Cognitive enhancement - a good thing but...
dr_chaos 14 Dec 2007
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?
Brainbox 14 Dec 2007
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"...
william7 14 Dec 2007
Karomesis 14 Dec 2007
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.
Grimm 14 Dec 2007
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.
Mind 14 Dec 2007
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.
Grimm 14 Dec 2007
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.
maestro949 14 Dec 2007
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.
Mind 14 Dec 2007
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
maestro949 14 Dec 2007
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!
luv2increase 15 Dec 2007
samantha 01 Feb 2008
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.
infundibulum 02 Feb 2008
As for a NI underclass, the equivalent exists today and has existed since time immemorial.
niner 02 Feb 2008
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.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.
abolitionist 02 Feb 2008
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.
AaronCW 07 Feb 2008
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.
niner 07 Feb 2008
AaronCW 07 Feb 2008
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?
niner 07 Feb 2008
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.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?
Your personal reasons, while being important to you and I, mean nothing to Jack Bauer, who only cares about his child.
mentatpsi 03 Jun 2008
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
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 .
mentatpsi 04 Jun 2008
abelard lindsay 24 Jan 2014
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.
cats_lover 28 Aug 2014
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.