It essentially says “being intelligent is good. Being stupid is bad. Other people are stupid. They are the problem. We are better than them.”
I don’t think that’s all what the article is about.
There’s also the fact that our society only allows people to take drugs to fix illnesses. If you redefine what happens to be an illness you redefine what can be treated with drugs. You redefine what drugs get developed by Big Pharma. You redefine what our insurance system pays for.
There’s a reason about why we care about whether the FDA sees aging as a disease.
It might be that the present administration completely deregulated the FDA so that we can treat things that aren’t illnesses with drugs, but that’s not where we are at the moment.
I might be able to easily buy coffee because of its tradition but I can’t buy modafinil as easily.
A company that wants to develop a proper drug that raises the IQ of a person from 90 to 100 likely wouldn’t get FDA approval for that if they couldn’t argue that it cures a proper illness.
I don’t think that’s all what the article is about.
There’s also the fact that our society only allows people to take drugs to fix illnesses. If you redefine what happens to be an illness you redefine what can be treated with drugs. You redefine what drugs get developed by Big Pharma. You redefine what our insurance system pays for.
There’s a reason about why we care about whether the FDA sees aging as a disease.
It might be that the present administration completely deregulated the FDA so that we can treat things that aren’t illnesses with drugs, but that’s not where we are at the moment.
Oh, really?
A better approach would be to notice that only the regulated bioactives are called “drugs”.
I might be able to easily buy coffee because of its tradition but I can’t buy modafinil as easily.
A company that wants to develop a proper drug that raises the IQ of a person from 90 to 100 likely wouldn’t get FDA approval for that if they couldn’t argue that it cures a proper illness.