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.

The prospect of ending the cruelties of Nature isn't a madcap scheme — David Pearce

Let's agree to differ!

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.

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

If you were talking about sustainability, I'd agree - it's urgent, and calls for radical solutions, I've sought to explain to you, but you won't acknowledge my argument. I suspect that's because your real purpose is to horrify people with science; to trash science on behalf of religion.

It's a venerable vision: the "peaceable kingdom" of Isaiah. — David Pearce

Since the 1635 trial of Galileo made science a heresy, we have not integrated science as valid knowledge of reality, but merely used it as a tool - as you propose to do. A systematic approach to science puts sustainability as a priority, far in advance of risky genetic experimentation.

You say you value a sustainable future, but you're anti-natalist before you're transhumanist, if I recall correctly, and continue to propound this Croenenberg-esque madcap scheme - bound to horrify religious conservatives, and so maintain 400 years of science denial that's driving the life of this planet toward extinction.

If you really cared about suffering you'd accept my argument that we need to recognise a scientific understanding of reality, and look first to the most fundamental implications; energy and entropy - on page one of your physics textbooks, 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.

I've tried to explain this several times - and got nothing back. This is a philosophy discussion forum - not a lecture hall. My arguments are based in the epistemology of knowledge, not in some dubious, anti-natalist, vegan moral self righteousness - that to my mind is floating in the air with no visible means of philosophical support.

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.

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

Above I argued:

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

Your answer was an appeal to religious authority.

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

Your belief that the problem of suffering is morally urgent, is your opinion - and that's all. It's not a fact. It's a subjectively conceived priority. So your allusion to Issiah comes across as an attempt at justification of your opinion, with an appeal to religious authority - which is rather odd for a supposedly secular, scientific rationalist.

If you were a secular scientific rationalist, my argument that science describes an understanding of reality that implies a systematic application of technology - to secure a sustainable future, and thereby relive suffering, should have more impact on you. Maybe you think you're a scientific rationalist, but like West Side Story is really Romeo and Juliet, you are hanging your scientific baubles on the same philosophically religious Christmas tree. And I'm trying to explain to you that applying science for unscientific reasons is why we're headed for extinction.

Admittedly, sustainability is a value - but it's the most objective value conceivable; not least because, one has to exist to have values. The problem of suffering is subjective. You think it important. I don't care about it. I'll concede, unnecessary cruelty to animals is to be avoided, but beyond that I don't care that food animals die. All mortal creatures die, and in the wild suffer far worse than they do on a well run farm - as your Dawkins quote illustrates.

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! I disagree; and so we cancel each other out. But you cannot cancel out scientific knowledge. And science as an understanding of reality (it's not just a tool box of neat gadgets to use as you see fit) implies systematic application of technology. On any such list of scientific facts, prioritized in terms of sustainability, risky genetic experimentation is a long way down the list of things we need to do.

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

I'm guessing you've never done a physical days work in your life. 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. Meat is concentrated calories, protein and nutrients - with more energy per kilo than lentil casserole. That's how you can claim vegetarians are more intelligent - and you think that's good science. You're not a scientific rationalist. You're a scientific cherry picker - appealing to your moral opinions and religious authority, as justification for something you refuse to acknowledge is arrogant in the extreme - and precisely mirrors, and justifies the anti-science prejudices of religious conservatives.

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

Scientifically, cannibalism is a bad idea. It's the cause of prion diseases - like CJD, (mad cow disease.) Cannibalism by the natives of Papua New Guinea lead to the spread of a fatal brain disease called kuru that caused a devastating epidemic in the group. There's no need for moral superiority. Simply knowing what's scientifically true and doing what's sustainable is sufficient, and a far more reliable means to reduce suffering.

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.

The problem of suffering is subjective. You think it important. I don't care about it. — counterpunch

What a disgusting admission.

unnecessary cruelty — counterpunch

There are actual and potential workarounds to animal suffering and you are dismissing them.

