Yeah, There's no way I'd let a microchip under my skin.
"If you drop a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will of course frantically try to clamber out. But if you place it gently in a pot of tepid water and turn the heat on low, it will float there quite placidly. As the water gradually heats up, the frog will sink into a tranquil stupor, exactly like one of us in a hot bath, and before long, with a smile on its face, it will unresisting-ly allow itself to be boiled to death."
(Also yes, for those of you pedantic enough I'm aware the story is not biologically accurate, but the metaphor remains valid)
Suppose that after some time, we become expert brain hackers and we can find a way to pass these changes onto our children. (through some sort of gene manipulation; I'm not an advocate of Lamarckian evolution!)
Since at this point, humanity will diverge into two species (those who have access to technology and those who don't), how exactly should we value those who's lineage hasn't been benefited by the presence of these drugs?
Just a hypothetical situation of this mentality being taken to an extreme, but still interesting nonetheless.
You can value them however you like, but I imagine the enlightened front will continue to push for token equality amidst the harsh realities of disparate wealth and opportunity and a small minority of bigots, while society at large remains unconcerned with intelligence, maintaining its longstanding fascination with wealth, status and charisma.
Then again, these drugs only cost pennies so they could really even the playing field. Starbucks needs to hurry up and invent the amphetamine latte.
