4 ms·

> Imagine these advantages not being subtly embedded in the life experience of well-off Westerners, but being directly for sale—and turned up to 11. Intergenera

by gnode 7y ago

> Imagine these advantages not being subtly embedded in the life experience of well-off Westerners, but being directly for sale—and turned up to 11. Intergenerational social and economic mobility would disappear. [...] augmentation could also become a tool to entrench inequality even more firmly. I disagree with this argument that commercial performance enhancement will destroy social mobility. The effect would be strongly dependent on the economics of such a market. Conversely, an efficient market in a new technology can be democratising. If hypothetically an inexpensive brain-computer interface could give a person access to information in a way which substitutes conventional education, then this could negate the preexisting socioeconomic divide which education creates. Particularly conventional education is unavoidably expensive because it involves labour on at least the part of the student, whereas the cost of a neuroprosthetic device, as with other electronic technology is diminishable.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Gpetrium 7y ago
If hypothetically, a brain-computer interface were to exist, it would likely reach individuals that are well-off first. As the base solution becomes more widely available to the mass, enhancements to speed, quality of information capture, processing and others would help create tiers to the product, some of which would only be available for the right price. Coupling access to information devices with real experience (which often involves spending resources), it means that there would continue to be gaps in social mobility further exacerbated by people's means to acquire the tech necessary to break through their socioeconomic status.
- gnode 7y ago
  In order to have a positive effect, a technology only needs to be less discriminatory than the technology it replaces. I chose the example of education because it is very expensive and discriminatory today; a technology which replaces the need for tuition could still be expensive and improve social mobility. > If hypothetically, a brain-computer interface were to exist, it would likely reach individuals that are well-off first. While often true for technology generally, medical technology has special considerations. Rather than simply reaching the well-off first, performance enhancing neurological implants are likely to reach the disabled first, where it is deemed ethically more acceptable, as has been the case so far. Due to public healthcare, health insurance, and research contribution, patients' wealth is not always crucial here. It may be the case that costs reduce greatly before non-medical uses become acceptable. In the case of BCIs, the acceptability of their non-medically necessary use cases would likely depend of the technology's maturity. The extent to which market differentiation is possible is not yet clear for such technology, particularly if the market is competitive. Tiering is typically based on either having a unique product (e.g. nobody else can make an equivalent) which can be artificially crippled, or natural differences in production quality (e.g. only some cores of this processor work).

by gnode 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Gpetrium 7y ago

If hypothetically, a brain-computer interface were to exist, it would likely reach individuals that are well-off first. As the base solution becomes more widely available to the mass, enhancements to speed, quality of information capture, processing and others would help create tiers to the product, some of which would only be available for the right price. Coupling access to information devices with real experience (which often involves spending resources), it means that there would continue to be gaps in social mobility further exacerbated by people's means to acquire the tech necessary to break through their socioeconomic status.

gnode 7y ago
In order to have a positive effect, a technology only needs to be less discriminatory than the technology it replaces. I chose the example of education because it is very expensive and discriminatory today; a technology which replaces the need for tuition could still be expensive and improve social mobility. > If hypothetically, a brain-computer interface were to exist, it would likely reach individuals that are well-off first. While often true for technology generally, medical technology has special considerations. Rather than simply reaching the well-off first, performance enhancing neurological implants are likely to reach the disabled first, where it is deemed ethically more acceptable, as has been the case so far. Due to public healthcare, health insurance, and research contribution, patients' wealth is not always crucial here. It may be the case that costs reduce greatly before non-medical uses become acceptable. In the case of BCIs, the acceptability of their non-medically necessary use cases would likely depend of the technology's maturity. The extent to which market differentiation is possible is not yet clear for such technology, particularly if the market is competitive. Tiering is typically based on either having a unique product (e.g. nobody else can make an equivalent) which can be artificially crippled, or natural differences in production quality (e.g. only some cores of this processor work).