In an attempt to balance the state's budget (which everyone agrees is a good and necessary goal), the Republican governor and the Republican majority in the legislative houses have decided that it is necessary to ask public employees to contribute more to the cost of their healthcare and pension. Except that they quit asking and moved to attempting to pass legislation that simply strips public employees of their rights to collectively bargain for healthcare and pension benefits. (Wages are already prohibited from increasing above inflation without a public referendum.)
Faced with the prospect that the legislation would be railroaded through both houses with a minimum of debate, discussion, or public engagement, the 14 Democratic Senators fled the state - in theory, to keep the Senate from having the quorum necessary to pass the bill. In the past few weeks there have been massive demonstrations outside the capitol to preserve the ability to collectively bargain, and public employee union spokespeople have said that the unions will agree to the additional healthcare and pension costs that they are being asked to bear.
Oddly, this situation has mirrored aspects my own employment situation, which involved a struggle over employment status and the right (or lack thereof) to benefits (insurance and PTO). As is often the case with those not operating from a position of power, I lost. And not just benefits, but, as of yesterday, my job as well. This morning I learned that the Senate in Our Fair State managed to passed a bill (whose exact wording is a mystery at this point) that strips public employees of their collective bargaining rights. They claim to have managed this (legally) without the necessary quorum by 'removing fiscal effects' from the bill. (q)
While on the surface this situation may appear to be about balancing the state's budget, some of the lesser known provisions of the proposed bill have much broader ramifications. Including making union dues purely voluntary and prohibiting their collection by payroll deduction. (q) Labor unions make significant contributions to political candidates, and 93 cents of every dollar spent by labor unions in the last six election cycles in Our Fair State have gone to a Democrat. (q) And while no one wants to be forced to join a union anymore than they want to be forced to accept untenable employment terms, it's worth noting that the agenda behind this 'union busting' proposal may go far beyond a simple attempt to balance the state budget.
"...[T]here are two parties, the Corporate and those who don’t belong to any party at all, and so, to use a common phrase, are just out of luck!"
Reflecting back, I see a pattern of Labor fighting The Company that spans my entire life. It started with the job I had in high school, where the boss didn't want to pay me overtime, until I proved to him that I knew it was the law. I watched my father being forced to take early retirement after 27 years of service and then being hired back through a consulting firm for an additional 10 years. And I've watched the rapid growth of 'independent contractor', part-time and temporary positions being used as a way to scale back costs by not having to pay benefits.
It is a difficult job to organize people into an effective fighting force. Many years ago I worked at a company where the workers wanted to unionize to improve their working conditions. Rather than organize themselves, they tossed around the idea of joining an already-established union. While I was for organizing to improve working conditions, I was opposed to simply letting a big union in the door to tell us what to do. The fact that I attended a meeting where these issues were discussed was enough to cost me that job. And the gripes we had then seem simple when compared to some of the issues and situations I've encountered since then.
One of the best outcomes recently in Our Fair State is the return of former 'maverick' senator Russ Feingold to the political arena, with the launch of his grassroots campaign (Progressives United) to combat corporate influence in politics. But the daily battles of workers who may not know their rights, or who may be too afraid to act on those rights, continue. And if there is a cause ripe for humanists, it might very well be engaging the ideas and participating in the struggles that will define how labor will be treated in this country in the years to come...
As most of the country (and quite a bit of the world) knows by now, there is currently a situation in Our Fair State. In an attempt to balance the state's budget (which everyone agrees is a good and necessary goal), the Republican governor and the Republican majority in the legislative houses have decided that it is necessary to ask public employees to contribute more to the cost of their healthcare and pension. Except that they quit asking and moved to attempting to pass legislation that simply strips public employees of their rights to collectively bargain for healthcare and pension benefits. (Wages are already prohibited from increasing above inflation without a public referendum.)
Faced with the prospect that the legislation would be railroaded through both houses with a minimum of debate, discussion, or public engagement, the 14 Democratic Senators fled the state - in theory, to keep the Senate from having the quorum necessary to pass the bill. In the past few weeks there have been massive demonstrations outside the capitol to preserve the ability to collectively bargain, and public employee union spokespeople have said that the unions will agree to the additional healthcare and pension costs that they are being asked to bear.
Oddly, this situation has mirrored aspects my own employment situation, which involved a struggle over employment status and the right (or lack thereof) to benefits (insurance and PTO). As is often the case with those not operating from a position of power, I lost. And not just benefits, but, as of yesterday, my job as well. This morning I learned that the Senate in Our Fair State managed to passed a bill (whose exact wording is a mystery at this point) that strips public employees of their collective bargaining rights. They claim to have managed this (legally) without the necessary quorum by 'removing fiscal effects' from the bill. (q)
While on the surface this situation may appear to be about balancing the state's budget, some of the lesser known provisions of the proposed bill have much broader ramifications. Including making union dues purely voluntary and prohibiting their collection by payroll deduction. (q) Labor unions make significant contributions to political candidates, and 93 cents of every dollar spent by labor unions in the last six election cycles in Our Fair State have gone to a Democrat. (q) And while no one wants to be forced to join a union anymore than they want to be forced to accept untenable employment terms, it's worth noting that the agenda behind this 'union busting' proposal may go far beyond a simple attempt to balance the state budget.
"...[T]here are two parties, the Corporate and those who don’t belong to any party at all, and so, to use a common phrase, are just out of luck!"
Reflecting back, I see a pattern of Labor fighting The Company that spans my entire life. It started with the job I had in high school, where the boss didn't want to pay me overtime, until I proved to him that I knew it was the law. I watched my father being forced to take early retirement after 27 years of service and then being hired back through a consulting firm for an additional 10 years. And I've watched the rapid growth of 'independent contractor', part-time and temporary positions being used as a way to scale back costs by not having to pay benefits.
It is a difficult job to organize people into an effective fighting force. Many years ago I worked at a company where the workers wanted to unionize to improve their working conditions. Rather than organize themselves, they tossed around the idea of joining an already-established union. While I was for organizing to improve working conditions, I was opposed to simply letting a big union in the door to tell us what to do. The fact that I attended a meeting where these issues were discussed was enough to cost me that job. And the gripes we had then seem simple when compared to some of the issues and situations I've encountered since then.
One of the best outcomes recently in Our Fair State is the return of former 'maverick' senator Russ Feingold to the political arena, with the launch of his grassroots campaign (Progressives United) to combat corporate influence in politics. But the daily battles of workers who may not know their rights, or who may be too afraid to act on those rights, continue. And if there is a cause ripe for humanists, it might very well be engaging the ideas and participating in the struggles that will define how labor will be treated in this country in the years to come...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
