Free To Be... Limitless

"I don't have delusions of grandeur. I have an actual recipe for grandeur."

The question that never comes up in the movie Limitless? Is it okay to take NZT?

Limitless follows one man's experience with an illicitly-obtained drug called NZT. Though the term is never used in the film, NZT is described (via the portrayal of its effects) as a cognitive enhancer. The actual mechanism(s) of NZT are never explained, and its ability to enhance memory and processing capability are largely portrayed as wonderful. Withdrawal from the drug is a bitch, of course. And then there was that 18-hour memory gap, during which the protagonist may or may not have committed a murder... But you leave the movie with a generally-positive view of cognitive enhancers. No one in the movie ever wonders if it's fair to take NZT. (And they only briefly wonder if it's safe to take NZT.)

Cognitive enhancers - a.k.a. smart pills, neuroenhancers, or study drugs - are getting attention again. Recently the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism released a report that found, among other things, that "[o]verall use of Adderall is increasing on campuses, and the drug is regularly abused by those with or without a prescription." (q) It's not entirely clear what motivated the WCIJ study, though the findings focused on the illegality involved in obtaining the drug, and on the medical dangers of abusing the drug.

Others have raised the issue of fairness though, likening the use of cognitive enhancers to "the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport" saying that "[t]heir use could lead to problems of coercion, where there is pressure on individuals to take the drugs even if they do not wish to. Similarly, if such drugs were available to only a proportion of competitors, they could be seen as giving an unfair advantage, or to be a form of cheating." (q) (I said something similar awhile back.)

At least one university has now labeled the "misuse" of these types of drugs as 'cheating', raising the question of whether or not a ban on "brain boosting drugs" is a good idea. Lamkin attempts to deflect attention away from the drugs, and onto the method and purpose of higher education. "If our goal is to promote students' engagement in education, we should realign student incentives with the appreciation of education's internal benefits, so that students are not rewarded for taking shortcuts." That's great, in theory. However, even if universities and colleges are able to "realign" themselves so as to render the use of smart drugs undesirable, it simply pushes the problem of smart drugs into the arena of the workplace.

It's in the workplace where the protagonist (Eddie Morra) of Limitless meets with success as a result of his use of NZT. He finishes his book in 4 days, makes obscene amounts of money as a day trader, and catches the eye of a wealthy mogul who offers him the opportunity to use his talents in exchange for even more-obscene amounts of money. **SPOILER ALERT** By the end of the movie, Eddie has achieved a level of material success that cannot be taken away from him. His ability also allowed him to make the money that 'bought' him his continued freedom, via the efforts of a top defense attorney, after the missing 18 hours come back to haunt him. He even used his money to engineer a way to wean himself off the drug, avoiding insanity and death while retaining the cognitive enhancements permanently. In short, he won. (Sorry, Kyle. If anything, this movie is effectively an advertisement for cognitive enhancers.)

In arguing for societal acceptance of cognitive enhancement, two assumptions have been made. One, that such drugs will eventually be risk-free, and two, that they will eventually be available to everyone. (Neither assumption is true today.) But, to my mind, the bigger ethical issue is still the one that I addressed over a year ago...  How do you argue for the cognitive liberty of the individual when the exercise of that liberty may result in a decrease in liberty for those who follow? This presupposes that cosmetic neurology would restrict rather than broaden the range of what we accept as 'normal'. (Think about a neurological version of The Stepford Wives...)

If there is an argument to be made against enhancement technology, it might very well be that redefining what is possible will also redefine what is acceptable, even tolerable. And consequently, individual liberty may be lost rather than gained.