I'm trying to evaluate the effectiveness of a hypothetical research institute developing a drug (or testing existing candidates) that chemically increases subjective wellbeing in healthy people (“giving everybody a drug that makes them 20% happier”), and I’d like your input.

As far as I'm impressed, current EA discussions on the matter of improving subjective wellbeing in healthy population try to either solve it from a therapeutic standpoint or from a transhumanist standpoint (eg. gene modification), and I think the chemical approach[1] is somewhere in the middle - trying to modify people's biological functionality but with existing (or nearly-existing) technologies and in a reversible manner. 

I’ve been looking into this lately and have found relatively little informative materials[2]. For example, I’m particularly interested in the following questions:

  1. How promising are the existing candidate substances: psychedelic microdosing, antidepressants, variants of MDMA, etc.
    1. Michael Plant's drug policy reform proposal may be a strongly correlated cause in this context.
  2. Policy risk: to my understanding, western ethics committees review drug trials in a manner that does not allow for drug development for any other purpose other than prevention or treatment of illness. Thus, do we expect sanctions on researchers who would conduct human trials with experimental substances on perfectly healthy people? Will the trials need to be done in loosely regulated countries? I would suspect this to be similar to contemporary psychedelic research but am not familiar with the constraints there.
  3. Psychological risk of a chemical approach: I am not sure how contemporary research views the risks involved with dependency on a substance for wellbeing - eg. to what extent are unhealthy belief effects expected to emerge?

I’d be interested in any resources that explore this topic of chemically improving subjective wellbeing in healthy population. 

 

 

  1. ^

    David Pierce has written a lot on this topic from a philosophical point of view.

  2. ^

    and lots of references to Brave New World’s “Soma” :)

23

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments11


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Very interesting! +1!

My initial thought is that there is already a TON of demand for this, both in terms of money, and many people personally caring about it, and it being a cool high status project, so I expect this area isn't neglected.

What do you think?

I suspect this is a case of strong limitations in the medical establishment's philosophy, causing legal issues and lack of motivation to research the subject seriously.

If we take this further - you'd expect more research into genetic engineering for a permanent abolishment of human suffering, since everybody wants to be happy, right? But I'm not familiar with any mainstream research on the subject.

My claim is

  1. If someone would create this, they'd make a TON of money
  2. This is known
  3. So people tried lots of things already

Do you think 3 is wrong because it would cause the researcher to have legal issues? Or, could you pinpoint our disagreement?

I'm not sure of anything - just haven't found much written material on the subject, so I'm trying to understand what's going on. I suspect that:

(1): many people do not think about this from this perspective (and those who do may not believe it philosophically - eg. most people would see Brave New World as a dystopia)

(3): those who did try it encounter significant legal/cultural issues?

And in the (probable) case you're right on that entire logic flow I would have expected A LOT more written material on the subject. What do you think?

Sorry I'm not answering your question, but I think it's important to note some line needs to be drawn between treating issues (e.g. depression) and just wireheading. I don't think "a drug that makes everyone 20% happier" is necessarily a good thing. It could have both side effects for individuals, and widespread societal effects.

I separate this from wireheading in that it does not necessarily decrease emotional variance, and in that the effect is not necessarily extreme as in a literal electrical wireheading . I'm not even sure that making the average person 20% happier would even equate them with the top 5-10% "naturally" happiest people.

However to my knowledge there still is no wireheading technology that is sustainable over time, and I am inclined to believe that it is desirable to develop one as that may open up society to more nuanced transhumanist  "happiness technologies" ("paradise engineering").

[comment deleted]2
0
0

This isn't directly relevant, but hopefully helpful.    

Another way to look at suffering  is that all suffering (psychological) is made of thought.   There are a variety of simple mechanical exercises accessible to any somewhat serious person which can reduce the volume of thought, and thus suffering.

