I do not know if this strategy would apply in the Western world; but in Africa, I think much could be gained simply by nutritional intervention. IQ is, to a good approximation, 50% genetic; much of the environmental effect is childhood nutrition; it follows that widespread distribution of vitamins might have a nice effect over time, in addition to the more usual benefits. It also seems possible that this might work in those strata of the American population that subsist mainly on fast food, although I expect the effect would be less—likely there are already patchwork government programs that distribute vitamins to the poor.
Yes, in many places nutrition is a low-hanging fruit. My own favorite example is iodine supplementation, http://www.practicalethicsnews.com/practicalethics/2008/12/the-perfect-cog.html but vitamins, long-chained fatty acids and simply enough nutrients to allow full development are also pretty good. There is some debate of how much of the Flynn effect of increasing IQ scores is due to nutrition (probably not all, but likely a good chunk). It is an achievable way of enhancing people without triggering the normal anti-enhancement opinions.
The main problem is that it is pretty long-term. The infants we save today will be putting their mark about two or more decades hence—they will not help us much with the problems we face before then. But this is a problem for most kinds of biological enhancement; developing it and getting people to accept it will take time. That is why gadgets are important—they diffuse much more rapidly.
I do not know if this strategy would apply in the Western world; but in Africa, I think much could be gained simply by nutritional intervention. IQ is, to a good approximation, 50% genetic; much of the environmental effect is childhood nutrition; it follows that widespread distribution of vitamins might have a nice effect over time, in addition to the more usual benefits. It also seems possible that this might work in those strata of the American population that subsist mainly on fast food, although I expect the effect would be less—likely there are already patchwork government programs that distribute vitamins to the poor.
Yes, in many places nutrition is a low-hanging fruit. My own favorite example is iodine supplementation, http://www.practicalethicsnews.com/practicalethics/2008/12/the-perfect-cog.html but vitamins, long-chained fatty acids and simply enough nutrients to allow full development are also pretty good. There is some debate of how much of the Flynn effect of increasing IQ scores is due to nutrition (probably not all, but likely a good chunk). It is an achievable way of enhancing people without triggering the normal anti-enhancement opinions.
The main problem is that it is pretty long-term. The infants we save today will be putting their mark about two or more decades hence—they will not help us much with the problems we face before then. But this is a problem for most kinds of biological enhancement; developing it and getting people to accept it will take time. That is why gadgets are important—they diffuse much more rapidly.
Upvoted for comparing fat Americans with third world destitutes