Still, it seems to me, the ethical problem remains: if 'negative affects' are eliminated by "radical hedonic uplift", then disincentives for (i.e. intrinsic negative feedbacks of) antisocial and immoral behaviors will be, effectively, eliminated as well. How will this not produce catastrophic consequences? – they would be unintentionally yet foreseeably 'harmful' and, therefore, ought to be avoided, no? — 180 Proof

It's counterintuitive. But "disincentives for (i.e. intrinsic negative feedback of) antisocial and immoral behaviors" can play out just as effectively within the upper and lower bounds of even a vastly higher hedonic range than today's norm. Leave aside here my wilder transhumanist speculations on future life based on information-sensitive gradients of superhuman bliss. Focus instead on today's genetic outliers - "hyperthymics" with an unusually high hedonic set-point. OK, I don't know of any rigorous quantitative study to prove it, but there's no evidence that hyperthymic people are more prone to antisocial and immoral behavior than their neurotypical counterparts. Sure, people with mania are prone antisocial and immoral behavior. But that's because (as in chronic unipolar depression) their information-signaling system for good and bad stimuli has partially broken down.

Ethically speaking, I think we should aim for a hyperthymic civilization.

"mastery of the reward circuitry" would give every autocrat / theocrat a permanent hard-on. — 180 Proof

Direct interventions to enhance emotional well-being could enrich everyone's default quality of life. For sure, whether we consider using drugs, genes or electrodes, such tools could also be abused. But we need a a serious ethical debate. Do we want to conserve our existing reward architecture indefinitely? Or aim for radical hedonic uplift?

In my work, I've focused on hedonic set-point recalibration (rather than crude happiness-maximisation) not least because recalibration is salably conservative. Thus if, for example, you're a rugged individualist and active citizen – or maybe even a natural rebel resistant to authority – then re-engineering yourself with a higher hedonic set-point won't make you docile.
Contrast the effects of long-term opioid administration or Huxley's fictional soma.

Mastery of our reward circuitry will ensure...
— David Pearce
... that committing atrocities or acts of kindness are identically psychologically motivated, no? — 180 Proof

A qualified version of psychological hedonism may be true. But the commission of atrocities is a function of ignorance. Full-spectrum superintelligences could impartially weigh all possible first-person perspectives and act accordingly.

As the quote indicates, presentists have no motivation to biologically preserve their own life for the purpose of avoiding eternal oblivion, given that they understand eternal oblivion to be nonsense. — sime

In practice, almost all intellectual and moral progress depends on false belief, namely the existence of enduring metaphysical egos.
If pressed, one may disavow any such a belief:
https://www.hedweb.com/quora/2015.html#parfit
Such insights are fleeting.

With that in mind, there's a nuance to note about who benefits from this situation the most, meaning the rich and powerful. It seems to me that money can indeed provide for happiness if not realize it in the extension of one's life-span.

May I ask for your opinion, David Pearce? — Shawn

Other things being equal, it's better to be rich than poor.
But compare e.g.
https://www.ipsos.com/en/global-happiness-report
The hedonic rank of Indonesia, India and Mexico is unintuitive, to say the least.
If we are morally serious about ending suffering, we'll need to tackle its biological-genetic roots.

I take it that part of the transhumanist vision is to enable everybody to feel the latter way all the time, and make it so that nobody ever has to feel the former way. — Pfhorrest

Yes. Mastery of our reward circuitry will ensure the darkest depths of transhuman life are richer than today's "peak experiences".

Is it rational to seek to eliminate death in the absence of any proof that life is better than death? — Foghorn

But the problem, to quote Wittgenstein, is that "Death is not an event in life". Even if we share a Benatarian pessimism about the human predicament, we should have compassion for aging humans tormented by increasing decrepitude and their own mortality – and the loss of loved ones. Defeating the biology of aging is morally imperative.
In contrast to Darwinian life, transhuman life will seem self-evidently wonderful by its very nature.

Both the pessimism that says trying is hopeless and the optimism that says it’s unnecessary are just lazy excuses not to try, and in doing so to guarantee failure. I’m extremely proud of transhumanists and techno-progressivists more generally, like David Pearce, for having the courage to dare to at least try to fix the biggest of problems that have always been either seen as hopeless inevitabilities or excused away with happy fantasies as not real problems at all. They’re sort of a manifestation of Camus’ Absurd Hero in that way, too. — Pfhorrest

Unlike the rest of the animal kingdom, mature humans can rationalise and practise adaptive preference formation (aka "sour grapes"):
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/americans-live-forever-immortality-study-b1862042.html
(“Only a third of Americans want to live forever, with men more likely than women to take ‘immortality pill’ Responses varied based on the age a person would be “frozen” at if they were given immortality")

Barring revolutionary breakthroughs, I’m less optimistic than Aubrey de Grey about timescales for defeating aging:
https://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/story/is-there-a-cure-for-aging
But even if we don’t personally benefit, I think we have a responsibility to ensure that our successors don’t undergo the miseries of senescence and bereavement.

Having spent some time reading David Pearce on the Transhumanism thread, which ended not long ago, I notified myself of a tendency of Transhumanists or individuals seeking to extend their lifespan, as simply not accepting death as a forgone conclusion or brute fact about existence. What a stark difference from the antinatalist threads that I have seen around and about on this forum. — Shawn

Antinatalists recognize that creating children with a progressive genetic disease is morally problematic. Aging ravages and then kills its victims. But “hard” antinatalists haven’t faced up to the nature of selection pressure. Inevitably, natalists will inherit the Earth. So I’d urge antinatalists to swallow hard and embrace the transhumanist agenda. Defeating involuntary aging, death and suffering may take centuries. Yet as far as I can tell, the project is scientifically and sociologically viable – just dauntingly ambitious.

You've been talking with us for two months! Time flies. Very many thanks for all you've done. — fdrake

fdrake, thank you. And good heavens – you're right about time!
I hope it's nothing to do with enjoying having the last word...
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/reason-seen-more-as-weapon-than-path-to-truthfor-centuries-thinkers-have-assumed-that-the-uniquely-human-capacity-for-reasoning-has-existed-to-let-people-reach-beyond-mere-perception-and-reflex-in-the.html

Second this — Baden

Baden, very many thanks.
Apologies if I've left any loose ends.

Kudos for actually engaging. I appreciate you keeping the implicit promise that many others did not. — creativesoul

Creativesoul, you are very kind. It's much appreciated.

Do you really think you knew the world as it was when you were 6? What about when you were 12? Or 20? Or now? The answer has always been the same. A resounding yes. Why do you limit yourself to further knowledge and potential. The answer is the same as why you did when you were 6. Ignorance. Pray some. — Outlander

Current scientific evidence does not support the therapeutic benefit of prayer:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16569567/
("Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer")
I am sceptical of the adequacy of our existing conceptual scheme:
https://www.hedweb.com/quora/2015.html#philmat
But phasing out the biology of suffering is not just morally imperative. Life animated by gradients of bliss promises an intellectual revolution:
https://www.hedweb.com/quora/2015.html#psychedelics

Life sucks. You wish to make it better. That's admirable. However. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" .. and no that doesn't mean what others think it does. More of a Pandora's Box, better the devil you know, such and such is a double-edged sword, one step forward two steps back, etc.. — Outlander

Where in this chronology would you call a halt:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_medicine_and_medical_technology ?
Or do you advise against only future innovation?
I don't trust humans either. But if we choose to conserve our genetic source code, then millions of years of obscene suffering still lie ahead of us. By contrast, even a handful of genetic tweaks could dramatically reduce the burden of suffering in the world:
https://www.hedweb.com/social-media/paradise.pdf

So. The real question is, David. Will you use your wealth and influence to purchase a large enough area where, your own and this is the most important, your own offspring can participate in these trials and we all can watch from a distance and see how they fare over time — Outlander

Recall I'm an antinatalist:
https://www.hedweb.com/quora/2015.html#agreeantinatal
My view of life is bleaker than David Benatar's. So no, I won't be conducting genetic experiments on anyone but myself. But selection pressure means that the future belongs to natalists. Natalists conduct around 130 million genetic experiments each year. Should prospective parents be encouraged to mitigate the suffering their experimentation creates? Or should pain-ridden Darwinian malware be encouraged to proliferate indefinitely in its existing guise?
The transhumanist option strikes me as more humane:
https://www.hedweb.com/transhumanism/

Magnifique! Superb! Excelente! Carry on. Just ignore me! — TheMadFool

Please forgive me if I've missed a post / point you'd like to see addressed. If you let me know, I'll do my best!
(High-tech Jainism: https://www.hedweb.com/transhumanism/neojainism.html)

The question I asked is quite simple: why do you advocate genetic interventions - which are passed on through germ cells to subsequent generations - when, epigenetic therapies are not passed on to subsequent generations, but merely effect the expression of genes in the individual? — counterpunch

Remediation is harder than prevention. Preimplantation genetic screening and counselling are available now. By contrast, the gene-repressing strategy I cited above for pain reduction has been invesigated only in "mouse models". I hope human trials can begin soon.

If I too ignore everything you say — counterpunch

Apologies, I've done my fallible best to respond, and cited your comments verbatim in my replies. Possibly the conceptual gulf that separates us is too large. Either way, I promise I'm as keen on fostering education as you are – just not by means of suffering:
https://www.gradients.com/

Children can't consent to be born - because they don't exist, and for a long time after they are born, are not deemed responsible enough to give consent. Consent is the purview of responsible adults — counterpunch

"Responsible" adults are engineered by evolution to maximize the inclusive fitness of their genes, not impartially to weigh whether it's ethical to generate more pain-ridden Darwinian malware. I coo over babies as much as anyone. But on an intellectual level, I recognise they are the victims of our evolutionary psychology.

I do not regard causing suffering as inherently unethical. Suffering allows us to navigate the world by teaching us to avoid that which is harmful. The fact that a child born is destined to suffer - is just part of the learning process. Depriving the child of the ability to suffer is harmful. — counterpunch

If I (or transhumanists in general) advocated getting "blissed out", thereby robbing people of their ability to learn, then you might have a point. However, you may recall we urge intelligence-amplification. Sentient beings with a hedonic range of +70 to +100 can learn as well as savages with a hedonic range of -10 to 0 to +10.

epigenetic engineering - that could be performed on the adult individual with their consent — counterpunch

Children don't consent to be born. If lack of prior consent is the key issue, one should stay child-free.

Nor, apparently, necessary to address the problem. — counterpunch

If one believes that antinatalists are wrong to condemn baby-making as inherently unethical, then one must show that genetic experimentation can and will be conducted responsibly. I'm not convinced that responsible experimentation is yet feasible. But we now at least know enough to mitigate the harm of coming into existence in a Darwinian world.

Interfering in the human genome, so altering every subsequent human being who will ever live, is a risk that's not justified by depression — counterpunch

Germline interventions are not irreversible. They merely change the genetic default. Might a future hyperthymic civilisation revert to creating babies with high-pain, low-mood (etc) alleles and allelic combinations? It's technically feasible. Likewise breeding babies with alleles for cystic fibrosis and other nasty genetic disorders. But such scenarios lack sociological credibility.

what about epigenetic engineering? — counterpunch

In our discussion, I've glossed over the role of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance (cf.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/07/parents-emotional-trauma-may-change-their-children-s-biology-studies-mice-show-how) and indeed epigenetic editing to enhance mood, motivation and analgesia in existing human and nonhuman animals (cf. "'Dead' Cas9-CRISPR Epigenetic Repression Provides Opioid-Free Pain Relief with No Side Effects":
https://www.genengnews.com/news/dead-cas9-crispr-epigenetic-repression-provides-opioid-free-pain-relief-with-no-side-effects/ ).
The catch-all term "biological-genetic strategy" to defeat suffering is intended to include these interventions – and more besides.

because arguably, epigenetic engineering could bypass many of the moral dilemmas associated with germ-line genetic alteration foisted on subsequent generations — counterpunch

The question to ask is: What should be the "default settings" of new life? Should we continue to create people genetically predisposed to a ghastly range of unpleasant experiences they will only later be able to palliate? Or should we design healthy people:
https://www.who.int/about/who-we-are/constitution
?

