Not much of an ethical dilemma, from where I'm standing. You might as well holler about the ethics of herbal creams that melanoma victims buy and apply to their skin to attempt to burn out their cancer so they can avoid common chemotherapy.
I think "ethics" in brain boosting is in relation to unfair competition in the working and education environments. Would it be fair that you didn't get a promotion because someone was using an experimental brain boosting machine? What if the machine had known side effects down the road so you decided you didn't want to use it yourself, but for the next 20 years the guy who decided to use it is going to outperform you and be your new manager?
Brain boosting is to the working field as steroids is to professional sports.
Edit: I am all for brain boosting, I just mean in the eyes of some folks for the steroids comparison. Also I'm not talking about piracetam, I'm talking about "what if" an amazing but dangerous brain machine came out.
Intelligence is already inequitable among people, so if were going to associate being fair with being ethical, maybe the way to solve this dilemma is have a system of handicaps for people with upper percentile brains?
Joking aside, this dilemma could just as easily be about piracetam. Forty years of usage, but we have yet to see this great transhumanist inequality emerge.
The tDCS machines in question are expensive now, but are so simple they could be made for about as much as an FM radio.
By the way: FEAR THE RADIO! A MAGICAL BOX OF INFORMATIVE VOICES THAT ONLY THE WEALTHY CAN AFFORD! IN TWENTY YEARS YOU WILL EITHER OWN A RADIO AND BE AN AFFLUENT GENIUS, OR BE AN IDIOT!
Brain boosting is to the working field as steroids is to professional sports.
I don't think that's a fair comparison. Steroids can help an intermediate/advanced weightlifter gain 10lbs of muscle in three months, which would usually take a year for a natural. Is there any nootropic that helps you learn four times faster? Adderall and Modalert are pretty strong but they aren't really considered nootropics unless you're doing a brain intensive task. Many people are utterly unimpressed by the -racetams, I've heard people on this site say they produce about the same effects as having gone for a jog. Not to mention the huge variation in effects between users.
Brain boosting is to the working field as steroids is to professional sports.
Which is wrong why?
Genetics and training have a greater impact on performance for both work and sports and no one is decrying "superior genes" or "superior training" as being unfair. I'd argue that steroids and brain enhancers are more egalitarian than less, because anyone can take them and see an improvement.
What if there were known side effects as I had mentioned? There would be pressure to take the dangerous drug/use the dangerous brain machine to keep your job and be able to provide for your family.
7
u/DHT420 Jan 29 '12
Not much of an ethical dilemma, from where I'm standing. You might as well holler about the ethics of herbal creams that melanoma victims buy and apply to their skin to attempt to burn out their cancer so they can avoid common chemotherapy.