Wednesday, April 22, 2009

cosmetic neurology

margaret talbot writes on the subject of "neuroenhancers" (i.e. adderall, ritalin, etc.) in this week's new yorker. her stance--guardedly optimistic.

from the article:

"Every era, it seems, has its own defining drug. Neuroenhancers are perfectly suited for the anxiety of white-collar competition in a floundering economy. And they have a synergistic relationship with our multiplying digital technologies: the more gadgets we own, the more distracted we become, and the more we need help in order to focus. The experience that neuroenhancement offers is not, for the most part, about opening the doors of perception, or about breaking the bonds of the self, or about experiencing a surge of genius. It’s about squeezing out an extra few hours to finish those sales figures when you’d really rather collapse into bed; getting a B instead of a B-minus on the final exam in a lecture class where you spent half your time texting; cramming for the G.R.E.s at night, because the information-industry job you got after college turned out to be deadening. Neuroenhancers don’t offer freedom. Rather, they facilitate a pinched, unromantic, grindingly efficient form of productivity."

read more

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I don't agree

Anonymous said...

http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?i=53912108&id=214089682

podcast about the same topic

Recent Posts