I have a hypothetical situation I've been thinking about lately and I thought it might make an interesting topic for discussion. It runs roughly thus:



Let us imagine that a new drug is discovered. Borrowing very loosely from Aldous Huxley, we can call this drug "soma", but we'll improve on his drug by making this one more user-friendly.

The effect of ingesting soma is, quite simply, mild happiness. Not the euphoria or the giddiness associated with some existing drugs. Nor does it depress one's ability to think clearly and rationally, as does alcohol in quantity. It is neither a stimulent nor a depressent in its effect on the nervous system.
After taking a soma pill, one simply feels mildly happy, regardless of any and everything that might normally cause one to feel otherwise. The effect is purely emotion; one's reasoning abilities, awareness and reactions are unaffected; you can drive safely under soma's influence.
The effect gently wears off after approximately 6 hours.

Soma, in our hypothetical, is not chemically addictive. It has no side effects. In pratice it is found that you cannot be harmed by over-dosing on soma; taking 20 pills at once produces the same effect as taking 1, the excess is simply eliminated from the body via waste. Long-term soma use does not suffer from diminishing effects, as do some drugs; your 1000th pill has precisely the same effect as your 1st pill.

Finally, soma can be rapidly and cheaply produced. The inventor and patent holder, believing his product is meant for all mankind, allows free and unrestricted production and distribution by any interested party.



The primary question: If it were widely produced and distributed, what effect would this drug have on mankind? Would it be, on the grand scale, a blessing or a curse? Why?

Second question: Regardless of whether everyone else did or could use the drug, would you use it? To what extent and in what circumstances?


As seems only fair, I'll answer my own questions. But first I need some sleep.

I wouldnt take it and here is why

like the movie CLICK , i think it would replace real emotion, and facing real hardship and saddness that is in your life

instead of dealing with these hurdles, and improving as a person

you would avoid them by popping a pill

thus i believe for mankind it would have the same effect.......numbness

Namaste,

In interesting question Dilettante.


It would be a curse on humanity because it would replace real experience with illusion. The happiness would not be real and would allow you to hide from suffering that needs to be seen. The world's people are starving. Don't worry. Take a soma and then you won't feel bad while people are starving in front of you. Are you starving? Here, take a soma and be happy while you die.

In addition, this is my argument against using drugs to experience spiritual states. The effect is an illusion and simply makes it easier to ignore the real work that needs to be done to achieve those realization. How do you tell where the illusion begins and real spiritual evolution takes place?

I would not.

In Peace,
Eglaelin

__________________

Wish I could remember the short story name.
Isaac Asimov wrote a story about such a drug in the 50's, in the story basically the world had remained unchanged for decades, the drug induced a false happiness which had the side affect of also creating a false sense of security and satisfaction with things, even though they were not well.
Computers long took over research and development and the computers were increasing the drugs strength to create a "utopia". However things in reality were falling apart.

Not possible, the drug your describing is simply not possible, at least not without entirely screwing with rational thought. Happiness is a emotion state easily attained through acceptance, as a result the drug would have to provide a illusionary effect to work (which is why rational thought would have to go). Otherwise such a drug wouldn't work, a person would be in a constant state of conflict with one self and eventually ones problems would out-weigh whatever effects the drug provides. I mean anti-depressants are the closest thing to what your describing, and for the exactly same reason would I distrust such a drug.

It would do more harm than good, by providing the populous with a way out that is unlikely to even work. Depression can only be suppressed by rational thought, by coming to a crossroad where you have one of two choices to make. You can either decline down a slippery slope that leads to death, or you can try you best throughout life and enjoy all that is in it regardless of the troubles that come your way. Anyway, without sorrow and heartbreak we wouldn't know how to fully enjoy what we do have, so in that sense our misfortune feeds our happiness in the first place. Pain gives us the resolve to improve our world, so the only way to attain happiness is by helping each other and facing the problems in the world no matter how painful, such a drug would be the decline of the human race.

Namaste,

Suppression of emotional states is just as ineffective as using such a drug would be. Suppression simply places the feelings deep inside where they can fester and become an issue at a later time. The work of Jung on Shadow is of particular application in this area. What is suppressed often is simply placed deep in the psyche where it will have its way subconsciously. In addition, there is the fact that sometimes depression is about ineffective brain chemistry.
Rational thought will provide you with solutions to your specific problems. I find it interesting that you present the idea that there are only two real solutions to such problems -- become depressed until you die or just pretend (another word applicable to suppression) that everything is fine. Of course, I may misunderstand your meaning but I don't believe I have.
Depression, like all mental states, must be brought into the attention and dealt with. Sometimes that option requires actual medication as a solution. Sometimes that option requires changing the aspect of your life that leads to your problem. Simply suppressing the issue and pretending it does not exist will not help you at all. Let me borrow an anology from a favorite book.

You wake up one morning to discover that wild possums have made a home in your house.
The suppression solution is to insist that there are no possums in the house and you go about your daily business. A couple of days later the possums have a litter of babies and there are more possums in your house. There are no possums in my house, there are no possums in my house, there are no possums in my house. Eventually, your house will be full of possums and you will have to move.
The rational solution is to call the animal control people. They come to the house remove the possums and find them safe homes. You have your house back and the possums have a better home. You have dealt with the situation instead of suppressing the problem. Of course, this is a generalization but applicable nonetheless.

In Peace,
Eglaelin

__________________

Ok, my own answers:

If it were widely produced and distributed, what effect would this drug have on mankind? Would it be, on the grand scale, a blessing or a curse? Why?

Along with most people I think the eventual over all effect would be negative. But I find it a difficult view to defend, since it would, almost by definition, make people happier. More on that in another post.


Regardless of whether everyone else did or could use the drug, would you use it? To what extent and in what circumstances?

Speaking on principle, I wouldn't use it at all.
But speaking pratically, I suspect it would depend on the availability of the drug. I have been at low moments in life where, if such a wonder-drug was available in my medicine cabinet, I would probably have taken it to feel better and damn the consequences. I'm afraid I do not trust myself enough to say I absolutely would not ever take if it were so easily available.

Thanks to everyone who responded so far; it's been interesting.

Speedyer is, of course, correct in that such a drug could never actually exist. It's simply a hypothetical devise to reach the deeper question of "happiness on demand". We might just as well have used a magic button that, when pressed, makes us feel mildly happy. That might have been even better, in fact, since it wouldn't have come with all the connotations of emotion controlling drugs (but it also wouldn't have let me use this snappy thread title!).


I find it intriguing that, thus far, the response to soma has been almost universally negative. Does this mean that happiness, in and of itself, is not the highest good?

Some people have talked about the happiness produced by soma as being distinct from "real happiness"? What does this mean?
Is the distinction material, i.e. is one's mind in a different physical state during "real happiness"? Supposed the drug (or button, or whatever) produced that physical state?
Or is it a circumstantial difference? If the latter, why should we prefer the happiness produced by one set of circumstances to that produced by another?

Sans Souci

Here i think is the meat of this issue. While happiness may be one of many very good things it's value is also determined by how you achieve that happiness (if you are a serial killer killing may make you happy, but that happiness is not the highest good).

To your second question: the problem is soma is just making you feel happy. What are you really happy about. Are you just happy because of drug even though the world might be falling apart? When i am happy because i accomplish something that is a circumstance to be proud of. I get the feeling that soma would be used to make people feel happy when it's not appropiate.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

I agree that Dilettante's wonder drug might be a disaster for the human race. People seem to find ways to abuse anything and using drugs to run away from reality has always been popular, even when the drug is expensive, dangerous, and deleterious to a person's health. I suspect that Soma would be irresistable for the vast majority of people on this planet who have low self-esteem and a sense of hopelessness about the condition of their lives.

I don't entirely agree with Speedyer in that "Depression can only be suppressed by rational thought..." because we know that biochemical problems in the brain can cause depression and hopelessness and all the rational thought in world will not remedy the chemical imbalance.

Couriously enough another comment by Speedyer: "Happiness is a emotion state easily attained through acceptance..." made me wonder, if happiness CAN be easily achieved by acceptance and Soma could make you happy enough to find acceptance no matter how bad your situation (someone used the example of starving happily), then what's wrong with that? Speedyer didn't specify HOW one can easily achieve happiness through acceptance (religion, meditation, rational thought, or whatever) so who's to say that chemically induced happiness is any less REAL than religiously induced happiness? If two processes produce the same happiness and acceptance, why is one superior to the other? The argument that one is REAL and the other is not may be hard to prove. I know people who are happy and accepting of things in their life because of a religion that most people think is totally UNREAL. Who's to say what's REAL? Some billions of people find the concept of reincarnation helps them accept their lot in life and live happily where they are. Is believing that any more REAL than taking a chemical to achieve the same acceptance and happiness?

I would never take the Soma because it's in gelatin capsules made out of dead animals and I'm a vegan.

__________________
The apocalypse is coming... we're gonna need more ammo.

Oh, to be happy! - if only once, truly. But who is truly happy, really? Can you name one such person? And what makes for true happiness? - health, wealth, fame? How transitory these things are. Considering man’s lot, only idiots and fools would think themselves truly happy. For the rest of us, if we cannot be happy, we must need be philosophers.

Now that raises an interesting question. Would someone on our wonder drug be likely to "starve happily"? Given the hypothetical effect of the drug, IF they starved, they would do so happily. But would they starve?

Is our only motivation for keeping ourselves alive the gaining of personal happiness?
I'm not sure that works; death doesn't involve unhappiness (as far as we know).

Isn't this "drug" the same thing as being in love, reading a good book, or eating an agreeable meal? I think that there are already things that everyone does repeatedly to make himself happy.

That is to say, I think that the main (and visceral) objection that people seem to have is that this is a "drug" and not something "natural".

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Given your set of parameters, the idea of someone allowing himself to starve is absurd. You stated that it does not preclude rational thought, and, furthermore, happiness does not stop people from eating. Generally, I eat more when I'm happy.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson