@David Pearce

I remember you saying something to the effect that you dread the thought of the existence of extra-terrestrial life.

What probabilities would you put on the existence of alien life? What about the chances of meeting or communicating with them?

My best guess is that what Eric Drexler called the "thermodynamic miracle” of life's genesis means that the percentage of life-supporting Hubble volumes where primordial life emerged more than once is extremely low. If so, then the principle of mediocrity suggests that we're alone. There will be no scope for cosmic rescue missions – even if we optimistically believe that Earth-originating life would be more likely to spread suffering elsewhere than to mitigate it.

If this conjecture turns out to be correct, then our NU ethical duties will have been discharged when we have phased out the biology of suffering on Earth and taken steps ensure it doesn't recur within our cosmological horizon.

Naturally, I could be mistaken.
For a radically different perspective, see:
https://www.overcomingbias.com/tag/aliens

Some of the soul-chilling things Nietzsche said make him sound as though he had an inverted pain-pleasure axis: https://www.nietzsche.com — David Pearce

Well I don't think the point of those quotes was to glorify pain in itself, but rather the function it plays in human biology, in attaining things he valued more. I think you're actually saying something similar when you talk about preserving information-sensitivity and nociception if we were to do away with pain. Of course at the time Nietzsche didn't have the option of separating the two with biotech.

But short of radical scepticism, the claim that agony and despair are disvaluable by their very nature is compelling. If you have any doubt, put your hand in a flame. — David Pearce

I don't agree with this. As much as you apprehend it as compelling, it is not the truth. The point I made is that agony and despair are often seen as valuable when they are inflicted upon others. The extreme case is torture, but the common practice is the more subtle application of agony and despair in the pressure tactics of negotiating. So you cannot remove the value from these so easily. And if you look closely, you'll see that agony and despair play an integral role in most all human relationships. Without these feelings we'd be emotionless robots.

Now I really think it is a bad idea to turn human beings into emotionless robots no matter how strong your own personal opinion on this issue is. Perhaps you might compromise, and look at some types of agony and despair as inherently bad, or some intense forms of these as inherently bad, but I hope you don't really think that you can throw a blanket over them all like this. That is what Chattering Monkey has been trying to tell you. Some forms of pain are necessary to build strength. And not only is exposure to certain types of pain necessary to build physical strength, exposure to different types of agony and despair are necessary to build strength of character.

You could look at Aristotle's ethics for an example. Virtue does not consist of negating the bad for the sake of its opposite, it is to be found in the mean between the two opposing extremes. That is what we call moderation. We really cannot approach ethics with the attitude that such and such feelings are bad, let's annihilate all these bad feelings and we'll be left only with good feelings. So you might instead propose a way to take the edge off our feelings, eliminate the extremes. And I think the medical profession already works toward this end with medications. But even this is not completely accepted in our society because it dulls the emotions.

First of all, let me thank you for willing to participate as a guest speaker on the forum. It's a wonderful opportunity for us to talk to and interact with someone who stands for a belief, in your case transhumanism. That we will learn more of the ins and outs of the transhumanist philosophy goes without saying but I'm also hopeful that there's something in it for you too.

That out of the way, I'd like to pick your brain regarding a certain point of view that's encapsulated in the following quote:

Any suffuiciently advanced technology is indistinguishable from nature — Unknown

I don't know who said it and a Google search takes me to the sci-fi writer Arthur C. Clarke's quote which I'll mention below for reference:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic — Arthur C. Clarke

As far as this particular post is concerned who said it matters not so much as what exactly is being said.

You mention three supers: 1. Superintellgence, 2. Superlongevity and 3. Superhappiness

Those are, even to detractors of transhumaninsm, very noble thoughts and if we're to fault them we can only do so by attacking not the main ideas themselves but the secondary support structures that hold up the transhumanist philosophy.

Coming to the issue I want to bring to your attention, one question, "where does evolution figure in transhumanist philosophy?"

