Support the IEET

The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.

Via PayPal

Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view

MIT Media Lab’s folding CityCar

‪BMW shows off their semi-autonomous driving system‬

Autonomous Transportation for the Year 2030

Automated Cars: Redux

Russell Blackford: Freedom of Religion

‪Jason Silva on Psychedelic Rapture, Ecstatic Awe‬ and Technology

Must the Rich be Lured into Investing? Who are the Real “Job Creators?”

I Want a God-Like Brain

SENS5 - Collective advantages of Life Extension

Malcolm Gladwell on Income Inequality: We’re Off the Rails

Smart Mice, Not-So-Smart People: An Interesting and Amusing Guide to Bioethics
Author

by Arthur Caplan

From Transgender to Transhuman: A Manifesto On the Freedom Of Form
by Martine Rothblatt

Freedom of Religion and the Secular State
by Russell Blackford

The Olympics: The Basics
by Andy Miah and Beatriz Garcia

Peter Wicks on 'The Future of Women' (Feb 10, 2012)

Peter Wicks on 'The Future of Women' (Feb 10, 2012)

Peter Wicks on 'The Future of Women' (Feb 10, 2012)

Peter Wicks on 'The Future of Women' (Feb 10, 2012)

Christian Corralejo on 'The Future of Women' (Feb 10, 2012)

Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List

Also check out technoprogressive multimedia on Thoughtware.tv

IEET > Rights > Neuroethics > Life > Enablement > Directors > Mark Walker > Staff > J. Hughes

Print • Email • permalink • (3) Comments • (2389) Hits •

subscribe •

•

•

•

•

Mark Walker and James Hughes on Cognitive Enhancement in Free Inquiry

Posted: Jul 29, 2009

Pick up a copy of Free Inquiry. They have a special issue out on Designer Moods: The Ethics of Neurochemical Enhancement with pieces by IEET ED James Hughes and IEET Board member Mark Walker.

David Koepsell: “Designer Moods: The Ethics of Neurochemical Enhancement”
James J. Hughes: “Social Pressures for Technological Mood Management”
Mark Alan Walker: “The Case for Happy-People Pills”
Ronald A. Lindsay: “The Uncharted Moral Landscape of Designer Personalities”

Print • Email • permalink • (3) Comments • (2390) Hits •

subscribe •

•

COMMENTS

Mark Plus • Mayer, AZ, USA, Earth • Jul 31, 2009

As I understand Walker's article, he argues that we don't have a false dichotomy where we have to choose either happiness or achievement, but not both. Instead, the empirical evidence seems to show that happy people tend to achieve more than unhappy people through a virtuous synergy, though we don't understand all the feedback loops. If we could make less happy people more like the successful "hyperthymic" people through pharmacology, then we might see more achievement all around. And all this without postulating some woo-woo "law of attraction" like in "The Secret"! I wonder about the scarcity of the high achievement spots, however. We already see plenty of perfectly good engineers, scientists, mathematicians and programmers in the U.S. who can't find the jobs they trained for, and who've therefore had to take stupid-people's service jobs just to have some income. I have yet to see an accounting of the opportunity costs this trend imposes on our economy. These technically capable people did consume valuable resources in their educations which they can't replenish now given their low wages and inability to pay much in taxes. Would happy-people pills just add more frustrated techies to their ranks?

Bad Programmer • United States • Aug 6, 2009

I don't think high achievement means being a techie, it could mean being a better electrical contractor or making more or better dresses or cakes. While it's a pity if scientists have to struggle, it is possible that educating a lot of scientists, engineers or programmers is a misallocation of resources. I'm not sure more scientists efficiently leads to more real breakthroughs even if they are employed as scientists This is because the paths to new ground might be hard to find leading most scientists and engineers working on basicallyold stuff.

Mark Plus • Mayer, AZ, USA, Earth • Aug 6, 2009

If we've reached diminishing returns from further investments into science and engineering, then that pretty much discredits the prospect of a "singularity," along with many other science-fictional scenarios for humanity's future. In fact, I've wondered how foolish Ray Kurzweil would look if the very smart people he's drawn to his Singularity University study the facts and trends carefully, then announce to the world their conclusion that further technological won't make much difference.

YOUR COMMENT

Next entry: Audio Awesomeness on Death

Previous entry: Blurring Lines