Professional Documents
Culture Documents
better?
Humans have always devised ways to overcome our shortcomings- we couldnt
fly, so we invented aeroplanes; we couldnt breathe underwater, so we invented
submarines and scuba-diving equipment; we couldnt analyse huge amounts of
data in our heads, so we invented computers. This ability to devise machines to
enable us to do things that would otherwise be impossible has allowed us to
expand to fill almost every corner of the planet, and to perform feats of science,
art and engineering that would be impossible for any other animal.
As well as creating machines to help us, we have always searched for ways to
make ourselves more efficient, faster, stronger, and smarter. Millions of people
rely on the caffeine in their morning cup of coffee to give them the kick to get
out of bed, and sport is a minefield of legal and illegal drugs and techniques
designed to help athletes to perform to the best of their abilities (or even
better!). Now a new generation of drugs are being used expressly to enhance our
mental capacity. These tablets can, quite literally, make you smarter.
Most of these drugs were originally developed to treat various medical
conditions, and have only recently begun to be used by the healthy population
for a mental boost. Ritalin, for example (the chemical name of which is
methylphenidate), is a stimulant related to amphetamine, and is prescribed
mainly for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). It is
useful in these cases as it increases attention and helps prevent the easy
distraction that is so common in the disorder. It does this by blocking reuptake of
dopamine and noradrenaline in the brain, so increasing the availability of these
neurotransmitters. For the same reasons, Ritalin has become a popular drug for
students to take whilst studying for exams.
Other commonly used drugs include modafinil, which is intended to help those
who suffer from narcolepsy by relieving their daytime sleepiness, and betablockers, which help reduce anxiety. A survey by Nature found that 20% of the
1400 respondents had used one of these 3 drugs for non-medical reasons. As
well as students using it to help with studying, it is used by shift workers to keep
them alert, and by travellers to avoid jet lag. It has been shown that it can be
effective in relieving shift work sleep disorder, however there are worries that
people may become too reliant on it, or start to believe they can go without
sleep at all, which could be hugely damaging to the brain.
Aside from being interesting from a scientific standpoint, these drugs have raised
some fascinating ethical dilemmas, and academics seem divided on the point. In
one camp are those who think that it is always wrong to tamper with a healthy
brain in order to improve it. They argue that these drugs were designed to help
those with a disorder, and to use them to improve the abilities of a healthy
person is immoral. The worry is that if some people in a social group, e.g.
students, were taking the drug, it would become almost impossible for others to
compete without also taking the drug. A parallel to this was seen in the 1970s
and 80s, before mandatory drug testing was introduced in athletics, where
steroid use became almost necessary in order to compete.
Widespread use of cognitive enhancers could lead to a situation in which young
people were forced to medicate themselves in order to compete in academic
situations. As well as putting added pressure on an already stressed and
vulnerable group, the question of elitism is raised. These cognitive enhancers are
not going to be available for healthy people on the NHS, and are unlikely to come
cheaply. There is already an educational divide, with children whose parents can
afford to send them to the best schools, or pay for extra-curricular tutors, coming
out with better results than those children who have not had this extra support. If
only the rich could afford these drugs, that would give them another advantage,
which seems unjust. It is possible that in 20 years time, children will have to be
tested for drugs before being allowed to sit an exam, much as athletes are today.
Another worry is the long term side effects of these drugs. Although they have
not been shown to have any serious side effects during short term usage, they
are relatively new compounds, so there is a lack of evidence about what chronic
usage could do to the brain. This is particularly important due to the likelihood of
the drugs being used by young people, whose brains are more vulnerable to
disruption. Even in the case of Ritalin, which has been around for over 35 years
as a treatment for ADHD, it is not clear what effect its chronic usage may have
on the developing brain (partially as is it difficult to disentangle the effects of the
drug from the effects of the disease itself). All medicines have side effects, but in
most cases it is argued that their benefits, in correcting something that is wrong
with the body or the mind, outweigh their disadvantages. In the case of using a
drug to self-improve, rather than to medicate, however, it could be argued that
the positives are not worth the risk of the negatives, in any circumstance.
However, there are also positives that could come out of the use of cognitive
enhancers, and many academics do not believe they should be banned or
controlled. A philosophical argument for this is based on J.S Mills theory of
Utilitarianism, which argues that adults should be allowed to do what they like,
as long as it does not cause harm to those around them. Based on this argument,
if a rational adult looks at the possible risks and unknowns surrounding taking a
drug, and decides that its benefits make it worth taking, it is not the government
or societys place to tell them they cannot do so, as long as they are not harming
anyone else. A less theoretical argument looks at the possible benefits to society
that could come from people taking these drugs - if a cure could be found for
cancer by giving researchers cognitive enhancing drugs, conceivably that benefit
would outweigh any negatives that may occur by making the drugs available.
Cognitive enhancers could also be helpful in many high pressure jobs. Surgeons
often have to concentrate for very long periods of time when performing tricky
operations, and many rely on caffeine to help them with this. Large amounts of
caffeine, however, can cause side effects such as tremors, which are less than
ideal when performing delicate operations. Drugs such as modafinil have been
shown not to produce such side effects, and so could be used to keep surgeons
alert and focused on a difficult operation. They could also be useful for pilots,
whether fighter or commercial, and in any other jobs or situations where a
momentary lapse in concentration could be catastrophic.
These drugs could have major benefits for our society, but the negatives of their
long term use are unknown. The debate over how, or whether, to control these
substances has high profile supporters on both sides, and it is unlikely the issue
will be resolved any time soon. What is clear is that the field of neuroethics is
growing in importance, and it is likely that as brain science progresses the need
for discussions of the philosophical, medical and even political aspects of
cognitive enhancement will only increase.
Sebuah survei yang dilakukan oleh Nature menemukan bahwa 20% dari 1.400
responden telah menggunakan salah satu dari 3 obat ini untuk alasan nonmedis. Serta mahasiswa menggunakannya untuk membantu dengan belajar,
digunakan oleh pekerja shift untuk menjaga mereka waspada, dan oleh
wisatawan untuk menghindari jet lag. Telah terbukti bahwa hal itu dapat efektif
dalam mengurangi gangguan kerja tidur shift, namun ada kekhawatiran bahwa
orang mungkin menjadi terlalu bergantung pada itu, atau mulai percaya bahwa
mereka bisa pergi tanpa tidur sama sekali, yang bisa sangat merusak otak.
Selain sebagai menarik dari sudut pandang ilmiah, obat ini telah mengangkat
beberapa dilema etika yang menarik, dan akademisi tampaknya dibagi
mengenai hal ini. Dalam satu kamp mereka yang berpikir bahwa itu selalu salah
untuk mengutak-atik otak yang sehat untuk memperbaikinya. Mereka
berpendapat bahwa obat ini dirancang untuk membantu orang-orang dengan
gangguan, dan untuk menggunakannya untuk meningkatkan kemampuan dari
orang yang sehat adalah tidak bermoral. khawatir adalah bahwa jika beberapa
orang dalam kelompok sosial, misalnya mahasiswa, mengambil obat, itu akan
menjadi hampir tidak mungkin bagi orang lain untuk bersaing tanpa juga
mengambil obat. A sejajar dengan ini terlihat pada 1970-an dan 80-an, sebelum
pengujian obat wajib diperkenalkan dalam atletik, dimana penggunaan steroid
menjadi hampir diperlukan untuk bersaing.
