I sure hope so, or else I'm in the wrong business. I think that we need to find a biological solution to these problems (if you consider not learning fast enough a 'problem'). But in life, there are always trade-offs. There's no such thing as a free lunch. I think what will be more advantageous than some steroid for your mind is a treatment that slows the aging process. That I can envision. If that were the case, you wouldn't have any need to learn super fast, because you could wouldn't feel bad about taking your time.
Yeah. That's on my list of interests for the future: 1. Renewable Energy 2. Space Exploration and Civilization 3. Biological Engineering(whether it's being like Tony Stark or finding cures for aging) While we're on the topic, I got in a conversation about avoiding death and I actually had huge backlash from my classmates questioning the bioethics of it. Curious on your thoughts in regards to somehow avoiding death(slowing aging significantly-don't know whether it is the similar thing in your terms--or whether that could be even feasible?)
Depends what you mean by avoiding death. We all avoid death, some are just more successful than others (for reasons of luck or lifestyle). If they were arguing that it is unethical to, say, live for 150 years, because of overpopulation, then I disagree. There are two ways to slow population growth (mathematically speaking). Limit the number of children per mother, or have children later in life. Both have the same effect on growth. if nobody had children until, say, age 40 or 50, which isn't really safe right now, then there would be no problem at all (winning arguments with math is always the best route). As for whether you'd want to live to 150, I would say that there's no problem, so long as your quality of life is good. If you still get decrepit around 80 or 90, then it's not really an attractive option.