Knowledge Of The Sequence Of Letters
Smarter Do You Want to Be - Should You Be Allowed to Choose
Friday 20 September 2013
We all know that using performance enhancements for sports are a no-no. It's not fair to the other competitors, and negates the entire purpose of human competition in sports. We know it goes on in many sports and no one says anything, you can tell by the humans that play the sport that they have been taking these enhancements. Right now, kids are taking psychiatric drugs to improve their school performance. This is problematic because many college professors grade on a curve.
It also is unfair for those students studying for the SAT, college entrance exams, and other academic tests. But it's happening. There was an interesting article in TPM - The Philosopher's Magazine in the third quarter of 2013. It was in the forum section titled "Human Enhancement - Rational Evolution, " by Julian Savulesu. There were several articles within this forum, one of the articles asks "Should students take smart drugs," by Darren Meacham. In this he ponders a question to the reader "why limit the question to only student?" In another article the author asks "If IQ is worth preserving, it is worth enhancing." Also, "the Treatment/Enhancement Distinction Is a Fiction."
Now then, I'd like to address that last point. Consider if you will that those who have mental issues and take psychiatric drugs to make them normal, are in essence enhancing their standing point. They are also offsetting the curve. If someone is deficient and brought up to normal through the enhancement process you might call that treatment, but in reality it is the same thing right? If someone of normal capability takes a treatment which becomes a noticeable enhancement and puts them up on the upper tier of the other students, then the average students will be upset, and so too will I guess the deficient student who took an enhancement as well.
However, if you let the bottom tier students get away with it, and the middle tier students get away with it so they can compete on a more level playing field, then you should also let the normally smarter students take it as well who become super geniuses. Well in that case everyone is taking it, therefore it negates the entire mean average of IQ. Do you see that point as well? Should everyone therefore be allowed to be as smart as they can be and take anything they want by choice, as long as it isn't hurting their brains, as long as we don't have socialized medicine, and the taxpayer has to pay for it?
Overall wouldn't our society be more well served with smarter college students graduating into the workplace therefore becoming more productive and solving problems that are in their places of work, the government, or a nonprofit sector they might encounter. Wouldn't you want smarter people as voters as well? Therefore wouldn't you just want everyone smarter? If so, why don't they just put it in the food? That is to say why don't they put good stuff in the food to make people smart, rather than things which dummy them down?
Maybe the powers that be don't want too many smart people because they will be so intelligent they will accumulate all the wealth. Of course isn't that why more intelligent people are wealthier than people low IQ? More questions than answers, I just wanted to throw that out there for you as an ethical conundrum in our modern technologically advanced age. Please consider all this and think on it.
It also is unfair for those students studying for the SAT, college entrance exams, and other academic tests. But it's happening. There was an interesting article in TPM - The Philosopher's Magazine in the third quarter of 2013. It was in the forum section titled "Human Enhancement - Rational Evolution, " by Julian Savulesu. There were several articles within this forum, one of the articles asks "Should students take smart drugs," by Darren Meacham. In this he ponders a question to the reader "why limit the question to only student?" In another article the author asks "If IQ is worth preserving, it is worth enhancing." Also, "the Treatment/Enhancement Distinction Is a Fiction."
Now then, I'd like to address that last point. Consider if you will that those who have mental issues and take psychiatric drugs to make them normal, are in essence enhancing their standing point. They are also offsetting the curve. If someone is deficient and brought up to normal through the enhancement process you might call that treatment, but in reality it is the same thing right? If someone of normal capability takes a treatment which becomes a noticeable enhancement and puts them up on the upper tier of the other students, then the average students will be upset, and so too will I guess the deficient student who took an enhancement as well.
However, if you let the bottom tier students get away with it, and the middle tier students get away with it so they can compete on a more level playing field, then you should also let the normally smarter students take it as well who become super geniuses. Well in that case everyone is taking it, therefore it negates the entire mean average of IQ. Do you see that point as well? Should everyone therefore be allowed to be as smart as they can be and take anything they want by choice, as long as it isn't hurting their brains, as long as we don't have socialized medicine, and the taxpayer has to pay for it?
Overall wouldn't our society be more well served with smarter college students graduating into the workplace therefore becoming more productive and solving problems that are in their places of work, the government, or a nonprofit sector they might encounter. Wouldn't you want smarter people as voters as well? Therefore wouldn't you just want everyone smarter? If so, why don't they just put it in the food? That is to say why don't they put good stuff in the food to make people smart, rather than things which dummy them down?
Maybe the powers that be don't want too many smart people because they will be so intelligent they will accumulate all the wealth. Of course isn't that why more intelligent people are wealthier than people low IQ? More questions than answers, I just wanted to throw that out there for you as an ethical conundrum in our modern technologically advanced age. Please consider all this and think on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)