I ask because, if evolution is true and it's been in play for at least a few billion years, shouldn't the status quo for intelligence, longevity, and happiness be optimum/maximum for the current "environment". In other words, we have in terms of the trio of intelligence, longevity, and happiness, the best deal nature has to offer. We shouldn't, in that case, attempt to achieve superintelligence, superlongevity, and superhappiness. The plan to do that might backfire for the current state of our world can't support such phenomena or, more to the point, they're failed evolutionary experiments.

To give you an idea of what I mean:

1. Superintelligence: Atlantis. FAIL!
2. Superlongevity: Adaptation to changes in environment currently only possible through sexual reproduction which, as you know, requires space for new offspring which is only possible if the old die. FAIL!
3. Superhappiness: Drug addiction. FAIL!

In very cheeky words, if nature were asked to opine on transhumanism, she would say, "Been there, done that, didn't work out"

A penny for your thoughts.

Even if we prioritise, preference utilitarianism doesn’t work. Well-nourished tigers breed more tigers. An exploding tiger population then has more frustrated preferences. The swollen tiger population starves in consequences of the dwindling numbers of their prey. Prioritising herbivores from being predated doesn’t work either – at least, not on its own. As well as frustrating the preferences of starving predators, a population explosion of herbivores would lead to mass starvation and hence more even frustrated preferences. Insofar as humans want ethically to conserve recognisable approximations of today’s "charismatic mega-fauna", full-blown compassionate stewardship of Nature will be needed: reprogramming predators, cross-species fertility-regulation, gene drives, robotic “AI nannies” – the lot. From a utilitarian perspective (cf. https://www.utilitarianism.com), piecemeal interventions to solve the problem of wild animal suffering are hopeless. — David Pearce

Well, I don’t think it makes too much sense to criticize a theory of normative ethics by claiming that it doesn’t work. It seems to me that the point of normative ethical theories like PU is to figure out what ethical goals we should pursue rather than how we should accomplish those ethical goal. If a particular PU theory doesn’t have anything to say about wild animal suffering then the proponent of that theory probably just doesn’t think that wild animal suffering is important to resolve. I think we would need to make an argument in favor of focusing our time and energy on wild animal suffering. Otherwise, how could we know that ending the suffering of wild animals is a worthy pursuit and a wise use of our time.

@David Pearce

Come to think of it, you may have been talking about the possibility of an infinite multiverse, where suffering is, well, infinite? Is this something you are concerned about?

..if evolution is true and it's been in play for at least a few billion years, shouldn't the status quo for intelligence, longevity, and happiness be optimum/maximum for the current "environment". In other words, we have in terms of the trio of intelligence, longevity, and happiness, the best deal nature has to offer. We shouldn't, in that case, attempt to achieve superintelligence, superlongevity, and superhappiness... — TheMadFool

Thank you for the kind words. Evolution via natural selection is a monstrous engine for the creation of pain and suffering. But Darwinian life contains the seeds of its own destruction. Yes, our minds are well-adapted to the task of maximising the inclusive fitness of our genes in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA). So humans are throwaway vehicles for self-replicating DNA. But sentient beings are poised to seize control of their own destiny. Recall that traditional natural selection is "blind". It's underpinned by effectively random genetic mutations and the quasi-random process of meiotic shuffling. Sexual reproduction is a cruel genetic lottery. However, intelligent agents are shortly going to rewrite their own source code in anticipation of the likely behavioural and psychological effects of their choices. As the reproductive revolution unfolds, genes and allelic combinations that promote superintelligence, superlongevity and superhappiness will be strongly selected for. Gene and allelic combinations associated with low intelligence, reduced longevity and low mood will be selected against.