Meluasnya penggunaan enhancer kognitif dapat menyebabkan situasi di mana
orang-orang muda dipaksa untuk mengobati diri untuk bersaing dalam situasi
akademik. Serta menempatkan tekanan tambahan pada kelompok yang sudah
stres dan rentan, pertanyaan elitisme dinaikkan. Ini enhancer kognitif tidak akan
tersedia untuk orang-orang yang sehat pada NHS, dan tidak mungkin untuk
datang murah. Sudah ada kesenjangan pendidikan, dengan anak-anak yang
orang tuanya mampu untuk mengirim mereka ke sekolah terbaik, atau
membayar untuk tutor ekstra kurikuler, keluar dengan hasil yang lebih baik
daripada anak-anak yang belum memiliki dukungan ekstra ini. Jika hanya orang
kaya bisa membeli obat ini, yang akan memberi mereka keuntungan lain, yang
tampaknya tidak adil. Ada kemungkinan bahwa dalam waktu 20 tahun, anakanak harus diuji untuk obat sebelum diizinkan untuk duduk ujian, sebanyak atlet
hari ini.
Kekhawatiran lain adalah efek samping jangka panjang obat ini. Meskipun
mereka belum terbukti memiliki efek samping yang serius selama penggunaan
jangka pendek, mereka adalah senyawa yang relatif baru, sehingga ada
kekurangan bukti tentang apa penggunaan kronis bisa lakukan untuk otak. Hal
ini sangat penting karena kemungkinan obat yang digunakan oleh orang-orang
muda, yang otaknya lebih rentan terhadap gangguan. Bahkan dalam kasus
Ritalin, yang telah ada selama lebih dari 35 tahun sebagai pengobatan untuk
ADHD, tidak jelas apa efek penggunaan kronis yang mungkin ada pada
perkembangan otak (sebagian seperti sulit untuk menguraikan efek dari obat
dari efek dari penyakit itu sendiri). Semua obat memiliki efek samping, tetapi
dalam banyak kasus ia berpendapat bahwa keuntungan mereka, dalam
mengoreksi sesuatu yang salah dengan tubuh atau pikiran, lebih besar daripada
kerugian mereka. Dalam kasus menggunakan obat untuk diri meningkatkan,
bukan untuk mengobati, bagaimanapun, dapat dikatakan bahwa positif yang
only a small number of organisms are able to utilise it. The natural process of
taking nitrogen gas and converting it into useful compounds is known as nitrogen
fixation, and is carried out by nitrogen-fixing bacteria (and more occasionally,
lightning). These fix nitrogen into another nitrogen-containing compound:
ammonia (NH3). Ammonia is more biologically accessible than nitrogen gas and
is used by nitrifying bacteria to form nitrites (NO 2-) and then nitrates (NO3-).
These nitrates are the form of nitrogen that plants can process, and thus the
form that introduces nitrogen into our food chain. But if all atmospheric nitrogen
eventually ended up in plants or animals, there would soon be a shortage.
Fortunately there are denitrifying bacteria that complete the cycle and convert
nitrates back into the inert and unreachable N 2. This cycle is naturally regulated
by the speed at which bacteria can change one compound into another, and by
the amount of bacteria available in the soil. In the past this led to a natural upper
limit of nitrogen available for use in the biosphere at any one time. However,
technological advances have dramatically increased this natural limit, and the
consequences have been far-reaching. So what happened?
Causes of the nitrogen overdose
The dawning of the Industrial Revolution heralded a major change that greatly
affected the nitrogen balance. Large-scale burning of fossil fuels such as coal and
oil released high levels of nitrogen oxides (including nitrous oxide or N 2O) as
fumes. The nitrogen problem escalated further by World War I with the
development of the Haber-Bosch Process, which allowed inert N 2 gas to be made
into ammonia without the use of slow nitrogen-fixing bacteria. The ammonia
produced became a valuable resource and could be used to make cheap
fertilisers for use on crops. Other contributors to increased levels of nitrogen
compounds were the burning of trees and plants for agriculture, and the
manufacture of nylon. But seeing as successful industry and agriculture are
crucial across the globe, do we really want to stop artificially creating our own
useful nitrogen compounds? Why would we want to go back to the natural limits
of the nitrogen cycle?
Why should we worry?
