• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * - - 3 votes

Cognitive enhancement - a good thing but...


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 dr_chaos

  • Guest
  • 143 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Vienna

Posted 14 December 2007 - 10:39 AM


Cognitive enhancement - of adults - is definitely one of the most promising innovations of biotechnology we have to expect. Obviously it is going to change society. I wondered what you think it's social influence will be. If cognition enhancers will be affordable to the masses, I can imagine, that it will help people with lower abilities to climb up the social ladder more easily by allowing them to take up professions which today require high IQ's. This in turn bolsters up competition and thereby benefits economy in a twofold way. Since the high IQ professions of today are the ones which have the most economical importance and the ones which confer the most power and the highest status to their holders society as a whole and the members of all social classes would benefit because to chance of everyone to make it to the top would be almost equal(and not dependent on your genetics). On the other hand I'm not sure whether todays "cognitive elite"(do we even have something like an organized elite???) will support technologies that flood the market with tons of highly trainable and willing workers, who dispute the elites leadership position in society by breaking its monopoly on cognitive abilities.
However, if cognition enhancers are going to be specialized tools, which will only be useful in certain workplace settings or which are going to have a price, which is not affordable to a single person, I fear, that powerful organizations like the government of a country or a powerful corporate group will be able to create their own league of "brainworkers", who then will dominate society economically and politically. It would be pretty much be like in soviet Russia, where only faithful communists were allowed to enter universities but with the difference, that "normal" people would not be able to overthrow such a government anymore, since they'd be totally dependent on it's knowledge and skills and would not even understand its decissions.
I worry too, that jobs which require cognitive enhancement( which would be a common thing I guess, since enhanced employees confer advantages in productivity, which forces companies with a non enhanced staff out of business) could have the character of mob work. Once you get in you can never leave again. Since the company paid for your brains new tricks, you will have to stay there until you earned it its investment back( or forever if the enhancement can't be removed anymore and the other employers have different technical standards).
Furthermore I wonder, what happens if technologie moves on and there are people who can't be upgraded. Will they be the new underclass or will they have the status handicapped people have today?

#2 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 14 December 2007 - 11:00 AM

Interesting views. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to compose a decent response right now.

Here you can find some additional information regarding ethics within a broader view on the subject.

(A topic posted by Shepard that I pinned just a few seconds ago, I think this is to interesting to let it sink into "nothingness territory"... :~

#3 william7

  • Guest
  • 1,777 posts
  • 17
  • Location:US

Posted 14 December 2007 - 11:44 AM

How about character enhancement in areas such as brotherly love, mercy, and faithfulness? I think society needs this more right now than a purely intellectual enhancement. We're going to need to become about as sociable as you can possibly get in order to take successful control of these increasingly dangerous technologies that are on future's horizon, and to live out the increased life spans they'll make possible.
  • like x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 Karomesis

  • Guest
  • 1,010 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Massachusetts, USA

Posted 14 December 2007 - 02:25 PM

Dr. Chaos, competition has, and always will exist to some degree or other. This is merely another tool people will use to get ahead of someone else. The ones who do it better will emerge victorious.

I think there is a false belief that if all these technologies come to pass, that we'll be holding hands singing songs or something. People in Africa cut each others limbs and heads off to compete, people in the "civilized" US act in other ways to compete with others, wether it's sabatoging someones genetic legacy by harming someones (child) stepchild, or intrasexual/intersexual competition via gossip (women) intimidation (men) or status symbols (both).

cognitive enhancement will, in fact, be used by an "elite". It will be in the same category as today, with beautiful or intelligent people getting better jobs, living longer and better, baing able to afford plastic surgery and 30k porcelain veneers.
The people who can't be upgraded will resemble, once again, those today who are downtrodden like people who live in trailer parks or who work as janitors. The future won't change any fundamental aspect of societies top to bottom structure, it will only make it more profound.

