But consider that as research continues, they will probably find that other effects can be achieved by stimulating other brain areas in other ways. Perhaps they will find an area that enhances reading comprehension, or musical ability, or objectivity.

So imagine we reach a state where we have general purpose brain stimulators in most schools, that can be programmed to stimulate the appropriate part of the brain in the appropriate way for a given lesson.

Great, right?

Now consider this. One researcher has already reported that he can induce by brain stimulation a mystical or religious state, where subjects often report feeling they are in the presence of God. If the school stimulators could be programmed for this kind of stimulation, they could turn into a powerful tool for religious indoctrination.

I would not at all be surprised, if the religious inducement turns out to be true (I believe it has not been replicated yet) that they will find other deep emotional things can be induced, such as feeling of national pride and patriotism. I'm sure I don't need to say anything about the potential abuse of that if every public school has a programmable brain stimulator.

This is why we don't throw ethics out the door--we need a way to make the good aspects of this available (boosting memory and math) WITHOUT just blindly getting the bad parts.

When I say throw ethics out the door I specifically mean ethical questions that would pose a problem for institutions such as universities. I feel like what you are talking about falls more under the category of health rather than ethics but the line between them here is very very thin.

With a widening gap, would such a device further increase the gap between those who go on to be the "have's" vs. the "have nots"? Would this introduce a more substantial barrier to entry for the upper class? What if the device cost $1000? What if it cost $1000/month?

What would happen to society if 50% or more of society was structurally unable to move up in the class system? There is unrest today (occupy protests) and the common perception is that it isn't even a big problem in the US yet. How bad would it get if people actually thought it was as bad as it is? And then what if it got worse?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_...

When a society regularly creates incentives that lead to bubbles that eventually collapse and leaves wrecked lives in its wake, people are bound to get upset.

But in a society that does not punish savers and reward foolishness, prudent people with even modest means and a bit of luck can build a nice nest egg for retirement and a rainy day.

Our politicians believe consumption is the key to prosperity and the more you subsidize consumption, the more likely it is that you will be re-elected.

But it is actually production and productivity that lead to wealth and stability, not consumption. And certainly not bubbles where hundreds of billions of dollars are wasted building things for which there is ultimately no market.

A device that truly makes people more productive (without longterm side effects, of course) would actually benefit us, not hurt us. And banning such a device would simply give the advantage to other countries to exploit.

I think most of the resistance to intelligence boosting based on fairness are just appeals to status quo. It's occurrence is inevitable and the benefits of a more educated and intelligent populace working to improve their lot via technology is worth the cost if they can bootstrap themselves into something better.

And I very much doubt that such a device will cause as much of a socioeconomic divide as access to literacy, computers, electricity, internet, clean water and iodine has on the world. Iodine deficiency can cause a loss of as much as 15 points of IQ [2]. Really though, the main issue will be when gene, protein therapies and genetic engineering become safe and better understood.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine_deficiency

[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15734706

People have built DIY models for under $50. With full scale production you could build a basic model for a few dollars.

Plus the cost of patent licenses, of course.

There may be patents covering some specific implementations, but I believe one could design a patent free device fairly easily.

These brain modifiers are not limited to such pedestrian things as increasing mere intelligence. Evidence would strongly suggest they are also capable of screwing with things like discipline, concentration, and ability to defer gratification, which definitely are connected to socioeconomic status. It's really quite difficult to predict what the effects could be.

maybe not status, but it's a big factor in mobility. Not saying you can't do it without, but those at the top of the class definitely move up. Scholarships, Doctors, Lawyers, Scientists, Engineers -- all make it to the top 2/5ths.

>> Brain boosters have the greatest effect when used by scientists and engineers

Exactly -- pushes those already 'on top' even higher.

It's positive-sum. If researchers taking cognitive enhancements are able to accelerate the process of curing Alzheimer's or getting self-driving cars on the road, I'm not going to complain if they earn billions in the process.

What you are talking about could indeed be a problem if there are significant developments in nano human augmentation. I personally would love it if cognitive boosters were treated as a health issue and made widely available.

So for instance, say the people that take these meds end up living 5 years less on average due to side effects of the drugs but are for instance able to read 2 times fast, remember thing better and only need 5 hours of sleep a day. Naturally because they're on average better they will get better jobs, more promotions and so on. So the people that choose not to trade in years of their life end up getting screwed (in relative terms) and (taken to the extreme - say 50 years down the road) will be second class citizens.

To a very minor degree this happens with caffeen, but when you put things in the equation like amphetamines and provigil it gets a lot scarier.