There are two main things that these nitrogen compounds affect: the
environment and human health. When nitrous oxide (N 2O) reaches the
stratosphere it helps destroy the ozone layer, resulting in higher levels of UV
radiation and increasing the risk of skin cancer and cataracts. Ironically, when
N2O is nearer to the Earths surface it can actually make ozone, which can
become smog on a still and sunny day. Smog has been linked to respiratory
problems, lung damage, increased risks of cancer and a weakening of the
immune system.
As well as its tricks with ozone, nitrogen oxides dissolve in atmospheric water to
make acid rain, which corrodes stone and metal work and damages buildings. In
1967 a bridge over the Ohio River collapsed due to acid rain corrosion, killing 46
people. But its not only building damage thats cause for concern; plants
(including our food crops) and even humans are at risk. Links between acid rain,
Alzheimers disease and brain damage have been suggested, as well as with
many respiratory problems. So, overall, not good news! But the problems extend
further. The overuse of fertilisers on fields and of nitrogen compounds in animal
feed leads to nitrogen leaching into streams and rivers. Algae, whose growth is
usually limited by nitrogen availability, use this flood of nitrogen to grow out of
control, leading to big algal blooms. These use up all the oxygen in the water and
block out the light, suffocating aquatic life and preventing underwater plants
from photosynthesising. Worryingly, nitrate levels in the Norwegian lakes have
doubled in the last ten years, and in northern Europe we are depositing nitrogen
compounds at over 100 times the natural rate. The outlook for these lakes seems
bleak. Returning to the land, higher nitrogen levels in the soil mean that a few
plants are able to out-compete the rest. These tend to be plants able to quickly
utilise the excess nitrogen for rapid growth, leaving fewer resources and more
shade for other species. This can lead to many species of plant becoming extinct,
and will in turn have knock-on effects on all the animals, insects and birds that
use them. Many species-rich heathlands in the Netherlands have been taken
over by species-poor forests for precisely this reason.
Finally, nitrogen oxides
contribute to global warming. Although the concentration of nitrous oxide in the
atmosphere is considerably lower than that of carbon dioxide, the global
warming potential of nitrous oxide is over 300 times greater. So although carbon
dioxide causes climate change and its associated problems, nitrogen compounds
are arguably worse. They have a greater global warming potential, could lead to
more exaggerated climate change problems, and cause havoc with health and
the environment to boot! So what can we do about it?
The remedies
Currently, 80% of the nitrogen compounds in the atmosphere are from human
sources. This problem is a by-product of our highly technology-driven societies,
but therein lies the solution. The same technological innovation can be used to
reduce emissions, and catalytic converters can convert nitrogen oxides into
harmless nitrogen gas. Legislation can also play a role. In California, large farms
with over a thousand dairy cows must now apply to the Air Resources Board for a
license, controlling the levels of concentrated leaching from animals. Ultimately
though, there is one solution guaranteed to deal with this nitrogen problem:
reduce the amount of nitrogen we use to fuel our daily lives. This is all well and
good, but as with all solutions to big problems, its going to be very, very hard
work.
Masalah ini adalah produk sampingan dari masyarakat yang sangat berbasis
teknologi kami, tetapi di sana ada solusinya. inovasi teknologi yang sama dapat
digunakan untuk mengurangi emisi, dan catalytic converter dapat mengkonversi
nitrogen oksida menjadi gas nitrogen tidak berbahaya. Legislasi juga bisa
berperan. Di California, peternakan besar dengan lebih dari seribu sapi perah
sekarang harus berlaku untuk Dewan Sumber Daya Udara untuk lisensi,
mengontrol kadar pencucian terkonsentrasi dari hewan. Meskipun akhirnya, ada
satu solusi dijamin untuk menangani masalah nitrogen ini: mengurangi jumlah
nitrogen yang kita gunakan untuk bahan bakar kehidupan kita sehari-hari. Ini
semua baik dan bagus, tetapi karena dengan semua solusi untuk masalah besar,
itu akan menjadi sangat, sangat keras.