Boosting your brainpower: Ethical aspects of cognitive enhancements

Enjoy.


http://www.bma.org.u..._brainpower.pdf

Cheers Matey

Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for BRAIN HEALTH to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

Excellent publication, the neutral view I was looking for. Thanks.

A nice article that goes along with this theme.

“We worship at the altar of progress, and to the demigod of choice,” Dr. Chatterjee said. “Both are very strong undercurrents in the culture and the way this is likely to be framed is: ‘Look, we want smart people to be as productive as possible to make everybody’s lives better. We want people performing at the max, and if that means using these medicines, then great, then we should be free to choose what we want as long as we’re not harming someone.’ I’m not taking that position, but we have this winner-take-all culture and that is the way it is likely to go.”

I was a little bothered by the above quote. If there was no progress and no individual choice, it would be one very depressing world. Sounds to me like Dr. Chatterjee is speaking from an elitist position. The good Doctor is at "the top" looking down on all of us common folk telling us: 'you really don't want to be at the top, believe me it is bad for you and for society'

“You can imagine a scenario in the future, when you’re applying for a job, and the employer says, ‘Sure, you’ve got the talent for this, but we require you to take Adderall.’ Now, maybe you do start to care about the ethical implications.”

I think he might have a point here, although it seems far fetched when trying to judge the current effectiveness / risk profile of these substances.
My experience with cognitive "enhancement" is that optimising your diet, exercise and taking a few normal supplements can have a huge impact while it is healthy at the same time.

Prescribing adderal, a form of amphetamine, to kids with ADHD, well, euhm, .... <self censorship> .... While it seems off-topic, it comes very near to the reservations quoted above IMO.

A nice article that goes along with this theme.

“We worship at the altar of progress, and to the demigod of choice,” Dr. Chatterjee said. “Both are very strong undercurrents in the culture and the way this is likely to be framed is: ‘Look, we want smart people to be as productive as possible to make everybody’s lives better. We want people performing at the max, and if that means using these medicines, then great, then we should be free to choose what we want as long as we’re not harming someone.’ I’m not taking that position, but we have this winner-take-all culture and that is the way it is likely to go.”

I was a little bothered by the above quote. If there was no progress and no individual choice, it would be one very depressing world. Sounds to me like Dr. Chatterjee is speaking from an elitist (snobbish) position. The good Doctor is at "the top" looking down on all of us common folk telling us: 'you really don't want to be at the top, believe me it is bad for you and for society'

The position of Dr. Chatterjee from the quote is a bit incoherent. "Winner take all" is a completely othogonal notion from maximizing our potential. There are reasons for desiring such maximization across the entire spectrum of attitudes in relation to others and competition - cooperation spectrum as well. My own view is that the maximization of the positive potential of All is synonymous with the greatest Good by definition. Dr. Chatterjee seems tightly bound in an envy/scarcity based POV that the gains of any one are at the expense of others. Surely we cannot progress to a happier world for all without gaining a view that the good of any individual adds to the well-being of all. Real progress has been damped for too long by the fundamental assumption that the world is and always will be "dog eat dog" and zero sum.

Edited by samantha, 10 May 2008 - 10:58 PM.

I think it's the current ruling elites who will have the biggest opposition to average people engaging in cognitive enhancement because they fear the competition and threat to their power that these newly created geniuses will pose. Organic life engages in the Darwinian struggle: those on the top of the hierarchy want to remain on the top.

I think it's the current ruling elites who will have the biggest opposition to average people engaging in cognitive enhancement because they fear the competition and threat to their power that these newly created geniuses will pose. Organic life engages in the Darwinian struggle: those on the top of the hierarchy want to remain on the top.

I believe they (general public)are just ignorant. There are no ethical issues for self improvement, it is the right of the individual to do so. The elites would also benefit from cognitive enhancement.

I think it's the current ruling elites who will have the biggest opposition to average people engaging in cognitive enhancement because they fear the competition and threat to their power that these newly created geniuses will pose. Organic life engages in the Darwinian struggle: those on the top of the hierarchy want to remain on the top.

I believe they (general public)are just ignorant. There are no ethical issues for self improvement, it is the right of the individual to do so. The elites would also benefit from cognitive enhancement.

Moreso, even, having more available funds to spend on it.

Do nootropics really make you a genious though ? I don't think you can go above your predetermined natural capacity no matter what you take. Although they are most definitely comparable to steroids. One works on the physique, the other on the brain.

Enjoy.


http://www.bma.org.u..._brainpower.pdf

The link you mentioned is broken. Here is the latest link. http://www.bma.org.u...cm41-147266.pdf

Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for BRAIN HEALTH to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

Enjoy.


http://www.bma.org.u..._brainpower.pdf

The link you mentioned is broken. Here is the latest link. http://www.bma.org.u...cm41-147266.pdf

The topic is in the news at the moment. The researcher who provoked this latest flurry of interest in the media, Vince Cakic, doesn't seem to be of any great academic distinction. The USyd website lists him as "Research Assistant - Casual".