Smoking is annoying, disgusting, unhealthy etc. but we are way too quick to dismiss the possibility that nicotine itself may have been a civilization booster.
This is the first time I've ever heard someone bring this argument. Ignoring the health risks involved with nicotine, the 'performance boost' is negligible. It's less than caffeine.
> but we are way too quick to dismiss the possibility that nicotine itself may have been a civilization booster.
There are nicotine gums and patches available, and a very good reason you don't see people who don't smoke using them, because the idea of using nicotine as a performance enhancer is crazy.
A silly question, but why not just distribute cocaine or Adderall without prescription if you're concerned about performance? Where do you draw the line ?
In certain parts of society that is what happens, including fun places like the European Parliament.
If you were to test YC applicants for Adderall (illicit or otherwise) I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were over half of them, and if you would be surprised you're naive.
That said, I really don't know, it just doesn't seem right with me but I'm happy to be proven wrong and I see another interesting comment of someone who does use patches. So it's interesting, and strange to me.
The piece entertains this and struggles with it for a while, before turning to experts on the biochemistry of nicotine.
TL;DR: “omg, lol, of course it makes you feel awesome and enhances performance on mental tasks in particular, here’s a list of the exact ways it affects your body to 100% for-sure do those things, that’s part of why it’s so incredibly difficult to quit for many people”
It's not [0]
1) Lost years of productivity as people die early from lung cancer (my smoker granddad ended his career early because of it, a challenging maritime career that as I understand it has an increasing shortage of workers).
2) Healthcare resources being directed towards diseases directly caused by smoking. Tax money and individual money that could've been productively invested elsewhere, plus the working hours of healthcare professionals (another field with a shortage).
The problem with these is that there are almost always equally plausible theories, and it's really hard to figure out which is correct.
Especially given the huge amount of effort that has gone into research on tobacco and nicotine (I guess millions of hours, if not more), I would definitely NOT say we are too quick to dismiss the possibility.
I'm sure you can find an interesting econometric paper presenting this argument, but then it would be more credible.