My work has focused on the problem of suffering and the challenge of coding genetically hardwired superhappiness. But consider the nature of human intelligence. Are human minds really “the best deal Nature has to offer”, as you put it? Yes, evolution via natural selection has thrown up an extraordinary adaptation in animals with the capacity for rapid self-propelled motion, namely (1) egocentric world-simulations that track fitness-relevant patterns in their local environment. Phenomenal binding in the guise of virtual world-making (“perception”) is exceedingly adaptive (cf. https://www.hedweb.com/quora/2015.html#lifeillus). Neuroscientists don't understand how a pack of supposedly classical neurons can do it. Evolution via natural selection has thrown up another extraordinary adaptation in one species of animal, namely (2) the virtual machine of serial logico-linguistic thought. Neuroscientists don't understand how serial thinking is physically possible either. However, what evolution via natural selection hasn't done – because it would entail crossing massive "fitness gaps” – is evolve animals supporting (3) programmable digital computers inside their skulls. Slow, serial, logico-linguistic human thinking can't compete with a digital computer executing billions of instructions per second. So digital computers increasingly outperform humans in countless cognitive domains. The list gets longer by the day. Yet this difference in architecture doesn't mean a divorce between (super)intelligence and consciousness is inevitable. Recursively self-improving transhumans won't just progressively rewrite their own source code. Transhumans will also be endowed with the mature successors of Neuralink; essentially Net-enabled "narrow" superintelligence on a neurochip (cf. https://theconversation.com/neuralinks-monkey-can-play-pong-with-its-mind-imagine-what-humans-could-do-with-the-same-technology-158787). I’m sceptical about a full-blown Kurzweilian fusion of humans with our machines, but some degree of "cyborgisation" is inevitable. Get ready for a biointelligence explosion.

Archaic humans are cognitively ill-equipped in other ways too. Not least, minds evolved under pressure of natural selection lack the conceptual schemes to explore billions of alien state-spaces of consciousness:
https://www.hedweb.com/quora/2015.html#psychedelically
I could go on; but in short: expect a major evolutionary transition in the development of life.

Come to think of it, you may have been talking about the possibility of an infinite multiverse, where suffering is, well, infinite? Is this something you are concerned about? — Down The Rabbit Hole

The possibility that we live in a multiverse scares and depresses me:
https://www.abolitionist.com/multiverse.html
I'm not sure the notion of physically realised infinity is intelligible. But even if Hilbert space is finite, it's still intuitively big – albeit infinitesimally small compared to a notional infinite multiverse.

If a particular PU theory doesn’t have anything to say about wild animal suffering then the proponent of that theory probably just doesn’t think that wild animal suffering is important to resolve. I think we would need to make an argument in favor of focusing our time and energy on wild animal suffering. Otherwise, how could we know that ending the suffering of wild animals is a worthy pursuit and a wise use of our time. — TheHedoMinimalist

Biotech informed by negative or classical utilitarianism can get rid of disvaluable experience altogether over the next few centuries. Preference utilitarianism plus biotech might do so too if enough people were to favour a biological-genetic strategy for ending suffering: I don’t know. Either way, any theory of (dis)value or ethics that neglects the interests of nonhuman animals is arbitrarily anthropocentric. Nonhuman animals are akin to small children. They deserve to be cared for accordingly. The world needs an anti-speciesist revolution:
https://www.antispeciesism.com/

sentient beings are poised to seize control of their own destiny. — David Pearce

I read that as directed evolution by which we can engineer our genes, the difference between it and natural evolution being the former is planned with careful deliberation while the latter is, as you know, random-mutation based. The question that follows naturally though is this: what if a brainstorming session of the world's leading minds came to the conclusion that the best game plan/strategy is precisely what we thought we could do better than i.e. random mutation is the solution "...to seize control of their (our) destiny"? You many ignore this point if you wish but I'd be grateful amd delighted to hear your response.

in short: expect a major evolutionary transition in the development of life. — David Pearce

I have to admit transhumanist ideals are legit goals worth pursuing and I endorse the whole enterprise with great enthusiasm. Good ideas are so hard to come by these days and I deeply admire people such as yourself who've taken the world's problems this seriously and come up with novel and bold solutions. I hope it works out for all of our sakes. The clock is ticking I believe.

Thank you. Have a good day.

