Comment author: MichaelPlant 10 August 2017 04:54:01PM *  0 points [-]

point taken, this is now exactly what we're doing!

Comment author: MichaelPlant 10 August 2017 02:33:07PM 0 points [-]

I don't know who downvoted this, but I think it's rude and unhelpful to downvote a post without leaving an explanation of why you did so, unless the post is blatant spam, which this is not. EAs should be upholding norms of considerateness and encouraging intellectual debate.

Have upvoted to balance out. I may make a substantive comment on autonomy later.

Comment author: ChristianKleineidam 10 August 2017 01:32:52PM 0 points [-]

Almost all diseases fundamentally occur at the nanoscale.

What exactly does that mean? What kind of nanotech are you thinking about?

Comment author: ChristianKleineidam 10 August 2017 01:22:42PM 0 points [-]

In Europe the European Court of Human right ruled in 2014 that substances that are used recreationally aren't drugs and thus not forbidden under drug regulation.

As a result, there's currently 1P LSD which is legal in Germany and does roughly the same thing as LSD.

Comment author: Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) 10 August 2017 03:24:33AM 0 points [-]

If you delete the "file:///C:/Users/Michael/Desktop/drug%20policy%20reform%20part%201.docx" part in all the links it should work!

Comment author: MattBall  (EA Profile) 10 August 2017 12:57:21AM 0 points [-]

This is a super interesting article, but...

I worry that FRI’s work leans on the intuition that suffering is real and we can speak coherently about it, to a degree greater than its metaphysics formally allow.

To me, it reads like it was written by someone who has never really encountered suffering.

Comment author: MattBall  (EA Profile) 09 August 2017 10:59:57PM 0 points [-]

Thanks for the link, Halstead. A very good article, but it doesn't totally cure my unease with aggregating across individuals. But I don't expect to ever find anything that is fully in line with intuitions, as I think intuitions are contradictory. :-)

Comment author: MattBall  (EA Profile) 09 August 2017 10:57:49PM 2 points [-]

Thanks so very much for this Michael. I think it would be great if you had the Summary on a page by itself, with links to the three parts. Then it wouldn't be so intimidating.

In response to Introducing Enthea
Comment author: MattBall  (EA Profile) 09 August 2017 10:53:39PM 0 points [-]

This is great. I haven't done a deep dive into the lit, but from what little I do know, this seems like a great course of action!

Comment author: concerned_ 09 August 2017 10:24:15PM 0 points [-]

I'm open to it, but I'm not convinced SENS is actually effective.

Comment author: TopherBrennan 09 August 2017 09:42:20PM 0 points [-]

A lot of the heavy lifting in US law is being done here:

TLDR it's possible to get a license to do research with schedule I drugs, but the licensing hurdles are higher than those for prescribing even schedule II drugs (which in the US includes cocaine and methamphetamine). Those hurdles could be lowered in various ways, perhaps with reference to the general procedures for researching new drugs described here:

Comment author: ChristianKleineidam 09 August 2017 09:38:00PM 1 point [-]

Cancer Research UK talk about the current cancer survival rate having reached 50%, and their aim to reach 75% by 2034; my reading of their language is that they are optimistic that cancer (an area which already has a track record of progress) is a good tractable area to fund.

That goal can be easily reached. You just need to double the people that you diagnose with cancer.

In practice, it's possible to increase the number of people that get diagnosed with cancer by increasing the amount of screening that's done.

The US does more screening than Europe and has as a result a higher cancer survival rate. In recent years the US government came to the conclusion that the US does overtesting that doesn't provide clinical benefits and pushed back breast cancer screening to a higher age.

The goal of cancer research should be about lowering the number of cancer death per year. If there's the argument that curing other illnesses increases the cancer death rate, then an alternative goal might to reduce the amount of people who die to cancer under the age of 80 years.

Comment author: Daniel_Eth 09 August 2017 08:35:54PM 0 points [-]

Personally, I'd recommend donating to fund nanotechnology research (especially nanobiotechnology). Almost all diseases fundamentally occur at the nanoscale. I'd assume that our ability to manipulate matter at this scale in targeted ways is close to necessary and sufficient to cure many diseases, and that once we get advanced nanotechnology our medicine will improve leaps and bounds. Unfortunately, people like to feel that their interventions are more direct, so basic research that could lead to better tools to cure many diseases is likely drastically underfunded.

Comment author: aaronhamlin 09 August 2017 06:41:24PM 0 points [-]

Given that these all seem to connect with aging issues, I wonder how open the EA community would be to tackling aging as an illness. The foundation that focuses on this is the SENS Foundation ( Aubrey deGrey is the leading figure behind this focus (

Comment author: Dan_Keys 09 August 2017 05:31:51PM 1 point [-]

It might be possible to fix in a not-too-tedious way, by using find-replace in the source code to edit all of the broken links (and anchors?) at once.

Comment author: MichaelPlant 09 August 2017 05:16:20PM 0 points [-]

Thanks for this. I'm only really familiar with the situation in the UK. If you can dig up some info on how things work in the US and what looks like is required there, that would be really helpful!

Comment author: MichaelPlant 09 August 2017 05:10:25PM 0 points [-]

ah, hadn't spotted that. Must have been caused by copying and pasting it across from a word doc. Can you suggest a way I can reformat it so clicking citations in text takes you down to the footnotes and clicking them in the footnotes takes you to where they are in the text?

Comment author: TopherBrennan 09 August 2017 04:11:24PM 2 points [-]

Re: "change the medical classification of several drugs, such as LSD, MDMA (‘ecstasy’), psilocybin (‘magic mushrooms’), so it’s much easier to conduct research on their effects and use them in treatment of mental illnesses."

I'm not sure about other countries, but under the US Controlled Substances Act, theoretically no drug is off-limits for medical research. The problem is that getting approval to conduct research on schedule I substances is very difficult. So the solution doesn't necessarily require rescheduling—Congress could pass a law making it easier to get approval.

Comment author: Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) 09 August 2017 04:00:06PM 1 point [-]

FYI your footnotes are still links within a private document on file:///C:/Users/Michael/Dekstop.

Comment author: Milan_Griffes 09 August 2017 03:42:47PM *  2 points [-]

By "super-medicinal" I mean beneficial effects in healthy users that go beyond enjoyment of the experience.

e.g. I'd categorize the impacts of the (healthy) participants of Griffiths et al. 2006 as "super-medicinal" because their psilocybin experiences were, according to self-report, among the most meaningful of their lives.

e.g. The benefits reported by some of the (healthy) participants in the Good Friday experiment I'd also consider "super-medicinal" as their psilocybin experiences helped resolve major career and relationship problems.

Calling effects like these "recreational" feels like selling them short.

Cool, I'll follow up with you on facebook :-)

View more: Prev | Next