Q&A: The Ethics of Using Brain Implants to Upgrade Yourself

Posted on

Sandberg: There are several subsystems of love in brain. The first involves sex, mating with someone. If you enhance that, that’s just nice from a hedonistic and pleasure standpoint. The second subsystem is attaching, falling in love, selecting your partner. The research on prairie voles involved that second subsystem. The stimulation was a bit like love potion, it was stimulation that could make them fall in love with each other. That is quite intriguing. Imagine drinking a love potion, and the only reason you’re in love with this person is that you drank the love potion. That seems morally problematic—we generally think love should mean something, and that people should be together because they’re compatible.

But I think people would notice if someone tried to discreetly insert electrodes in your brain. This might be a reason we don’t want to make neurotech too microscopic. Then we might drink the wrong drink, and…

Spectrum: Then all the fairy tales come true.

Sandberg: To some degree, neurotechnology is trying to make magic real. But half of the fairy tales tell us, be careful what you wish for. It’s not necessarily a good thing to be a fairy tale world.


How moral enhancement could be used in the justice system

Spectrum: Would it be feasible to use neurotech for moral enhancements in the context of law enforcement and prisoner rehabilitation?

Sandberg: I have given some thought to enhancement and punishment. Today’s punishment relies on operant conditioning, where you punish the person for doing something wrong. A philosopher would say, that’s not respecting the thinking being, if you just inflict pain when they do something wrong. If you want to rehabilitate someone, it’s more important that they understand why what they did is wrong.

The real reason people become criminals is often that they don’t have opportunities and don’t have the skills they need to succeed in society. They might need to understand that you don’t need to solve problems with violence. So I can imagine using cognitive enhancement in rehabilitation.

But the more interesting case would be to use enhancement to make them understand what they did. Sociopaths might not feel remorse for what they did. Could you make them understand? That would be a pretty tough punishment—if they suddenly understood why it was bad, and had to live with that guilt forever. So there’s a case for not curing the sociopath.


Who would benefit most from neural enhancement?

Spectrum: Do you worry that neurotech brain enhancements will only be available to the wealthy, and will increase the disparities between the haves and have-nots?

Sandberg: I’m not too worried about it. If the enhancement it is in the form of a device or pill, those things typically come down in price exponentially. We don’t have to worry so much about them being too expensive for the mass market. It’s more of a concern if there is a lot of service required—if you have to go to a special place and get your brain massaged, or you have to take a few weeks off work for training, the prices for those services won’t come down because they’re based on salaries.

The real question is, how much benefit do you get from being enhanced? You have to consider positional benefits versus absolute benefits. For example, being tall is positionally good for men, tall men tend to get ahead in work and have better life outcomes. But if everyone becomes taller, no one is taller. You only get the benefit if you’re taller than everyone else. Many people who are against enhancement use this argument: Enhancement leads to this crazy race and we’re all worse off.

Spectrum: So even if a cognition-enhancing device became available, you don’t think everyone should get one?

Sandberg: Intellectual enhancement would be good for the lower half of the bell curve, for people who are generally hindered by their lack of intelligence, and make stupid mistakes that they make their lives worse.

People with good life outcomes tend to be smart but not super geniuses. Giving these people more intelligence might allow them to solve problems that less intelligent people can’t solve, but that might not be an advantage unless you care about solving deep problems.

Super geniuses tend to toil away at something very specialized. Everyone benefits from their work, and having more of those people would be a very good thing. Or if we could make them even smarter, they would come up with more interesting solutions to the hard problems facing our society.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *