>One theoretical argument against the possibility of smartdrugs is that if
>there were a simple way of boosting intelligence, evolution would already
>have discovered it.
>Some things might still be possible.
I agree. The "theoretical argument" above contains a grevious error. It
assumes that all possible evolutionary changes with relation to heightened
intelligence have already occurred (in humans). Crap. There is absolutely no
reason why this should be the case. Again, it is the dominant animal within
us that so deperately strives for social superiority translated into the
context of the entire world/universe and beyond, that has blinded us.
Evolution by natural selection, as we all know, produces lifeforms more
suited to survival in their niche than the last generation. It does not
produce more and more intelligent lifeforms with each generation, unless the
particular niche of the species in question demands it. Due to the law of
decreasing returns, which is generally accepted as relevant to the issue of
increasing intelligence in a human context, it is unlikely that maximum
intelligence will have been reached in any human - it would be a waste of
energy. Furthermore, evolution by natural selection in humans may be slowing
due to the impact of medical technology and policing on immediate
deselection (death before reproduction), BUT it is certainly not over, nor
could it ever be, so long as the race continues - after all, women are still
choosing mates according to the "Can he break stuff good?" paradigm of old.
Unconsciously, of course. This alone will optimise the entire race toward
bigger people with more aggression, perhaps. What is certain is that very
high intelligence is not a common desirable (sexually attractive) trait, and
so will not be further heightened by the course of human evolution as it is
now.
In conclusion, get your thinking hats on and make some smart pills.....I'll
be at the front of the queue for 'em, loot in hand.
Rob.