Sunday, December 25, 2016

Alchemy, Akira, and our Evolutionary Destiny.

What could Alchemy and the anime Akira tell us about our evolution future? Let’s look at each and find the threads of commonality between them, illuminating our evolutionary journey.

Alchemy is an ancient activity which consisted of turning the lead of the everyday mind, with its anxieties and insignificance, into the gold of an elevated mind, which is godlike in its attitude. The main premise within this system of thought is that the processes of evolution which we witness, has an underlying force to it. This force is what directs the branching out of species, culminating in human beings with our advanced technology. Alchemists believe that the energy or force driving this change could be extracted and harnessed. In doing so, the alchemist would aim to isolate and speed up this processes on a specific object. This object is known as the philosopher’s stone. It is the end product of the evolutionary process. In this sense, it is perfect and can grant whoever wields it vast amounts of power. In essence, the stone could be used for anything and everything. If you’re hungry, then it will feed you. If you’re poor, then it will grant you wealth. If you’re impotent, it will grant you incredible powers. Therefore, alchemy was a way of harnessing the force behind evolution for the benefit of the alchemist.

Moving on, Akira was an anime movie from 1988. It is regarded as one of the best in the genre, gaining a significant cult following. The setting is Tokyo after a nuclear war. There’s a motorcycle gang which has one of its members come into contact with a mysterious boy with wrinkled skin, as if he’s of advanced of age. The biker suffers a horrible bike accident as a result, and is then experimented on during the ostensible hospital treatment. Later on, we find out that the mysterious boy is a part of a secret government program which aims to harness the same force behind evolution identified by alchemy, in order to utilize the power for defense capabilities. In essence, the government wanted to turn the force which drives evolution into a weapon (not surprising).

Evolution is considered to be a blind process which has no aims or intent beyond immediate survival. This may be the case, but only up until recently. Since humans are reflective rather than reflexive, they can contemplate the situation they’re in, and plan for the far future. Such a condition entails the foundation of a self-regulated evolutionary process. Humans’ cognitive capabilities allow us to guide our destinies and evolution like no other organism. Considering this fact, we can imagine how, presently, we are like alchemists or the government in Akira. By manipulating our environments and bodies, we are harnessing the same power which drives the evolutionary change: behavior and genes. Teleology, then, becomes an important factor in our continued evolution. Because we can think abstractly, we can design possible evolutionary outcomes which are guided by a mind with intention and goals, ours. This puts us in the same position as those alchemists and others harnessing the power behind evolution.       

Therefore, given this fact that humans can control their evolution, which humans are entrusted with such an important activity? Is it each one of us deciding for ourselves, or is it some group of elites which decide for us? The former is liberty, the latter is tyranny. Never accept that someone else knows more about where your evolutionary outcomes should end up (or what’s ultimately best for you).

We are in control of evolution now. Both alchemy and the movie Akira highlight the ways in which humans direct their own evolutionary destiny. Let us hope that with this profound power comes a respect for the liberty of individuals. 

Friday, December 23, 2016

How nicotine can help us envision a legal drug market

What nicotine addiction and regulation could tell us about a prohibition free world.

Nicotine is considered to be very addictive.
Although it does not share the same reinforcement effects as heroin or cocaine, it still ranks higher in dependency.

This means that while heroin or cocaine is more pleasurable, nicotine, when habituated, plays a more significant role in one’s daily activities.

This is probably due to the fact that smoking a cigarette can be done almost anywhere at any time, so one associates its use with everyday activities, (eating, showering, errands, etc.). Heroin or cocaine on the other hand, because of its method of ingestion (needles, sniffing) it becomes ostracized from normal activity. Therefore, one associates its use with non-ordinary situations.

Hence, when one is trying to quit an activity, it becomes harder if that activity is associated with ordinary behavior.

Knowing how much nicotine can seep into the normalcy of everyday life, it’s amazing to consider why more people aren’t addicted given its availability.

The likely factor here is in how nicotine and tobacco products in general are regulated. In the late sixties and early seventies, congress passed legislation which limited the advertising of tobacco products. Essentially, the legislative measures banned advertising on television and radio, limiting it to adult oriented magazines and other print media or niche adult material only.

This ban had nothing to do with one’s behavior, and yet it helped reduce smoking.
Now, how come that’s the case? How could such an addictive substance have its prevalence of (ab)use drop significantly? The case is that education, not prohibition, helped individual make wiser decisions about their health and wellbeing.

I believe there’s no reason why this couldn’t be the case with other addictive substances. What drives many to use harder drugs is the realization of the falsehoods of what the “authorities” told them about substance use.

Therefore, we can envisage a market for drugs with high addiction potential, which relies on users seeking out the businesses rather than vendors marketing to the general public. Companies selling opiates or euphoric stimulants, for instance, would have their clientele seeking out their products, as opposed to the business itself marketing trying to acquire new customers.

Thus, we could sell potentially addictive substances in a legal drug market. There would just be restrictions on how these companies could market their addictive products. We may even see a drop in addiction compared to the rates under prohibition. It’s surprising how a cigarette could help us picture a market where we could sell addictive substances ethically.