What often happens is that we suffer, and then we start thinking about it, trying to figure it out, regretting it etc and that generates more thought, fueling the suffering.

Suffering is made of thought.   Worth investigating.

I did a lot of psychedelics in the sixties, and while I don't regret those experiences, most of us from that era moved on after a couple of years and converted to softer more natural kinds of experiences.

That said, I have seen documentaries where seemingly credible researchers claim lasting benefits to their patients from psychedelic experiences.   

DMT is a very interesting substance which you might investigate if you haven't already.  It's not really a happy drug though, more of a profoundly philosophical drug, as I understand it from a  distance.  Look for a documentary called "The Spirit Molecule" which tracks a DMT clinical trial conducted by a scientist.   

Thanks for the comment. I will watch that documentary. I did watch "How to Change Your Mind" though and it did seem great - may I ask why you and your friends moved on from psychedelics then, aside from the much-quoted legal/cultural issues?

Ah, great.   In my previous post I had wanted to aim you at that documentary, but at the moment I couldn't remember the name, or find it on streaming.   So I'm glad you already have it.

Here's a link to The Spirit Molecule:   

 

To try to answer your question...

For me, the sixties was high school, so my psychedelic use was pretty immature compared to what it might be today.   You know, we'd buy LSD on the street and never give a thought to who actually made it.  Not very bright!

My memory of why I moved on was that, while I enjoyed all my LSD experiences, it just began to feel like too powerful a drug.   Not that the experience was too strong, or unwelcome, but more like the drug being a pollutant.   The fact that we were taking street drugs might explain some of that.  

Another factor for me personally was I grew up, went on to college, and for awhile was trying to be serious and um, become a drone slave of the corporate gulag :-) which is how I might have expressed it at the time.  I got over that and returned to a more hippy philosophy and lifestyle, but didn't return to LSD.

Another factor at the time was that the entire hippy wing of my generation migrated from psychedelics to natural foods, meditation, back to the land, and other more wholesome approaches to life, which was a good thing.   

One life lesson I remember learning from LSD was to roll with it.  You know, once you take LSD you're off on a trip that will take you where it will, and there's no turning back.  So you learned not to try to drive the bus, and instead "go with the flow" and accept whatever was happening in the moment.  It was the folks who fought it that tended to get in to trouble.

I'm not at all cynical about LSD, and MIGHT take it again the right circumstances, but it seems I'm not motivated to find those circumstances. 

I still smoke pot, which I find to be very useful.  But I smoke only the tiniest fraction of what I once did long ago.   A hit or two on the pipe once or twice a month, and I'm good.   

Finally, I can't quite calculate the impact LSD had on my relationship with nature, but that relationship has become a very big factor in my life.      I lived a block from the beach during the time I was doing LSD, and was an avid surfer, and these early influences probably had something to do with the fact that I spent most of my time in the woods today.      

So that's enough memory lane for now.  If you have some other questions you'd like me to address feel free to ask.   If I somehow miss your reply, feel free to PM.   

Good luck with your project, pretty darn interesting!

Cool, thanks for the interesting perspective!

Curated and popular this week
calebp
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
The LTFF recently switched to doing grant rounds, our first round closes on Saturday  (deadline EOD anywhere 2025-Feb-15).  I think you should consider submitting a quick application in the next 24 hours. We will likely consider applications submitted over the next few days in this round (unless we are overwhelmed with applications). Apply now In my personal view, I don't think there has been a better time to work on AI safety projects than right now. There is a clear-ish set of priorities, funders willing to pay for projects, and an increasing sense from the AI safety community that we might be close to the critical window for ensuring AI systems have a profoundly positive effect on society.[1]   I am particularly keen to see applications on: * publicly communicating AI threat models and other societal implications * securing AI systems in ways I don't expect to be done by default in labs * getting useful safety research out of AI systems when the AI is powerful and scheming against you * analysis of AI safety research agendas that might be especially good candidates for AIs (e.g. because they can be easily decomposed into subquestions that are easily checkable) * new organisations that could use seed funding * gatherings of various sizes and stakeholders for navigating the transition to powerful AI systems * neglected technical AI governance research and fieldbuilding programs * career transition grants for anyone thinking of the above * areas that Open Philanthropy recently divested from   Other LTFF fund managers are excited about other areas and an area not being included in the list above is not a strong indicator that we aren't excited about it.  You can apply to the round here (deadline EOD anywhere 2025-Feb-15).     1. ^ we are also interested in funding other longtermist areas, though empirically they meet our bar much less often than AI safety areas.
 ·  · 38m read
 · 
Summary Kidney stones cause an immense amount of suffering worldwide. Weighted by their intensity, and depending on some assumptions, we posit that kidney stones may account for a large fraction of human suffering worldwide.[1] Finding cost-effective solutions for this hedonic catastrophe should be a very high priority in any suffering-focused research agenda. While researching kidney stone pain, we were very impressed with the online reports of patients using chanca piedra (Phyllanthus niruri) to treat their pain and prevent the formation of stones, so we decided to take a closer look. Given the limited number of high-quality studies on the efficacy of chanca piedra, we decided to look for additional evidence online and collected thousands of WebMD, Amazon, and Reddit reviews about chanca piedra and other kidney stone treatments, and classified them along a few dozen different dimensions (such as reported side effects, reported pain reduction, etc.). While we acknowledge that internet reviews are not usually a reliable source of information concerning medical matters, we also make the case that the reviews of chanca piedra in particular should not be dismissed out of hand. In particular, we find that chanca piedra: 1. Is effective for an exceptionally high percentage of people, judging by both the star ratings and review contents. 2. Has an exceptionally low rate of reported side effects. 3. Has high-quality reviews, judged by criteria such as providing adequate context and believable narratives consistent with kidney stone experiences. 4. Is supported by reviews that are equally very positive across WebMD, Amazon, and Reddit. 5. Compares very favorably to the WebMD reviews of standard prescription medications for kidney stones, including: tamsulosin (aka Flomax), allopurinol, potassium citrate, and hydrochlorothiazide. 6. Has a far lower rate of reported side effects and a higher rate of effectiveness than melatonin and ashwagandha, two widely used over-t
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
How to explain Effective Altruism to someone who’s never heard of it—and make them interested? A few months ago, I was given the opportunity to give a TEDx talk about Effective Altruism. As a former community manager of EA Israel, I’ve spent years explaining EA to newcomers, refining how I communicate its principles, and observing the common misconceptions that make it harder for people to engage with EA ideas. Preparing for the talk forced me to organize my thoughts on what works—and what doesn’t—when I try to convey EA to a broader audience. I would love to discuss with you some of the choices I made when I wrote this talk, and hear your thoughts about them. Note: I don’t read the forum often, so the writing might not be in the usual style of the forum. I use many anecdotes, personal stories, and my views. However, hopefully, these ideas could start a conversation I think is important about EA communication and community outreach in general, and I hope that they could spike that conversation. 1. Generic Examples → Shared personal stories Like many people, my first experience with social impact was purely driven by passion, and not by calculations of effectiveness. In the talk, I chose to describe this experience. It went something like this: > “When I was 14, I found out my friend was harming herself. It shook me. I wanted to help her, and other people that suffered. > > So I did what felt right—I launched a mental health campaign to reduce self-harm among teenagers. > > And, to my surprise, it worked- we received thousands of followers, interviews on TV, and hundreds of messages from people saying how much it helped them. It felt like a success.  > > Until one day, another friend told me:  > > “Your campaign gave me the idea to hurt myself.” > > She said she had already been struggling with anxiety and depression. But self-harm wasn’t something she’d considered— until she came across our campaign. > > It crushed me.  > > I had tried to do good in th
Recent opportunities in Global health & development