that's just the way it is.
  • Good Point x 1

#5 Grimm

  • Guest
  • 92 posts
  • 4
  • Location:America

Posted 14 December 2007 - 05:06 PM

Cognitive enhancement - of adults - is definitely one of the most promising innovations of biotechnology we have to expect. Obviously it is going to change society. I wondered what you think it's social influence will be. If cognition enhancers will be affordable to the masses, I can imagine, that it will help people with lower abilities to climb up the social ladder more easily by allowing them to take up professions which today require high IQ's. This in turn bolsters up competition and thereby benefits economy in a twofold way. Since the high IQ professions of today are the ones which have the most economical importance and the ones which confer the most power and the highest status to their holders society as a whole and the members of all social classes would benefit because to chance of everyone to make it to the top would be almost equal(and not dependent on your genetics). On the other hand I'm not sure whether todays "cognitive elite"(do we even have something like an organized elite???) will support technologies that flood the market with tons of highly trainable and willing workers, who dispute the elites leadership position in society by breaking its monopoly on cognitive abilities.
However, if cognition enhancers are going to be specialized tools, which will only be useful in certain workplace settings or which are going to have a price, which is not affordable to a single person, I fear, that powerful organizations like the government of a country or a powerful corporate group will be able to create their own league of "brainworkers", who then will dominate society economically and politically. It would be pretty much be like in soviet Russia, where only faithful communists were allowed to enter universities but with the difference, that "normal" people would not be able to overthrow such a government anymore, since they'd be totally dependent on it's knowledge and skills and would not even understand its decissions.
I worry too, that jobs which require cognitive enhancement( which would be a common thing I guess, since enhanced employees confer advantages in productivity, which forces companies with a non enhanced staff out of business) could have the character of mob work. Once you get in you can never leave again. Since the company paid for your brains new tricks, you will have to stay there until you earned it its investment back( or forever if the enhancement can't be removed anymore and the other employers have different technical standards).
Furthermore I wonder, what happens if technologie moves on and there are people who can't be upgraded. Will they be the new underclass or will they have the status handicapped people have today?


I completely disagree with you. This type of enhmancement will destroy the uniqueness of each person. It will also ruin education and learning- who wants to work hard when you can just buy smarts in a chip? That would be horrible.

#6 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,054 posts
  • 2,002
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 14 December 2007 - 05:21 PM

Whether you like the idea of cognitive enhancement or not...whether you think it will cause more division in society or not...it is going to happen. The best thing we can do is prepare for it.

So far, it seems advancing technology has put more power in the hands of regular people and removed some from the hands of the so-called "elite". Maybe this will continue.
  • Agree x 1

#7 Grimm

  • Guest
  • 92 posts
  • 4
  • Location:America

Posted 14 December 2007 - 05:46 PM

Whether you like the idea of cognitive enhancement or not...whether you think it will cause more division in society or not...it is going to happen. The best thing we can do is prepare for it.

So far, it seems advancing technology has put more power in the hands of regular people and removed some from the hands of the so-called "elite". Maybe this will continue.


I doubt it will happen. There isn't enough time left before there won't be any resources available to research such unnecessary devices. Why? Peak Oil. Climate Change. Resource Wars. The Crash of Industrial Civilizaiton. Within 100 years it will happen. There won't be resources for horrible dehumanizing devices such as these implants, AI, etc.

#8 maestro949

  • Guest
  • 2,350 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Rhode Island, USA

Posted 14 December 2007 - 09:50 PM

Whether you like the idea of cognitive enhancement or not...whether you think it will cause more division in society or not...it is going to happen. The best thing we can do is prepare for it.

So far, it seems advancing technology has put more power in the hands of regular people and removed some from the hands of the so-called "elite". Maybe this will continue.


I doubt it will happen. There isn't enough time left before there won't be any resources available to research such unnecessary devices. Why? Peak Oil. Climate Change. Resource Wars. The Crash of Industrial Civilizaiton. Within 100 years it will happen. There won't be resources for horrible dehumanizing devices such as these implants, AI, etc.


there won't be any resources


As the technology, recycling and the quality of what we produce improves fewer resources will be needed to accomplish a level of sustenance for the entire planet's population. If anything, most resource extraction (mines, etc) and manufacturing plants of the future will be sitting idle 99% of the time.

Peak Oil


We'll find alternative energy sources and continuously improve efficiencies of those we use today. Running out of oil will be a net positive event for humanity in the long run.

Climate Change


We can reverse this by paying closer attention to our impact on the environment and improving our efficiency. The planet has suffered much more extreme temperatures than we're likely to have over the next 100 years. We're smart enough to adapt and survive a few degrees of warmer temps.

The Crash of Industrial Civilizaiton.


Economic cycles are fairly normal but civilization has always bounced back, better and stronger than before. Why would the next down cycle be any different? Because Hollywood movies and SciFi novels constantly portray armies of robots or zombied mutants ravaging the human race? It seems that every generation in history has claimed that the world is going to end during their lifetime yet they were all wrong. The dystopians of this generation are probably equally as wrong too - despite how realistic these doomsday scenarios look with CGI.

This type of enhmancement will destroy the uniqueness of each person.


I think the reverse is true and that you're overstating how unique people actually are. The majority of people are vapidly quite similar. We all seem to keep making the same mistakes, suffering the same delusions and getting addicted to the same things. Cognitive enhancement would provide a means for individuals to actually be creative and differentiate themselves from their primitive ancestors by rising above their biological constraints.

It will also ruin education and learning- who wants to work hard when you can just buy smarts in a chip?


Learning and hard-work don't have to go away. We can simply upgrade what we learn to higher forms of philosophy, mathematics and multitudes of simultaneous disciplines instead of the tedium of memorizing long lists of mostly useless facts within a narrow specialty. With expanded mental abilities and imaginations we can continue to work hard to engineer the next levels of ascendancy for humankind such that anyone can pursue creative endeavors or spiritual pursuits to their heart's content.

Edited by maestro949, 14 December 2007 - 09:52 PM.


#9 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,054 posts
  • 2,002
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 14 December 2007 - 09:56 PM

There won't be resources for horrible dehumanizing devices such as these implants, AI, etc.


Electronic implants for the brain are already a reality. Just one simple example

#10 maestro949

  • Guest
  • 2,350 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Rhode Island, USA

Posted 14 December 2007 - 10:04 PM

Perhaps with cognitive improvements we might be able to avoid these types of problems, which seem to plague humanity...

FOLLOWERS:
Brian! Brian! Brian!...
BRIAN:
Good morning.
FOLLOWERS:
A blessing! A blessing! A blessing!...
BRIAN:
No. No, please! Please! Please listen. I've got one or two things to say.
FOLLOWERS:
Tell us. Tell us both of them.
BRIAN:
Look. You've got it all wrong.
You don't need to follow me. You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves. You're all individuals!
FOLLOWERS:
Yes, we're all individuals!
BRIAN:
You're all different!
FOLLOWERS:
Yes, we are all different!
DENNIS:
I'm not.
ARTHUR:
Shhhh.
FOLLOWERS:
Shh. Shhhh. Shhh.
BRIAN:
You've all got to work it out for yourselves!
FOLLOWERS:
Yes! We've got to work it out for ourselves!
BRIAN:
Exactly!
FOLLOWERS:
Tell us more!
BRIAN:
No! That's the point! Don't let anyone tell you what to do! Otherwise-- Ow! No!



#11 luv2increase

  • Guest
  • 2,529 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 15 December 2007 - 05:53 AM

I don't think an Earth inhabited by extremely smart people is a bad idea. One thing is for certain, there will be more people knowledgeable and capable to tackle the obstacles that we are facing in our quest for immortality. The more the merrier. Also, I believe it will be harder for governments to suppress the voice of its citizens. This being because its citizens will be thinking and motivated. No more peripheral bull sh*t to get their way. They better have some damn good arguments for doing the crap they do, the governments of today that is. People will have more of a voice.

#12 samantha

  • Guest
  • 35 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Silicon Valley

Posted 01 February 2008 - 07:49 PM

I completely disagree with you. This type of enhmancement will destroy the uniqueness of each person. It will also ruin education and learning- who wants to work hard when you can just buy smarts in a chip? That would be horrible.



Huh? What is "smartness"? Intelligence allows you to understand more more easily. It has little to do with uniqueness as you and I may chose to apply our intelligence to quite different subjects. More intelligence would allow us to have a broader and deeper range. What is bad about that? A pill will not contain actual knowledge. Now we may have a way to load massive amounts of knowledge into the mind or into an augmented mind someday. But in that case there is still little hit on uniqueness because what is unique is what you individually do with however much intelligence and knowledge you have however you acquired it.

#13 infundibulum

  • Guest
  • 10 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 02 February 2008 - 12:11 AM

Enhanced intelligence (EI) as compared to non-enhanced intelligence (NI) would be like comparing the utility of computer technology from 1980 with what is available today. There is so much more opportunity for being creative with the functional capacity of more advanced technology. As intelligence is only one aspect of the mind it will be invariably modulated by other aspects of personality and we would see even greater individualism rather than conformity. You can give everyone a supercomputer class computer but not everyone will use it in the same way. For example, some may not even plug it in and choose to rest their TV on it. ;)

As for a NI underclass, the equivalent exists today and has existed since time immemorial.

#14 Rags847

  • Guest
  • 362 posts
  • 25

Posted 02 February 2008 - 06:20 AM

Nothing is as consistent as change itself.

#15 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 02 February 2008 - 06:51 AM

You can give everyone a supercomputer class computer but not everyone will use it in the same way. For example, some may not even plug it in and choose to rest their TV on it. ;)

Cray supercomputers of the mid 80's were upholstered and could be used as a circular sofa. I did in fact sit on an XMP 4/8.

#16 abolitionist

  • Guest
  • 720 posts
  • -4
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 02 February 2008 - 12:19 PM

We must change our genes as soon as possible - otherwise these technologies just amplify our Darwinian competitive nature to more destructive levels.

For this reason, eugenics is a vital part of both longevity research and the 'singularity' - without eugenics we won't be able to create the kind of society whereby people will collaborate successfully towards these ends.

Even with enhanced processing abilities, we'll still have the same drives and genetic propensities - and wireheading is ultimately a crudely ineffective way to change human nature - though civilizing implants could help.

Edited by abolitionist, 02 February 2008 - 12:26 PM.


#17 AaronCW

  • Guest, F@H
  • 183 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Chicago, IL.

Posted 07 February 2008 - 03:21 AM

Fears of a societal or governmental elite having control over cognitive enhancement technologies are largely unfounded in my opinion. It is possible that the company that develops a given technology could choose to reserve it and distribute it to a select customer base, but that is very unlikely and I cannot think of a single instance in which it has happened. As long as a free market exists in medicine it will be only a short period of time during which the technology is unaffordable to all but the very rich, and I see no ethical problem with that.

Whether the actual existence of these potential technologies will have a positive or negative (depending on your moral and political philosophy) impact on society may be a subject of interesting speculation, but nothing more. The conclusions reached though such speculation cannot be considered grounds for restricting access to such technologies, or for compomising the intellectual property rights of the company that produced it.

#18 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 07 February 2008 - 03:47 AM

Suppose a company developed an amazing technology that could, say, cure any cancer, and there was no question that it worked. What if they withheld it, asking for ten trillion dollars for the secret? The probable outcome is that it would be taken from them for the good of all, or some of, mankind. What if instead of curing cancer, they could restore youth to an aged person. Similar IP situation? What about a method to make people vastly more intelligent? Similar IP situation? I don't know the answer, but I think that some technologies are so (important | disruptive | powerful) that the usual rules of intellectual property may not apply. It may wind up being more about raw power.

#19 AaronCW

  • Guest, F@H
  • 183 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Chicago, IL.

Posted 07 February 2008 - 04:03 AM

Suppose a company developed an amazing technology that could, say, cure any cancer, and there was no question that it worked. What if they withheld it, asking for ten trillion dollars for the secret? The probable outcome is that it would be taken from them for the good of all, or some of, mankind. What if instead of curing cancer, they could restore youth to an aged person. Similar IP situation? What about a method to make people vastly more intelligent? Similar IP situation? I don't know the answer, but I think that some technologies are so (important | disruptive | powerful) that the usual rules of intellectual property may not apply. It may wind up being more about raw power.


My answer would be that, as improbable as this scenario is, it would not be for the good of mankind if a company, or an individual, were forced to surrender their rightful property for a so-called 'greater good', no matter how valuable the property to any number of people. Unfortunately this does happen on a daily basis and in much more mundane circumstances such as 'eminent domain'.

What if I were to present convincing evidence that I personally possessed such information (a cure for cancer to use your example) based on research that I personally had conducted, and was unwilling for personal reasons to release it? What actions against me would you consider the state to be justified in taking in order to get the information? Would it be just in your opinion for them to detain me in prison indefinitely? Would my personal reasons for not making the information available have any significance?

#20 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 07 February 2008 - 04:17 AM

Suppose a company developed an amazing technology that could, say, cure any cancer, and there was no question that it worked. What if they withheld it, asking for ten trillion dollars for the secret? The probable outcome is that it would be taken from them for the good of all, or some of, mankind. What if instead of curing cancer, they could restore youth to an aged person. Similar IP situation? What about a method to make people vastly more intelligent? Similar IP situation? I don't know the answer, but I think that some technologies are so (important | disruptive | powerful) that the usual rules of intellectual property may not apply. It may wind up being more about raw power.


My answer would be that, as improbable as this scenario is, it would not be for the good of mankind if a company, or an individual, were forced to surrender their rightful property for a so-called 'greater good', no matter how valuable the property to any number of people. Unfortunately this does happen on a daily basis and in much more mundane circumstances such as 'eminent domain'.

What if I were to present convincing evidence that I personally possessed such information (a cure for cancer to use your example) based on research that I personally had conducted, and was unwilling for personal reasons to release it? What actions against me would you consider the state to be justified in taking in order to get the information? Would it be just in your opinion for them to detain me in prison indefinitely? Would my personal reasons for not making the information available have any significance?

I could imagine a situation where a man's young child was dying of cancer. As it happened, he was a Jack Bauer type, and after asking nicely and being rebuffed, he kidnaps you, takes you to his basement, and tortures you until you talk.

Your personal reasons, while being important to you and I, mean nothing to Jack Bauer, who only cares about his child.

#21 mentatpsi

  • Guest
  • 904 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Philadelphia, USA

Posted 03 June 2008 - 04:11 PM

Perhaps with cognitive improvements we might be able to avoid these types of problems, which seem to plague humanity...

[life of brian example]


Life of brian was quite hilarious... especially the part with the jewish women dressing as men by putting on beards to stone the guy... or when he started telling speak like a prophet and finally got attention :p


either or, i think its crucial to remember that cognitive enhancements can be separated in a number of ways... i myself separating them into two categories where some of the features overlap: personal progress & ideal career progress. The point is there's a difference between what a company would want out of you and what you as an individual would want for yourself. Given the behavior of most corporations, do you really think very many of them will say "what the people want is important to us, profit is secondary"...

What medications have you seen in the market already? What do you think will be better funded?

With that said, I agree with Mind 100 percent, this is going to be a fact of life, we have to stay educated ;).

#22 mentatpsi

  • Guest
  • 904 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Philadelphia, USA

Posted 04 June 2008 - 05:51 AM

perhaps i'm just overly cynical of the future. Increasing the quality of life, though not always the precise cause of pharma, has often times resulted in some group out there having a better life, so i suppose i'll just wait and see...

#23 abelard lindsay

  • Guest
  • 873 posts
  • 227
  • Location:Mare Serenitatis Circumlunar Corporate Republic

Posted 24 January 2014 - 08:37 PM

There is decent IQ by country data available now thanks to the somewhat controversial work of Richard Lynn.

http://www.statistic...est-average-iq/

I did some statistical analysis and found that higher IQ countries have lower homicide rates and lower population growth rates. Presumably increasing median intelligence through gene therapy or radically effective nootropics would lead to a furtherance of these trends, possibly leading to negligible murder rates and even negative population growth! I intend to do further statistical research on what broadly higher IQs would mean to the world.

I tend to think that increased longevity *without* cognitive enhancement would be somewhat disastrous. Perhaps if people were cognitively enhanced and lived forever they would be able to contribute greatly to building a sustainable world through technology and better management of the environment and through expanding our civilization outside the earth. Without cognitive enhancement we might just continue on at the glacial technological pace we've seen in space exploration and development of renewable energy and proceed inevitably to the "eco-doom" future that has been predicted by many commentators.

Edited by abelard lindsay, 24 January 2014 - 08:53 PM.

  • Good Point x 1

#24 cats_lover

  • Guest
  • 149 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Montevideo - Uruguay

Posted 28 August 2014 - 12:22 AM

Interesting topic, It will be a radical change for the world; and while I think that smart people sometimes do great harm; I think that a world with smarter people would be a better place.

It is logical to believe that the company that develop a technique of real and significative cognitive enhancement try to:
a) Hide it and use it only with its researchers and employees
b) patent it and sell it very expensive

If it is sold, only rich people could buy it, which would increase the gap between rich and poor
.


 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users