I absolutely respect your devotion to mitigating clearly-defined evils (to say you're doing much more than me to help others would be a wild understatement) - but how do you sustain your pinpointing of (biologically based, and so capable-of-being-engineered-out) evil against, say, the knocking-down-chesterton's-fence argument? What I'm trying to get at is, it feels to me you have full faith in the current scientific framing (an end of scientific framing ala the much discussed political 'end of history') Is that fair? — csalisbury

Science doesn't understand existence. Our conceptual scheme is desperately inadequate. Cosmology is in flux, the foundations of quantum mechanics are rotten (cf. https://www.hedweb.com/quora/2015.html#measurementproblem) and scientific materialism is inconsistent with the entirety of the empirical evidence:
https://www.hedweb.com/quora/2015.html#physexplan

However, the case for reprogramming the biosphere to end suffering is still compelling.
Compare surgical anaesthesia: https://www.general-anaesthesia.com . Why phenomenal pain exists isn't understood. (Why aren’t we zombies?) Nor is the existence of phenomenal binding. (Why aren't we micro-experiential zombies?) Consequently, a Chesterton's-fence argument might suggest we should shun pain-free surgery until these mysteries are elucidated. Moreover, the mechanism of anaesthetics is still elusive. Surgical anaesthesia itself carries gross and subtle risks. But in practice, I'd insist on anaesthesia (as distinct from just a muscle-paralysing agent like curare) before surgery. I bet you would too. Furthermore, I'd argue that every other patient is entitled to surgical anaesthesia as well (I'm not special.). Reckless? No, we are weighing risk-reward ratios. Likewise with a biohappiness revolution. Mental and physical pain are frightful. They will shortly become genetically optional. Preserving our information-sensitivity keeps our collective options open. Humanity stands on the brink of post-Darwinian life: a "civilisation" in every sense of the term. We should facilitate the transformation.

we've both touched the harsh nerve of pain, really touched it, and realized how frame-shatteringly painful real pain is. — csalisbury

Yes. Words fail to communicate the awfulness of severe pain. Extreme suffering corrodes one's values, personality and life itself. Philosophers are widely supposed to love knowledge. But there are some things best left unknown. That said, cultivated ignorance is no excuse for inaction. I hope that oft-derided philosophers will be at the forefront of the abolitionist project. The biotech and AI revolution means that blueprints are now feasible for eradicating suffering altogether in favour of genetically programmed gradients of well-being. A dietary, genetic, reproductive and ecological revolution will eliminate the root of all evil. Whether your hero is Bentham- or Buddha-inspired, will bioethicists rise to the challenge?

I agree that reducing suffering (and increasing flourishing) is the best orienting, regulative idea, for our ethics, but implementation will have to unfold gradually (or at least in tandem with our understanding) - and because of that, I think our best bet is to cultivate a focus - really cultivate a focus - on the here-and-now, and only then tentatively venture out toward widening time horizons (and how far out can we really see?) — csalisbury

The worst source of severe and readily avoidable suffering in the world is simply remedied. Without slaughterhouses, the entire industrialized apparatus for exploiting and murdering sentient beings would collapse. What's needed isn't Zen-like calm, but a fierce moral urgency and vigorous political lobbying to end the animal holocaust. By contrast, reprogramming the biosphere to eradicate suffering is much more ambitious in every sense. Yes, the "regulative idea" of ending involuntary suffering should inform policy-making and ethics alike. And society as a whole needs to debate what responsible parenthood entails. People who choose to create babies "naturally" create babies who are genetically predisposed to be sick by the criteria of the World Health Organization's own definition of health. By these same criteria, most people alive today are often severely sick. Shortly, genetic medicine will allow the creation of babies who are predisposed to be (at worst) occasionally mildly unwell. A reproductive revolution is happening this century; and the time to debate it is now.

However, what I'd be more concerned about is a genetic arms race. Once you start down this path, how do know when to stop? — counterpunch

A "genetic arms race" sounds sinister. It's not. Even inequalities in hedonic enhancement aren't sinister. Consider a toy example. Grossly over-simplifying, imagine if pushy / privileged parents arrange to have kids with a 50% higher hedonic set-point compared to the 30% boost of less privileged newborns. Everyone is still better off. Contrast getting a 30% pay increase if your colleagues get a 50% increase, which will probably diminish your well-being. OK, this example isn’t sociologically realistic. Any geneticists reading will be wincing too. But you get my point. Alleles and allelic combinations that predispose to low mood and high pain-sensitivity will increasingly be at a selective disadvantage as the reproductive revolution unfolds, but there won't be "losers" beyond some nasty lines of genetic code. To quote J.B.S. Haldane,

"The chemical or physical inventor is always a Prometheus. There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god. But if every physical and chemical invention is a blasphemy, every biological invention is a perversion. There is hardly one which, on first being brought to the notice of an observer from any nation which had not previously heard of their existence, would not appear to him as indecent and unnatural."
(Daedalus; or, Science and the Future, 1924)

When to stop?
You know my negative utilitarian perspective. The world's last experience below hedonic zero will mark the end of the Darwinian era and the end of disvalue. But I don't for a moment predict that intelligent life will settle for mediocrity. Instead, I cautiously predict a hedonic +90 to +100 civilisation. Life lived within such a hedonic range will be unimaginably sublime.

We are both operating from the foundation that suffering is the moral priority. So do you disagree with the premise that the animals would have more suffering if left to live? The consequentialism comes in, as the normalisation of hunting (killing of our fellow sentient beings) leads to more suffering? Or is there some principle/s that take precedence over the consequences? — Down The Rabbit Hole

A nonhuman animal who suffers a grisly death at the hands of a shooter might well have experienced more suffering in the course of a lifetime if allowed to live unmolested. But killing (human or nonhuman) sentient beings for fun should be prohibited. A world of "high-tech Jainism" where life is sacred will be a happier world. I often use the language of deontology, but my reasoning is entirely consequentialist.

This is something we can and should do immediately? Or more research is required? — Down The Rabbit Hole

With funding, creation of artificial self-contained "happy biospheres" could begin today using small fast-breeders. The more ambitious pan-species project I discuss on https://www.gene-drives.com sounds science fiction. But the biggest obstacles are ethical-ideological, not technical.

Do you believe you can reliably make germline alterations to human DNA, without possibly, making subsequent generations susceptible to disease, or other malady that you haven't foreseen? — counterpunch

The first step towards a hyperthymic civilisation is ensuring universal access of all prospective parents to preimplantation genetic screening and counsellng (Cue for "Have you seen Gattaca?!" Yes.) The second step is conservative editing, i.e. no creation of novel genes or allelic combinations that don't occur naturally within existing human populations. The third step, true genetic innovation and transhuman genomes, will be most radical – but the idea that germline editing is irreversible is a canard.

Messing with human psychology via genetics? That strikes me as several steps too far. You have to understand, there's a very real chance that you would create far greater suffering than you intend to remedy. — counterpunch

Do you believe that existing people with high hedonic set-points indirectly cause more suffering? Why exactly do you believe that a whole world of temperamentally happy people would lead to more suffering rather than less?

An argument used by hunters (like Joe Rogan) is that they are doing the animals a favour, as otherwise their lives and deaths can be horrific. I take it you agree that it would lead to worse lives if they were left to live on, but you disagree with the consequentialist approach? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Humans should actively be helping non-human animals, not terrorising them and then rationalising their bloodlust. On consequentialist grounds, we should uphold in law the sanctity of sentient life.

What do you think of methods to reduce wild animal fertility? — Down The Rabbit Hole

For large slow-breeders, cross-species fertility-regulation via immunocontraception is feasible. For small fast-breeders, we can use remotely tunable synthetic gene drives:
https://www.hedweb.com/quora/2015.html#killed

I believe his theory and mission is far more of a Pandora's Box then the sort of panacea he wishes to promote — Outlander

One of the risks of ethical advocacy is losing one's critical detachment and turning into a propagandist. There are forms of propaganda more obnoxious than a plea for paradise engineering and a pan-species welfare state. When these ideas go mainstream, policy initiatives will need to be rigorously critiqued.

Weeping buckets over the fact animals eat each other shouldn't blind you to the complexities of the system — counterpunch

What's in contention isn't whether humans should or shouldn't intervene in Nature. Humans already do so on a massive scale:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene
Rather, we're discussing what principles should govern our interventions. Not least, what level of suffering in Nature is optimal?

Evolution is not a crapshoot. It's ballet, — counterpunch

Evolution via natural selection is a cruel engine of suffering, not a performance art.

and you blunder onto the stage in your hobnail boots — counterpunch

I tiptoe far more gingerly than, say, Freeman Dyson (“In the future, a new generation of artists will be writing genomes the way that Blake and Byron wrote verses”). Exhaustive research, risk-benefit analysis and pilot studies will be essential. But whether eradicating smallpox or defeating vector-borne disease, human interventions will have far-reaching ecological implications. Should we have conserved Variola major and Variola minor because the disappearance of smallpox leads to much larger human population sizes? Should we allow Anopheles mosquitoes to breed unchecked because the long-term ecological ramifications of getting rid of malaria are unknown? What about the biology of involuntary pain and suffering? By all means urge extreme vigilance and exploration of worse-case scenarios. But an abundance of caution shouldn't involve placing faith in a mythical wisdom of Nature.

That's the risk you take upon yourself, not for you personally - but for every subsequent generation of human being. — counterpunch

As a "soft" antinatalist, I'm not planning any personal genetic experiments – with the possible exception of some late-life somatic gene-editing when the technology matures. But for evolutionary reasons, most people don't believe in exercising such restraint. Humanity should plan accordingly. I'm urging a world in which natalists conduct genetic experiments more responsibly. One day natalism can even be harmless.

Genetic engineering carries a huge risk of unintended consequences, — counterpunch

Both a genetic crapshoot and targeted germline interventions carry risks. Antinatalists refuse to gamble; but they won't inherit the Earth. So instead we must weigh risk-reward ratios when creating new life. Is the deliberate choice of "low pain" genes for our future children likely to create more or less suffering in the long-term than the traditional genetic casino?

Animals eat each other, and suffer far worse in nature than on a well run farm. I've explained this repeatedly, but everything I say falls on stoney ground. I don't want to be rude to our guest by using ever greater rhetorical force to break through this stonewalling. — counterpunch

Stonewalling?
Philosophers need to acquaint themselves with what's technically feasible so we can have a serious ethical debate on what should be done. From “A Welfare State to Elephants” (cf. https://www.abolitionist.com/reprogramming/elephantcare.html) to “Reprogramming Predators” (cf. https://www.reprogramming-predators.com) to "Compassionate Biology: How CRISPR-based gene drives could cheaply, rapidly and sustainably reduce suffering throughout the living world” (cf. https://www.gene-drives.com), I've tried to explore what creating a cruelty-free living world will involve. Such blueprints sound fantastical today; but they are grounded in science. No practically-minded person need wade though such material, but the biotech revolution means that unsupported claims that no alternative exists to "Nature, red in tooth and claw” are simply mistaken. Intelligent moral agents can now choose how much suffering we want to exist.

However, suppose that humanity decides to retain the ecological and biological-genetic status quo – or at least some approximation of the status quo after today's uncontrolled habitat-destruction runs its course. The fact that a great deal of suffering exists in Nature doesn't somehow morally entitle humans to add to it. Factory-farming and slaughterhouses are an abomination. Let’s get the death-factories shut and outlawed.

Your answer was an appeal to religious authority. — counterpunch

Tracing the historical antecedents of one's ideas is very different from appealing to religious authority. In this case, I was simply noting how the vegan transhumanist idea of civilising Nature is prefigured in the Book of Isaiah. The science is new, not the ethic.