...what if a brainstorming session of the world's leading minds came to the conclusion that the best game plan/strategy is precisely what we thought we could do better than i.e. random mutation is the solution "...to seize control of their (our) destiny"? You many ignore this point if you wish but I'd be grateful and delighted to hear your response. — TheMadFool

One of the most valuable skills one can acquire in life is working out who are the experts in any field, then (critically) deferring to their expertise. But who are the world's leading minds in the nascent discipline of futurology? In bioethics? We hold the designers and programmers of inorganic robots (self-driving cars etc) accountable for any harm they cause. Sloppy code that causes injury to others can't be excused with a plea that the bugs might one day be useful. By contrast, humans feel entitled to conduct as many genetic experiments involving sentient organic robots as they like, regardless of the toll of suffering (cf. https://www.hedweb.com/quora/2015.html#agreeantinatal). Anyhow, to answer your question: if the world’s best minds declared that we should conserve the biological-genetic status quo, then I think they'd be mistaken. If we don’t reprogram the biosphere, then unimaginable pain and suffering still lie ahead. The horrors of Darwinian life would continue indefinitely. Transhumanists believe that intelligent moral agents can do better.

One of the most valuable skills one can acquire in life is working out who are the experts in any field any then (critically) deferring to their expertise. — David Pearce

On point. :up:

suffering — David Pearce

If I may say so, in my humble opinion, you clearly have your feet on the ground and though your ideas are somewhat science-fictiony (obvious but bears mentioning) they're meant to tackle problems that are real and urgent.

I've been thinking about suffering and its counterpart happiness for the past few months, never got around to giving it more than a couple of hours of brain-time though. Anyway, what I feel is happiness or more accurately pleasure appears to be highly addictive and we all know one of the most poweful habit-forming drugs in the world are opiods and isn't it curious that endorphins - pleasure biochemicals - resemble opiods in composition and structure?

If you were to allow me to go out on a limb and take you into what's a slight detour from the main issue and ask you to join me in discussing conspiracy theories, I'd say plants with chemicals that produce happiness in humans is rather suspicious don't you agree? Smells fishy to me. Of course this may come across as infantile to you but could plants be manipulating us in ways we're oblivious to? This would be a setback for transhumanism wouldn't it? After all, hedonism isn't then about us and our well-being but could very well be an elaborate deception "masterminded" by plants. There seems to be no evidence for this though but...one can never be too sure.

Aside from the crazy idea I offered in the preceding paragraphs for your amusement, all I wish to convey is how there's a vanishingly thin line between pleasure and an extremely addictive drug. This should, at the very least, prompt you to be cautious about hedonism. I'm not saying that I'm not hedonistic myself. Who isn't? But I don't want to be pleasure or happiness junkie any more than I want to be addicted to heroin or opium. Perhaps I'm talking out of my hat at this point but I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this rather outlandish theory of mine. If you have the time and if you find it deserves a response from you of course.

Transhumanists believe that Intelligent moral agents can do better,. — David Pearce

I'm in full agreement with you. For instance, even if it turns out that random mutation is the best solution to bring about superintelligence, superlongevity, and superhappiness, "intelligent moral agents" can tweak the processes involved - speed up/slow down the mechanism, add/delete DNA segments, etc. - in order to ensure the best outcomes. If another better technique comes to light, even better.

Of course, bioconservatives would maintain that the genetic crapshoot of traditional sexual reproduction is best. If they prevail, then a Darwinian biology of misery and malaise will persist indefinitely. — David Pearce

I'm very pro science, but what you're suggesting gives me the creeps - and plays right into accusations that science is arrogant and amoral. I can make a rational argument for the benefits of science starting with that which is most fundamentally necessary to survival, but where is the imperative here? Eliminating an inherited disease from the germ line I can understand, but where's the proof that depression doesn't serve a useful purpose? And if we begin to design babies - how will we know when to stop? There are questions here that cannot be answered by making fun of the Amish, one might look to answer given that this technology is right around the corner.

where's the proof that depression doesn't serve a useful purpose? — counterpunch

If we take a gene's-eye-view, then a predisposition to depression frequently did serve a useful purpose in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness. See the literature on the Rank Theory of depression:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165032718310280?via%3Dihub
But this is no reason to conserve the biology of low mood. Depression is a vile disorder.

I'm not sure the notion of physically realised infinity is intelligible. But even if Hilbert space is finite, it's still intuitively big - albeit infinitesimally small compared to a notional infinite multiverse. — David Pearce

Maybe not an actually existing infinity that would be subject to paradoxes, but a potential infinity is possible. Universe/s could exist or spawn forevermore?

I actually have Graham Oppy's book Philosophical Perspectives on Infinity but I haven't got around to starting it yet.

Universe/s could exist or spawn forevermore? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Cosmology is in flux. We understand enough, I think, to sketch out how experience below hedonic zero could be prevented in our forward light-cone. At times I despair of a political blueprint for the abolitionist project, but technically it's feasible. But even if we're alone in our Hubble volume, does suffering exist elsewhere which rational agents are impotent to do anything about? I worry about such things, but it's not fruitful. As soon as intelligent agents are absolutely certain that our ethical duties have been discharged, I think the very existence of suffering is best forgotten.

Maybe preference utilitarianism plus biotech could do so too if enough people were to favour a biological-genetic strategy for ending suffering: I don’t know. — David Pearce

I think there are versions of PU that are compatible with the idea of transhumanism and changing the preferences of sentient beings. For example, some proponents of PU might argue that the best way to minimize preference frustrations or maximize preference satisfactions is by altering the preferences of entities that have preferences so that those preferences become more attainable and the satisfaction of those beings would thus be more sustainable. I don’t think that PU is inherently against the idea of altering preferences with technology. In fact, I have actually argued in the past that those who subscribe to a preference satisfaction theory of welfare should be willing to plug themselves into the experience machine and then use that machine to brainwash themselves into having purely hedonistic preferences that the EM could easily satisfy. This way they would be guaranteed to have a perfect preference satisfaction to preference frustration ratio.

Either way, any theory of (dis)value or ethics that neglects the interests of nonhuman animals is arbitrarily anthropocentric. — David Pearce

I don’t think that’s true. I think that you can neglect the interests of nonhuman animals and avoid being anthropocentric if you also equally neglect the interests of human beings that are as intelligent and emotionally complex as typical non-human animals. I don’t think it’s even repugnant to most people that we should mostly neglect the interests of not only animals but all humans as well. After all, it seems that almost nobody is willing to donate a significant amount of money to help children in their own community much less wild animals. So, I’m not seeing how your comparison between animals and small children would even be that compelling when it comes to persuading people that we should care about wild animal suffering. It’s even less compelling to me because I happen to really dislike children. You probably have a better chance convincing me to care about wild animals lol.

Creating new life and suffering via the untested genetic experiments of sexual reproduction feels natural. Creating life engineered to be happy – and repairing the victims of previous genetic experiments – invites charges of “hubris”. Antinatalists might say that bringing any new sentient beings into this god-forsaken world is hubristic. But if we accept that the future belongs to life lovers, then who shows greater humility:
(1) prospective parents who trust that quasi-random genetic shuffling will produce a benign outcome?
(2) responsible (trans)humans who ensure their children are designed to be healthy and happy? — David Pearce

With all due respect, you have no understanding of what it means to be human. You aren't using any logical arguments in defense of your position, so I won't use any either.

you have no understanding of what it means to be human. — Noble Dust

Maybe. But if so, would you argue that the World Health Organization should scrap its founding constitution ("health is a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing") because it too shows no understanding of what it means to be human? After all, nobody in history has yet enjoyed health as so defined. 

I’m not seeing how your comparison between animals and small children would even be that compelling when it comes to persuading people that we should care about wild animal suffering. It’s even less compelling to me because I happen to really dislike children. You probably have a better chance convincing me to care about wild animals lol. — TheHedoMinimalist

If a small child were drowning, you would wade into a shallow pond to rescue the child – despite your professed dislike of small children, and your weaker preference not to get your clothes wet? I'm guessing you would do the same if the drowning creature were a dog or pig. Humanity will soon (by which I mean within a century or two) be able to help all nonhuman sentience with an equivalent level of personal inconvenience to the average citizen, maybe less. Technology massively amplifies the effects of even tiny amounts of benevolence (or malevolence).

An ethic of negative or classical utilitarianism mandates compassionate stewardship of the living world. This does not mean that convinced negative or classical utilitarians should urge raising taxes to pay for it. The intelligent utilitarian looks for effective policy options that are politically saleable. I never thought the problem of wild animal suffering would be seriously discussed in my lifetime, but I was wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_animal_suffering . If asked, a great many people are relaxed about the prospect of less suffering in Nature so long as suffering-reduction doesn’t cause them any personal inconvenience. Hence the case for technical fixes.

But I don't want to be pleasure or happiness junkie any more than I want to be addicted to heroin or opium. — TheMadFool

But you are addicted to opioids. Everyone is hooked:
https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/berridge-lab/research-overview/neuroscience-of-linking-and-wanting/.
Would-be parents might do well to reflect on how breeding creates new endogenous opioid addicts. For evolutionary reasons, humans are mostly blind to the horror of what they are doing:
https://www.hedweb.com/quora/2015.html#agreeantinatal
Addiction corrupts our judgement. It's treatable, but incurable. Transhumanism offers a potential escape-route.

But you are addicted to opioids. Everyone is hooked:
https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/berridge-lab/research-overview/neuroscience-of-linking-and-wanting/.
Would-be parents might do well to reflect on how breeding creates new endogenous opioid addicts. For evolutionary reasons, humans are mostly blind to the horror of what they are doing:
https://www.hedweb.com/quora/2015.html#agreeantinatal
Addiction corrupts our judgement. It's treatable, but incurable. Transhumanism offers a potential escape-route. — David Pearce

So, why base your philosophy, transhumanism, on what you admit is an addiction? Wouldn't that be a big mistake? Transhumanism, specifically its hedonic component, would in essence be a drug cartel catering to the entire global population and that too from cradle to grave. I raise this issue because addiction is a positive feedback loop and if you convince people that pleasure's the be all and end all of life, I feel things might snowball out of control. I'm a hedonist by the way but that's exactly what worries me - a cocaine addict simply can't see beyond cocaine.

So, why base your philosophy, transhumanism, on what you admit is an addiction? — TheMadFool

To the best of my knowledge, there is no alternative. The pleasure-pain axis ensnares us all. Genetically phasing out experience below hedonic zero can make the addiction harmless. The future belongs to opioid-addicted life-lovers, not "hard" antinatalists. Amplifying endogenous opioid function will be vital. Whereas taking exogenous opioids typically subverts human values, raising hedonic range and hedonic set-points can potentially sustain and enrich civilisation.

where's the proof that depression doesn't serve a useful purpose?
— counterpunch

If we take a gene's-eye-view, then a predisposition to depression frequently did serve a useful purpose in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness. See the literature on the Rank Theory of depression:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165032718310280?via%3Dihub
But this is no reason to conserve the biology of low mood. Depression is a vile disorder. — David Pearce

I've just been looking at a list of genetic disorders, and I'm not as happy as I might be wasn't one of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders#:~:text=Full%20genetic%20disorders%20list%20%20%20%20Disorder,%20%201%3A50%2C000%20%2035%20more%20rows%20

There's a strong moral case for eliminating disorders like these. I don't see the strong moral case, and great potential hazard in genetically jacking up natural opiate production by the brain. People act based on how they feel - and while that isn't always super, we've survived thus far.

