[gozmike]

I believe in research, I believe that we need to seek understanding and explore concepts, technologies and questions that can improve our race.

However, I have a huge issue with one of the goals of the project "People may choose to take nootropics due to the additional clarity it gives them, leading to increased performance in all walks of life."

The ethical dilemmas that this creates are massive. What about the authenticity of what it means to be "human". WHat about the adverse affects it will have on competition against those who don't have access to the enhancement (due to physiological, economic or other reasons)?

We need to understand this class of substance, however we cannot responsibly peddle "enhancements" in this way.

The ethics on this subject are extensively debated in academia (see works by Forlini & Racine among others...) and the only clear consensus that I've seen is that there are some very serious unanswered questions about the societal impact of this.

Would anyone back this campaign if it was studying athletic doping?

[aero142]

I see no moral dilemma in the least. There are two problems with doping. First, athletic competition is human vs human and is innately about the limits of human ability. Why prove a human can lift large amounts of weight instead of using a fork lift? Second, most athletic performance enhancing drugs do long term damage, so people are trading in their health for winning.

If there were a safe mental enhancing drug, I would definitely take it and never a moral dilemma in the least.

[octaveguin]

I don't know if these things work or not but the premise that improving people's abilities is somehow unethical is dangerous.

One could argue that giving good education to students gives them an unfair advantage to those without such an education. Does this mean that education is unethical?

Improving people's mental ability, whether through drugs or education, improves all of our lives. To win at being higher functioning and making better choices is not just a win for the individual but for the society at large. Those people can go on to improve the live of others and grow our collective economy. It's not zero sum as athletics can be thought of.

As an aside - if these improvements make us less human, then I don't see why modern medicine doesn't also make us less human. Do we define human purely as a certain cognitive ability?

[acuozzo]

> What about the adverse affects it will have on competition against those who don't have access to the enhancement (due to physiological, economic or other reasons)?

This is already a "problem". I don't think a new (potentially, safer) nootropic drug would make matters any worse.

[cousin_it]

Did you just imply that existing problems are difficult to make worse, so we should only worry about brand new problems?

[acuozzo]

No, I didn't.