Cognitive Enhancement and the Threat of Inequality

Abstract

As scientific progress approaches the point where significant human enhancements could become reality, debates arise whether such technologies should be made available. This paper evaluates the widespread concern that human enhancements will inevitably accentuate existing inequality and analyzes whether prohibition is the optimal public policy to avoid this outcome. Beyond these empirical questions, this paper considers whether the inequality objection is a sound argument against the set of enhancements most threatening to equality, i.e., cognitive enhancements. In doing so, I shall argue that cognitive enhancements can be embraced wholeheartedly, for three separate reasons. However, though the inequality objection does not sufficiently support the conclusion that cognitive enhancements should be prohibited, it raises several concerns for optimal policy design that shall be addressed here.

Racial Justice Requires Ending the War on Drugs

“…One of the most significant problems with prohibition is that it leads to illicit markets: specifically, unregulated markets that result in the production of drugs of unknown and inconsistent purity, and, in many cases, dangerous bulking agents and toxic additives, thus increasing rather than reducing the potential for harm (Barnett 2009;Csete et al 2016;Veit 2018). It has also contributed to the production of novel psychoactive substances in an attempt to circumvent existing laws.…”

“…Although some voters and public officials may disapprove of others' personal drug use, people generally have rights over their own bodies that allow them to make decisions not only about their health, but also about the substances they choose to consume, including those drugs that have been legalized in the U.S. and elsewhere, such as alcohol and tobacco. For example, people may use drugs to examine their consciousness, to explore their character, to access and respond to their values, motivations, and desires, and to engage in self-development and self-understanding (Fadiman 2011;Kaelen et al 2015;Schmid et al 2015;Liechti, Dolder, and Schmid 2017;Preller et al 2017;Griffiths et al 2018;Veit 2018;Earp 2018;Lewis 2020;Earp and Savulescu, in press). Although most drugs, including alcohol, can be used in ways that harm the user, the potential for self-harm does not normally provide adequate grounds for outright prohibition.…”

Are We Ready for Direct Brain Links to Machines and Each Other?

“…Consider: who would pay for everyone to get these implants so as to encourage distributive justice? Walter Veit has tried to answer this by suggesting that employers would have a natural desire to pay for enhancements for their employees and that this would resolve uneven availability to people and concentration of benefits to the rich (Veit, 2018). This is unlikely.…”

Can ‘eugenics’ be defended?

“…Wilson ( 2019 ) demands that proponents of genetic enhancement such as Peter Singer ( 2001 , 2003 ), Jonathan Glover ( 2006 ), Nicholas Agar ( 1998 , 2004 , 2019 ), Julian Savulescu ( 2001 , 2009 ), John Harris ( 1992 , 2007 ), Walter Veit ( 2018a , b , c ), and Jonathan Anomaly ( 2018 , 2020 ) should pay attention to ‘the actual history of eugenics and the considerable scholarship on it’, which should ultimately raise the standards of credibility that ‘any publishable work defending eugenics should meet’ (p. 68). However, in almost all essays that advocate some version of eugenics, the authors have specified which version they endorse, and which principles and practices of eugenics are morally unacceptable.…”