Can anybody explain me (or recommend any resources that explains) what benefit does it have to make it illegal to have these substances?
From my point of view, it does not fix the problem of having people consume them, and it does harm the time it takes for us to have serious scientific tests that assess if they have any good benefits at all.
I think you're not the "shaman" he's referring to.
By "big brain type system shaman" I understood someone who doesn't necessarily write code, but instead, e.g. sells courses around the topic, getting people hyped about it, etc.
He uses the word "shaman" previously when talking about Agile, and there are many who fit that picture of working on selling courses, and not on developing software.
> Our information diet is only as useful as is relevant in future
I think there are situations where ephemerous knowledge is useful. For example, knowing about a security vulnerability: its profitability is much higher before the issue gets fixed, which can happen anytime (be it two hours or two years).
Another example: imagine you know insert-influential-billonaire is going to tweet about insert-trendy-currency, this information is completely irrelevant for the future, but you can certainly use it to make money.
It's worth mentioning these two examples, however, can provide longer-lasting knowledge as a by-product too.
Besides all other points by jhayward, what kind of changes do you have in mind? From my perspective at first sight it isn't necessarily negative that we are doing the things in a pretty simlar way as to how we were doing them 40 years ago.
Never understood those kind of "security" questions. Is the site really going to hand out access to my account if that question gets answered correctly?
Also, some sites don't allow you to not set up one, so it's like forcing users to open up a new vector to be hacked.
The conclusion I understood from your first comment is something along the lines of: "it's now more important to me to make more money since it affects my longtime girlfriend".
Meanwhile, my gut feelings about this say that I wouldn't want my partner to feel this way about my income status.
It's counterintuitive for a reason, and to be honest I have bad (not necessarily direct) experiences in both cases, and can't conclude which one is the best. Does a busier street really mean less likely to be mugged? Why?
Even if his view assumes that, wouldn't assuming otherwise be also wrong? Why should we think that most people dying have carefully analyzed their entire life, and even if they did, why should we assume they are correct?
From my point of view, it does not fix the problem of having people consume them, and it does harm the time it takes for us to have serious scientific tests that assess if they have any good benefits at all.