If I was taking amphetamines and provigil in college I know for certain I would have graduated with a lot higher GPA and I probably would have done a lot more in college. But what would have been the cost? I don't know.. and know one really can say; I wasn't willing to take that gamble. Why should the person that was willing to gamble his health get rewarded for it?

So for instance, say the people who work long hours end up more stressed and less healthy, but produce for instance 50% more value. Naturally because they're on average better they will get better jobs, mor epromotions and so on. So the people that choose not to trade in quality of life end up getting screwed (in relative terms) and will be second class citizens.

By working hard and taking risks you might outcompete some people. I don't see why this is an ethical problem.

First of all, I don't think quality of life necessarily translates to years spent living, or at least that's very hard to quantify.

For the Quality of Life vs. Long Hours:

Firs of all, it's also a weak comparison. You can work at a job 8 hours a day and hate it while the guy next to you does it for 12 hours a day and loves it. You might end up ruining your quality of life and he won't be. So you can't quantify your quality of life with time spent at work.

But even considering that there is probably a strong correlation; fortunately there is also a very natural balancing mechanism. If work long hours is really ruining your life then that's a direct incentive for you to not do it. You have a constant pressure to not overwork yourself because you it psychologically make you feel horrible and no one wants to feel horrible. So things sorta tend to balance themselves out. Even if you look at environments/careers were people really push themselves due to competitiveness in the long term I don't think they end up having shorter or worse lives.

Sure there are masochists that work 12 hours a day, hate it, but do it for the promotion; but even for them I think in their minds they don't have a horrible life. The prospect of the promotion prolly keeps them happy and keeps them going.

Now compare that with taking a pill or zapping your brain: If you take a pill and you get dementia 40 years later then you're trading in current gains for future pains. You're not getting constant negative feedback to hold you back. So to keep up with your peers you and all the people around you will be popping every pill possible because otherwise you drop out of the race.

Now since there are no brakes to the process and everyone is trashing their bodies to make it to the top your society eventually ends up with a group of super smart pill-poppers and brain zappers and they become all the CEO and PhDs but live to only 40 before their brains are fried and then you've got the rest that live to 90 and clean toilets.

I'm not quantifying it, I'm merely pointing out that being a workaholic harms many people. Personally, I work hard doing stuff I love. But I do raise the bar for people who don't enjoy it, and who are forced to do so in order to compete.

If you take a pill and you get dementia 40 years later then you're trading in current gains for future pains.

And if you work your ass off and get high blood pressure/etc 40 years later, you are doing the same thing.

At most, it seems like a matter of degree and uncertainty. The costs/benefits of hard work are reasonably well known, whereas brain pills are not (yet).

in some NASA research use 5mA

On the intellectual side of things, you have students competing for scholarships, grants, and research placements. You have people competing for jobs in high-tech industries, and then competing with their colleagues for promotions, pay raises, and bonuses. I'm sure you can come up with more examples. The same problem then exists with devices or drugs which purport to improve learning ability. I could take dextroamphetamine every day. My productivity could go through the roof and I could soak up information like a sponge, easily putting within my grasp that which I strive to accomplish every day. Yet I do not want to do this, for many reasons.

Maybe the device in the article lacks the side effects of regular amphetamine use. It therefore would not be on the same level as nootropic drugs, but saying we should 'throw ethics out the door' is quite a leap.

At the same time athletes surve a different purpose. They entertain. The perception of a fair playing field is much more important to a bottom line than the actual performance of a person. No one wants to watch a machine pitch a perfect pitch every time. Likewise no one wants to watch a juiced up player hit a home run every time. Theres no spectacle in that.

As for entertainment, I'd probably not object to watching steroid-pumped athletes if I was confident they wouldn't end up with anger-management and biological gender disorders afterwards. Same applies to stimulating the brain with electrodes, except we don't know where/whether that might go wrong yet. Ben Johnson wasn't competing to run the world; but at the risk of invoking Godwin's law, the track record of those using stimulants to help them run the world isn't great.

Be careful with such sweeping statements. I think it'd be cool as hell to watch athletic competitions that were really just proxies for various performance-enhancing labs to show off their latest, greatest stuff. I don't watch the Tour de France now, for instance, but if all of those riders were openly doping and tweaking to expand their limits in new and interesting ways, I probably would.

Pro athletes already make sacrifices that the rest of us would consider horrific, wrecking their health and shortening their lifespans for the sake of a few years of glory and attention. What's suggested here is absolutely nothing new.

But, well, when i read this, I must say, i have people close to me who would have access to this technology and understand the risks, and I thought, hmm.