Then, having made this distinction between positional, intrinsic and instrumental benefits, one can then look at specific enhancers as to which category they're likely to fall in predominantly and one can look at different scenarios in which there might be other problematic effects. Say an increase in equality, you could imagine the scenario in which richer people can afford better enhancers which might then increase their earning power even further and you can get increasing divides in that way. It's important to distinguish the theoretical possibility of something from the question of whether it's likely to happen and to what degree. I mean already today, if you are wealthier you can send your kids to good schools, you can have them have a nice laptop and have learning programs and hire a private tutor and so forth. And we don't think it's bad for children to have a good schooling, I mean if you look at most of the world and we're sitting here in a rich Western country, like, all of our kids have these enormously good schools and universities and books and all of that. And it's increasing in equality, I mean relative to... If we didn't have that, we would be closer to the majority of people who don't have it. So it might well be the case that even if it does increase in equality, it would still be a good thing to do for the same reason that schooling is good. And of course it's also not just a matter of thinking its good or bad, you might then think about what kind of social policies you would want to go with it. So to the extent that social inequality is the concern then perhaps a better way of dealing with that, rather than trying to prohibit the enhancement technology, is to have a progressive taxation system or to have a health care system which would make the enhancers more widely available or to try, through other means, to mitigate the negative aspects of social inequality.