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.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
What exactly is this "productive end"? If I may quote Dawkins:This is the basis for the apparent design in nature - how everything works together to a productive end — 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?and you would presume to take this process on yourself? You should consider Orgel's Second Rule: "Evolution is cleverer than you are. — counterpunch
The prospect of ending the cruelties of Nature isn't a madcap scheme — David Pearce
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.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. — David Pearce
It's a venerable vision: the "peaceable kingdom" of Isaiah. — David Pearce
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.I suspect that's because your real purpose is to horrify people with science; to trash science on behalf of religion. — counterpunch
All genetic experimentation is risky; the very nature of sexual reproduction involves gambling with the life of a sentient being.risky genetic experimentation. — 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.You say you value a sustainable future, but you're anti-natalist before you're transhumanist, — 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.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
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.vegan moral self righteousness — 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. — David Pearce
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. — David Pearce
All genetic experimentation is risky; the very nature of sexual reproduction involves gambling with the life of a sentient being. — David Pearce
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. — David Pearce
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. — David Pearce
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 answer was an appeal to religious authority. — 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.Your belief that the problem of suffering is morally urgent, is your opinion — counterpunch
Nutritionists would differ. So would e.g. vegan body-builders: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
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:There's no need for moral superiority. — counterpunch
The problem of suffering is subjective. You think it important. I don't care about it. — counterpunch
unnecessary cruelty — counterpunch
All genetic experimentation is risky; the very nature of sexual reproduction involves gambling with the life of a sentient being.
— David Pearce
In your anti-natalist opinion! — counterpunch
What a disgusting admission. — ProbablyTrue
Stonewalling?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? — David Pearce
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?Genetic engineering carries a huge risk of unintended consequences, — counterpunch
Both a genetic crapshoot and targeted germline interventions carry risks. — David Pearce
Evolution via natural selection is a cruel engine of suffering, not a performance art.Evolution is not a crapshoot. It's ballet, — 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.and you blunder onto the stage in your hobnail boots — 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.That's the risk you take upon yourself, not for you personally - but for every subsequent generation of human being. — counterpunch
An abundance of caution shouldn't involve placing faith in a mythical wisdom of Nature. — David Pearce
Weeping buckets over the fact animals eat each other shouldn't blind you to the complexities of the system you propose fucking with. — counterpunch
What's in contention isn't whether humans should or shouldn't intervene in Nature. Humans already do so on a massive scale:Weeping buckets over the fact animals eat each other shouldn't blind you to the complexities of the system — counterpunch
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.I believe his theory and mission is far more of a Pandora's Box then the sort of panacea he wishes to promote — Outlander
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.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
For large slow-breeders, cross-species fertility-regulation via immunocontraception is feasible. For small fast-breeders, we can use remotely tunable synthetic gene drives:What do you think of methods to reduce wild animal fertility? — Down The Rabbit Hole
What's in contention isn't really whether humans should or shouldn't intervene in Nature. Humans already do so on a massive scale: — David Pearce
I tiptoe far more gingerly than, say, Freeman Dyson — David Pearce
Humans already [intervene in nature] on a massive scale — David Pearce
Both a genetic crapshoot and targeted germline interventions carry risks. — David Pearce
Humans should actively be helping non-human animals, not terrorising them and then rationalising our bloodlust. On consequentialist grounds, we should uphold in law the sanctity of life. — David Pearce
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 — David Pearce
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?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? — David Pearce
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.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 next step is conservative editing, i.e. no creation of novel genes or allelic combinations that don't occur naturally within existing human populations. — David Pearce
The third step, true genetic innovation and transhuman genomes, will be most radical – but the idea that germline editing is irreversible is a canard. — David Pearce
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
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.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
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.This is something we can and should do immediately? Or more research is required? — Down The Rabbit Hole
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,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
Allow me to pass over where we agree and focus on where we may differ. Each of us must come to terms with the pain and grief in our own lives. Often the anguish is very personal. Uniquely, humans have the ability to rationalise their own suffering and mortality. Rationalisation is normally only partially successful, but it’s a vital psychological crutch. Around 850,000 people each year fail to "rationalise" the unrationalisable and take their own lives. Millions more try to commit suicide and fail. Factory-farmed nonhuman animals lack the cognitive capacity and means to do so.
However, rationalisation can have an insidious effect. If (some) suffering has allegedly been good for us, won’t suffering sometimes have redeeming features for our children and grandchildren – and indeed for all future life? So let’s preserve the biological-genetic status quo. I don't buy this argument; it’s ethically catastrophic. For the first time in history, it's possible to map out the technical blueprint for a living world without suffering. Political genius is now needed to accelerate a post-Darwinian transition. Recall that young children can't rationalise. Nor can nonhuman animals. We should safeguard their interests too. If we are prepared to rewrite our genomes, then happiness can be as "finely-tuned" and information-sensitive as we wish, but on an exalted plane of well-being. Transhuman life will be underpinned by a default hedonic tone beyond today’s “peak experiences”.
One strand of thought that opposes the rationalising impulse is represented by David Benatar's Better Never To Have Been, efilism and “strong” antinatalism:
https://www.hedweb.com/quora/2015.html#main
Alas, the astute depressive realism of their diagnosis isn't matched by any clear-headedness of their prescriptions. I hesitate to say this for fear of sounding messianic, but only transhumanism can solve the problem of suffering. Darwinian malware contains the seeds of its own destruction. A world based on gradients of bliss won’t need today's spurious rationalisations of evil. Let’s genetically eliminate hedonic sub-zero experience altogether. — David Pearce
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.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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.