The ethical question comes up because these won't be free. There's already a large and widening gap between those who have and those who don't. Particularly in America, who your parents are have a very large impact on your potential as an individual -- access to schools, materials, etc.
With a widening gap, would such a device further increase the gap between those who go on to be the "have's" vs. the "have nots"? Would this introduce a more substantial barrier to entry for the upper class? What if the device cost $1000? What if it cost $1000/month?
What would happen to society if 50% or more of society was structurally unable to move up in the class system? There is unrest today (occupy protests) and the common perception is that it isn't even a big problem in the US yet. How bad would it get if people actually thought it was as bad as it is? And then what if it got worse?
Today's minor political instability is the result of bad policies blowing up in our faces, not differences in people's potential.
When a society regularly creates incentives that lead to bubbles that eventually collapse and leaves wrecked lives in its wake, people are bound to get upset.
But in a society that does not punish savers and reward foolishness, prudent people with even modest means and a bit of luck can build a nice nest egg for retirement and a rainy day.
Our politicians believe consumption is the key to prosperity and the more you subsidize consumption, the more likely it is that you will be re-elected.
But it is actually production and productivity that lead to wealth and stability, not consumption. And certainly not bubbles where hundreds of billions of dollars are wasted building things for which there is ultimately no market.
A device that truly makes people more productive (without longterm side effects, of course) would actually benefit us, not hurt us. And banning such a device would simply give the advantage to other countries to exploit.
This device works by aiding memory retention and learning. It doesn't magically universally boost your intelligence, it is more of a catalyst to learning, storage and recall. In fact, if you wanted to boost your IQ and general problem solving ability you are better served to train your short term memory e.g. via n-back training. So is access to anything facilitating such not fair?
I think most of the resistance to intelligence boosting based on fairness are just appeals to status quo. It's occurrence is inevitable and the benefits of a more educated and intelligent populace working to improve their lot via technology is worth the cost if they can bootstrap themselves into something better.
And I very much doubt that such a device will cause as much of a socioeconomic divide as access to literacy, computers, electricity, internet, clean water and iodine has on the world. Iodine deficiency can cause a loss of as much as 15 points of IQ [2]. Really though, the main issue will be when gene, protein therapies and genetic engineering become safe and better understood.
From what I've read I don't believe there are any patents covering the basic concepts. Additionally patents expire after 20 years, and there is definitely prior art covering the basic device going back at least to the 60s.
There may be patents covering some specific implementations, but I believe one could design a patent free device fairly easily.
Devil's advocate: brain boosters wouldn't widen the gap significantly because socioeconomic status is not primarily determined by intelligence. That's the entire point of lack of socioeconomic mobility. Instead, the benefits of brain boosters would primarily be to raise the overall quality of life. Brain boosters have the greatest effect when used by scientists and engineers, and the resulting improvements in infrastructure, medicine, and technology serve everybody.
"Devil's advocate: brain boosters wouldn't widen the gap significantly because socioeconomic status is not primarily determined by intelligence."
These brain modifiers are not limited to such pedestrian things as increasing mere intelligence. Evidence would strongly suggest they are also capable of screwing with things like discipline, concentration, and ability to defer gratification, which definitely are connected to socioeconomic status. It's really quite difficult to predict what the effects could be.
>> socioeconomic status is not primarily determined by intelligence
maybe not status, but it's a big factor in mobility. Not saying you can't do it without, but those at the top of the class definitely move up. Scholarships, Doctors, Lawyers, Scientists, Engineers -- all make it to the top 2/5ths.
>> Brain boosters have the greatest effect when used by scientists and engineers
Exactly -- pushes those already 'on top' even higher.
Exactly -- pushes those already 'on top' even higher.
It's positive-sum. If researchers taking cognitive enhancements are able to accelerate the process of curing Alzheimer's or getting self-driving cars on the road, I'm not going to complain if they earn billions in the process.
With this device in particular I don't think that it works well enough to prompt a corporate oligarchy artificially inflating prices.
What you are talking about could indeed be a problem if there are significant developments in nano human augmentation. I personally would love it if cognitive boosters were treated as a health issue and made widely available.
With a widening gap, would such a device further increase the gap between those who go on to be the "have's" vs. the "have nots"? Would this introduce a more substantial barrier to entry for the upper class? What if the device cost $1000? What if it cost $1000/month?
What would happen to society if 50% or more of society was structurally unable to move up in the class system? There is unrest today (occupy protests) and the common perception is that it isn't even a big problem in the US yet. How bad would it get if people actually thought it was as bad as it is? And then what if it got worse?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_...