From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Mon Jan 20 2003 - 06:57:34 MST
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 04:02:06AM -0800, Rüdiger Koch wrote:
> Guess there won't be much opposition to enhancing the brain as long as
> it results in higher productivity. Changing the neural dynamics is a
> millenium old tradition - this is what alcohol, LSD... is all about.
> Those drugs are illegal because they reduce productivity, not because
> govt doesn't want us to enjoy.
Hmm? Have you studied the history of prohibition? While reduced
productivity was one of the arguments in the early decades, it has
largely disappeared since it is basically a fascist argument based
on the idea that people are intended to serve society and not the
other way around. The real core of the prohibition movement was the
alliance between health movements (based on romantic notions of
naturalness and shady pseudoscience) and religious movements.
In fact, in Sweden the idea that drugs could enhance productivity
is used as support for the current strong anti-drug policy - if
those drugs become legal the evil corporations will make their
employees take them, or people will have to take them to compete
with each other. Hence they should be banned. Of course, that line
of reasoning never seem to dwell upon the problem of Sweden lagging
further and further behind in productivity today, and that these
drugs might become legal in other countries. I guess the official
position in that case would be that Sweden can teach every other
nation to follow our obviously workable and realistic drug
policies...
It is interesting to note the current case of the US Air Force
defending the use of amphetamines for performance enhancement:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=571&ncid=751&e=1&u=/nm/20030116/hl_nm/amphetamines_pilots_dc
"On Thursday, the Air Force Surgeon General's office sent
pilot physician Pete Demitry to Barksdale to tell reporters
covering the hearing that Dexedrine is a good thing, not
bad.
He told a news conference the Air Force has used the
stimulant safely for 60 years and that it is better than
coffee because it not only keeps users awake, but also
increases alertness.
There had been no known speed-related mishaps in the Air
Force, whereas there had been many fatigue-related
accidents, Demitry said. "
Note that this is a drug that is highly illegal when used for
private civilian performance enhancement, and doctors are to my
knowledge not allowed to prescribe it as a performance enhancer
despite the above claims of safety and efficacy.
> It's rather devices than drugs that'll bring the real progress (e.g.
> direct brain<->machine interfaces). Problems could arise when a number
> of users use them as a replacement for recreational drugs (such as 24/7
> VR sex), forgetting the real world around them. That's clearly bad for
> productivity and govt will thus seek ways to prevent such (ab)use.
Useful neural interfaces are at least a decade away. But the
discoveries in neuroscience and limited neurointerfaces are still
significant, and not just as "drugs" - brain fingerprinting,
methods of modulating activity affecting mood, attention and
memory, even the deeper understanding of how we make voluntary
actions and motivate ourselves - all these have important and
drastic consequences.
> The legal question of identity is quite simple as long as uploading
> isn't possible: It'll be handled as now. Society is not going to work
> if one can drop all responsibility when enhancing oneself. The same
> question arises with all criminals who's crime is many years ago, for
> instance WWII crimes. My impression is that society answered this
> question clearly: Yes, this 85 year old person is the same as the 31
> year old guy who committed the crimes. A person is the same 50 years
> later if this person is linked by a continued existence.
OK, but that is going to run into a few cases where people have
undergone profound personality or cognitive changes. Am I guilty of
a murder if I can show that my frontal lobes were not working
correctly at the time? Most likely it would be temporary insanity
instead. But what if I had deliberately caused that change in my
frontal lobes? What if I decide to adopt a cognitive style at
variance with what is considered mental health and demand freedom
of cognition? I have no doubt that legal systems will adapt, it
will just take a while and perhaps a few celebrated cases. It is
our job to prepare the philosophical groundwork of how this can be
used in an acceptable way.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST