4 ms·

> Imagine a world where our policy-makers, cancer-researchers, and entrepreneurs are all realizing gains from cognitive enhancement. Seems like that would dram

> Imagine a world where our policy-makers, cancer-researchers, and entrepreneurs are all realizing gains from cognitive enhancement. Seems like that would dramatically exacerbate the have/have not gap that the article talks about earlier. And, corollary: imagine a world where our rogue traders, mafia bosses, used car salesmen, cult leaders, and con artists are all realizing gains from cognitive enhancement. For fun, try a limit analysis: imagine a world where all your rivals in business are dosed up on your nootropics. You're now in the position of having to consume mind altering pharmaceuticals in order to retain your job, with some completely uncertain future cost to your health. Or you could conclude that the risk isn't worth it, and instead try to make a career in a lower paying field suitable for 'unenhanced' people, probably something dangerous and physical that robots can't quite manage yet. It's frightening that the author thinks this is a good idea. I am clinging to the hope that this was put together by some disgruntled college kids who want the benefits but can't quite stomach the risk of buying black market Adderall. EDIT - good: it got flagkilled. Horrible article.

cheshireoctopus 12y ago
> imagine a world where all your rivals in business are dosed up on your nootropics. You're now in the position of having to consume mind altering pharmaceuticals in order to retain your job, with some completely uncertain future cost to your health. scary.
bdm 12y ago
[Co-author of the post here.] Imagine a world where the boogey man has access to smart phones, encryption, and chemical weapons. Yes it's scary. Technology provides a multiplying effect on society, both the good and the bad segments. Typically the good outweighs the bad, and one has to believe that technological advancement is generally a positive thing for society. The point about feeling pressured to use nootropics because of competitors or peers is interesting. This type of soft coercion already exists with Adderall, and you could say we are "coerced" into learning to read or getting a college degree or owning a cell phone (BTW - for all we know, cell phones give you cancer if you carry it in your pocket everyday for 30 years - no one knows the exact risk). It only feels like coercion when there are significant worries and risks, otherwise it's just a positive behavior shift. No one has a crystal ball, but I would bet that society will decide that the benefits of nootropics outweigh the risks & harms, especially if there's a nootropic that's milder, safer & more equally distributed than Adderall. Bioethicist Allen Buchanan goes into the coercion point in more detail: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/02/why-cognitive-enhancement-is-in-your-future-and-your-past/252566/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/02/why-co...

cheshireoctopus 12y ago

> imagine a world where all your rivals in business are dosed up on your nootropics. You're now in the position of having to consume mind altering pharmaceuticals in order to retain your job, with some completely uncertain future cost to your health. scary.

bdm 12y ago

[Co-author of the post here.] Imagine a world where the boogey man has access to smart phones, encryption, and chemical weapons. Yes it's scary. Technology provides a multiplying effect on society, both the good and the bad segments. Typically the good outweighs the bad, and one has to believe that technological advancement is generally a positive thing for society. The point about feeling pressured to use nootropics because of competitors or peers is interesting. This type of soft coercion already exists with Adderall, and you could say we are "coerced" into learning to read or getting a college degree or owning a cell phone (BTW - for all we know, cell phones give you cancer if you carry it in your pocket everyday for 30 years - no one knows the exact risk). It only feels like coercion when there are significant worries and risks, otherwise it's just a positive behavior shift. No one has a crystal ball, but I would bet that society will decide that the benefits of nootropics outweigh the risks & harms, especially if there's a nootropic that's milder, safer & more equally distributed than Adderall. Bioethicist Allen Buchanan goes into the coercion point in more detail: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/02/why-cognitive-enhancement-is-in-your-future-and-your-past/252566/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/02/why-co...