Comment · Wed, July 31, 2013 · Ceretropic
I'm curious about Nootropics but I want to know why you think these substances are not giving short term gains at the cost of long term damage?
Original post in this thread
crashd5 · 39 points
I use the analogy of a turbo charged engine. Sure it gives a measurable gain in performance but it usually causes wear and tear. Why do you think nootropics are not doing the same thing to you? I'm not trying to invoke the naturalistic fallacy, but shouldn't we assume that the natural state of our brain chemistry is safer than an altered one?
What they were answering
crashd5 · 8 points
I felt myself resorting to fallacy, I shouldn't have gone there. But here's my hesitation. How can you trust any claim that these substances have positive gains and low risks. I am just as skeptical about nootropic supplements as I am about all the other crap which lines the isles of your average health store. There's certainly money to be made with selling diluted onion juice to cure arthritis or the common cold and you can find hundreds of testimonials about their positive effects. While I understand (since I read the FAQ) that you can track your cognitive functions with various tests, and this can attest to the short term value in these substances. How can you know you're not doing yourself in, in the long term? Is my assumption correct that these substances are somewhat "fringe science" and the research into them is lacking? Or are there universities and governments doing long term studies on these things? If it were so reliable and positive, I would expect progressive governments who are interested in the intellect of their population, would be promoting these things like the FDA promoted vitamins back in the 1900's.
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb · Ceretropic
What is "fringe science?" Is not all science on the fringe of human knowledge at some point? How can we advance the human experience if we do not push the boundaries of what is commonly known? The short answer is, we cannot.
The evidence and studies into nootropics as a whole is most definitely not new, and certainly not lacking. We have thousands of studies over the past 30 years to go on. More recently, we've seen an increase in scientific assessment of older compounds, and efforts to make new ones. The more we learn, the faster we accelerate that process. We determine mechanisms, and the receptors that mediate those mechanisms. We study the affinities of the substances to said receptors, then create new molecules that more selectively bind to them. In doing so, we postulate more complex interactions between known systems, or even discover entirely new ones. This is the only way we can advance our knowledge on the subject.
There is always risk when taking nootropics. The amount of risk one is willing to accept is going to vary by person. There are many people on Longecity that value the expansion of our knowledge on cognition, more than they value the total safety of their brains. There are others that just want modest improvements, and stick to the proven safe supplements. I think a good balance is necessary.
I would expect progressive governments who are interested in the intellect of their population
What government are you talking about? It's not one I've dealt with, that's for sure.