I haven't finished the article yet, but this left me musing: Technically it's not free - you pay for access to those things, perhaps not directly to each service, but you pay for access to the internet. Higher education costs money. so what can be said for the future of intelligence and how much of a factor does monetary wealth play into it?Brain extenders technically already exist. Google is a brain extender. Wikipedia is a brain extender. Your smart phone is a brain extender. You have access to world knowledge nearly everywhere for free.
I understand your reasoning on this. I did also state the following: So I am aware that almost all world knowledge is available to you as long as you can pay for and have access to the internet. But I predict that the internet will be ubiquitous and essentially free in the 2030s, certainly by the 2040s. Higher education is in a world of hurt. I don't mention the future of higher education in this article. That deserves an entirely separate article. I have not fully fleshed out my thoughts on the future of that institution... but the types of technologies that will exist by mid-century will make it irrelevant as it currently exists. So it will be massively different. But I don't know what form it will take. Finally, I hope that monetary wealth does not factor into the future of intelligence. I hope that everyone has pretty much access to equal knowledge. That will mean everyone has equal access to the Global Brain and the technologies that will enable contact and immersion with the Global Brain.All world knowledge is catalogued and almost universally abundant to any human on the planet with an internet connection
Where do things like our current pharmaceuticals play in to the ability to extract the most out of our brains? I have a family member that takes Adderall and it really helps him focus. I'd imagine that it could really help me focus too. Where do you stand on people using drugs to enhance their performance intellectually? Is it something that you would try/do? Should there be an asterisk next to someones name should they one day win a nobel prize after taking drugs to promote brain function?
That is a tremendous question that (embarrassingly) I do not have a well-thought out answer for. I have tried Adderall and I love it. I was super productive and felt like I was Cadell x 100. I could write ten books a year if I was constantly on Adderall and it had the same effect without any negative side effects. I feel like as an individual, it is a personal choice if you want to use brain enhancing drugs. I guess the problem is that it is hard to say what the long-term side effects of these drugs are. I don't know if I really buy into the asterisk rule. I think Adderall makes you more productive and focused - but I don't think it makes you inherently smarter. And obviously I think the asterisk would be unwarranted even if it did make you smarter because there are a lot of technologies that make us smarter. The only difference with a pill is that it is inside of you and not outside of you. And soon the technologies that make us smarter will be inside of us instead of outside of us. I think these will be safer overall than the drugs that we currently have available to us, which is why the use of them will be widespread and quickly adopted. Ah, that response sounds like it needs a little more thought. But I'm open to dialogue! What do you think?
Cadell x 100 sounds terrifying, you're already too prolific. I agree that if there weren't negative effects, I would use drugs to enhance my state every day. In fact, I already do. I'm on my second cup of coffee right now and I took some allergy medication this morning. But Adderall, honestly I've tried it too and it's amazing stuff. I wish it were good for me because if it were I'd take it like flintstone vitamins. Great piece btw.