Your belief that the problem of suffering is morally urgent, is your opinion — counterpunch

The disvalue of suffering is built into the experience itself. Sadly, it's not some idiosyncratic opinion on my part. If you are not in agony or despair, then you may believe that the problem of suffering isn't morally urgent. One's epistemological limitations shouldn't be confused with a deep metaphysical truth about sentience.

A vegetarian diet - with all the necessary supplements, is probably fine for an office worker, or an academic philosopher - i.e. the middle class to whom vegetarianism appeals. But it's simply not adequate to the needs of a manual labourer. — counterpunch

Nutritionists would differ. So would e.g. vegan body-builders:
https://www.greatveganathletes.com/category/vegan-bodybuilders/

There's no need for moral superiority. — counterpunch

An ethic of not harming others doesn't involve trumpeting one's moral superiority; rather, it's just basic decency. Also, technology massively amplifies the impact of even minimal benevolence. This amplifying effect is illustrated by the imminent cultured-meat revolution. Commercialised cultured meat and animal products promise an end to the cruelties of animal agriculture:
https://www.hedweb.com/quora/2015.html#slaughterhouses
Looking further ahead, we may envisage a pan-species welfare state – once again, not the result of saintly human self-sacrifice, but the transformative potential of biotech.

I suspect that's because your real purpose is to horrify people with science; to trash science on behalf of religion. — counterpunch

You're not serious?! Since the age of ten or eleven, I've been a secular scientific rationalist. My reason for alluding to the "peaceable kingdom" of Isaiah was to disclaim originality for the vision of a vegan biosphere. Molecular biology provides the tools to turn utopian dreaming into practical policy.

risky genetic experimentation. — counterpunch

All genetic experimentation is risky; the very nature of sexual reproduction involves gambling with the life of a sentient being.

You say you value a sustainable future, but you're anti-natalist before you're transhumanist, — counterpunch

My core value is suffering-minimisation. "Hard" antinatalism is hopeless (cf. https://www.hedweb.com/quora/2015.html#arguments); transhumanism gives us a fighting chance of defeating suffering for ever.

and therefore harness magma energy for limitless clean electricity, carbon sequestration, desalination and irrigation, recycling - and so on, because if we don't, the suffering is going to be unimaginably worse than that of a factory farmed pig. — counterpunch

I support such initiatives. One comparatively minor argument for ending animal agriculture is that feeding grain and soya products directly to humans is more energy-efficient than feeding them to factory-farmed nonhuman animals whom humans then butcher.

vegan moral self righteousness — counterpunch

Missionaries believed they were morally superior to cannibals. Their moral self-righteousness is not an argument for eating babies. Likewise, the foibles of individual vegans are not a moral argument for harming nonhuman animals.

Let's agree to differ! — counterpunch

If we were discussing some academic question of art or literature, fair enough. But the problem of suffering is morally urgent – and calls for radical solutions.

So you "modestly assume" you have the wisdom and technological ability to genetically alter all life on earth that doesn't meet your ethical standards? — counterpunch

The prospect of ending the cruelties of Nature isn't a madcap scheme some philosopher just dreamed up in the bathtub. It's a venerable vision: the "peaceable kingdom" of Isaiah. Biotech lets us flesh out the practical details.

This is the basis for the apparent design in nature - how everything works together to a productive end — counterpunch

What exactly is this "productive end"? If I may quote Dawkins:
"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
(Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, (1995))

and you would presume to take this process on yourself? You should consider Orgel's Second Rule: "Evolution is cleverer than you are. — counterpunch

Evolution has been clever enough to create creatures smart enough to edit their own source code. Now that the level of suffering on Earth is an adjustable parameter, what genetic dial-settings should we choose?
You know my answer.

There are predators and prey. I'm a predator. — counterpunch

On some fairly modest assumptions, a world where all sentient beings can flourish is ethically preferable to a world where sentient beings hurt, harm and kill each other. Biotech makes the well-being of all sentience technically feasible. So let's civilise Darwinian life, not glory in its depravities:
https://www.hedweb.com/quora/2015.html#worldvegan