I've just been looking at a list of genetic disorders, and I'm not as happy as I might be wasn't one of them. — counterpunch

Yet depression is a devastating disorder. It has a high genetic loading. Depression is at least as damaging to quality of life as the other genetic disorders listed. According to the WHO, around 300 million people worldwide are clinically depressed. "Sub-clinical” depression afflicts hundreds of millions more. If humanity conserves its existing genome, then depressive disorders will persist indefinitely. The toll of suffering will be unimaginable. Mastery of our genetic source code promises an end to one of the greatest scourges in the whole world. By all means, urge exhaustive research and risk-benefit analysis. But I know of no good ethical reason to conserve such an evil.

If a small child were drowning, you would wade into a shallow pond to rescue the child – despite your professed dislike of small children, and your weaker preference not to get your clothes wet? — David Pearce

I think there is a perfectly egoistical explanation for why I would rescue that child. If I rescue that child then it’s quite likely that I would get financially rewarded or at least given recognition that would cause me to experience pleasure. By contrast, if I allow the child to die then someone might have that on camera and I could socially shamed and stigmatized for it. In addition, I think we often feel shame when violating social expectations even if we disagree with those said expectations. I would feel ashamed about letting the child die and that would cause me to suffer. I don’t think that me feeling ashamed about it and being willing to act in order to prevent that shame from occurring necessarily means that I believe on an intellectual level that I ought have rescued the child if there was no social expectation to do so.

It also seems to me that altruistic negative utilitarianism actually implies that it might be better to allow the child to die. After all, that would alleviate the entire lifetime of suffering that the child would have to experience if he goes on to live(assuming there isn’t an afterlife). I’m not sure if that would make up for the suffering caused to the parents of that child or the suffering caused by the drowning. Of course, you would also have to consider the possibility of the child surviving and becoming disabled if you don’t rescue the child and someone else does at a later time. But, it’s also possible that you rescue a child and that condemns that child to continue living as a disabled person rather than having all his suffering alleviated by death. Though, it could also be argued that because of hedonic adaptation, being disabled doesn’t actually contribute that much suffering to your life. I think it’s an open question whether or not a negative utilitarian should rescue that child and that might get used as an argument against negative utilitarianism. Ironically enough, my egoistic hedonism seems to be much more immune to such objections because I think it’s usually a pretty closed question whether or not rescuing a child would hedonistically benefit you.

If asked, a great many people are relaxed about the prospect of less suffering in Nature so long as suffering-reduction doesn’t cause them any personal inconvenience. Hence the case for technical fixes. — David Pearce

Yes but who’s going to pay for those technical fixes? Wouldn’t it cost plenty of money to implement any sort of technical fix as a means to end the suffering of wild animals?

You're moving the goalposts, which, as I'm sure you're aware, is a rookie move. You get a free pass because you're a guest speaker; if you were not, you would be laughed off the stage.

Yet depression is a devastating disorder. It has a high genetic loading. Depression is at least as damaging to quality of life as the other genetic disorders listed. According to the WHO, around 300 million people worldwide are clinically depressed. "Sub-clinical” depression afflicts hundreds of millions more. — David Pearce

The genetic loading aspect aside, which is still potentially addressed by my point, what causes depression? Loss, corruption, or damage of something that once made one happy. What causes happiness? Ability to feel both good and bad, both pleasure and pain. You talk about this "hedonic zero" which admittedly I don't fully comprehend and do wish you to explain in more detail (if not once more).. however there are simple factors in play. People enjoy winning a bet because they had a good chance of not and losing money. People enjoy an evenly matched game of chess for example because of much of the same reasons. Would you enjoy playing a game of chess against a grandmaster other than to say you did so? If as an experienced player would you enjoy playing a game against a complete novice? The answer to these questions are one and the same. David, please watch this, if not the full actual episode and then tell me what you think.

You're moving the goalposts — Noble Dust

Sorry, could you unpack the footballing metaphor for me? What “goalposts”? As far as I know, I’ve consistently been arguing for replacing the biology of pain and suffering with life based on gradients of genetically programmed well-being.