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

No, it's literally not an opinion. It is a scientific fact. You might be comfortable with the odds, but genetic blending has risks whether via natural or bioengineered means.

The problem of suffering is subjective. You think it important. I don't care about it.
— counterpunch

What a disgusting admission. — ProbablyTrue

Admittedly, it doesn't look good when taken out of context. But I don't think there's a realistic solution to the "problem". 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. Baden wouldn't like it. I assume he wants to invite other guest philosophers in future, and I'm already on thin ice with him for remarks deemed off topic elsewhere. So I've said all I can on the subject without risk of getting banned. Thanks Dave, for explaining your views. I don't agree with them, but they are interesting. And Probably True, thank you for affording me the opportunity to explain my difficult position.

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.

Stonewalling? — David Pearce

I have commented that your proposals are frankenstien-esque - and not just to religious conservatives. Genetic engineering carries a huge risk of unintended consequences, particularly with regard to disease. I've argued that suffering allows us to navigate a hostile environment. I explained at length why it's an unsystematic misuse of science - that rightfully should begin with energy. I said that longevity could not be environmentally supported. And I've questioned the morality of imposing your values on subsequent generations at the biological/medical level without their consent. You've dismissed these remarks, and simply repeated iterations of the same lecture over and over again. If you don't wish to discuss these criticisms, that's your prerogative - but that so, thanks again for explaining your ideas, again!

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?

Both a genetic crapshoot and targeted germline interventions carry risks. — David Pearce

On the so called "genetic crapshoot" - we evolved in relation to a rich and complex biosphere by the function or die algorithm of evolution. This is a process of attrition, where the organism dies until the species chances on a genetic mutation suited to survive, and then all subsequent reproduction follows that "design" - suited to survive within the biosphere, in relation to other organisms. Evolution is not a crapshoot. It's ballet, and you blunder onto the stage in your hobnail boots. For example:

European rabbits were introduced to Australia initially as a food source, but became feral, bred and multiplied into a plague - because they are not designed (by evolutionary attrition) to be in balance with the Australian biosphere. (Australia is now extremely cautious about biosecurity; remember Johnny Depp's dogs.)

Another similar example is Japanese knotweed, brought back from the far east by European landscape gardeners for its aesthetic qualities. It got into the wild and is now an invasive biohazard, almost impossible to eradicate. These organisms get out of control because they are not evolved in relation to the complex living environment to which they were introduced.

The biosphere is not just rabbits and knotweed. It's bacteria and viruses too. In order to try to control the rabbit population they took a virus from central and south America, and deliberately infected the rabbit population of Australia. Unlike the south American brush rabbit, European rabbits have no natural immunity to the myxoma virus, and the disease spread and the rabbit population was reduced for a while, until they developed immunity.

So, it's not just plants and animals, but bacteria and viruses; and what you are claiming is, that despite these examples - and many more, you have the wisdom and technical ability to alter organisms at the genetic level; implying that you can foresee all the possible interactions of all the possible organisms in nature. That's the risk you take upon yourself, not for you personally - but for every subsequent generation of human being. (To say nothing of reprogramming predators in pursuit of your religious vision of the lion laying down with the lamb.)

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.

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.

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

Perhaps his belief is that what all three of us are referring to is not a system at all but rather a lack of one. What you call complexities Mr. David refers to as undesirable consequences of a then-necessary system that can and should be remedied, much like child labor or egregious workplace accidents as the result of unsafe labor conditions. They had to occur for there was simply no other option, however when such remedies were made available, any and all people did support them. I believe his theory and mission is far more of a Pandora's Box then the sort of panacea he wishes to promote. Still, terms and motives should fall where they may.

@David Pearce

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?

What do you think of methods to reduce wild animal fertility?

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?

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.

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

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

Yes, sure, but still - the human organism lives within a complex biosphere, and your proposed design changes have not been rigorously tested by evolution, in relation to various other organisms, including viruses and bacteria. Our 'design' is the result of millions of years of evolutionary R+D - in relation to everything else, and what I'm suggesting is that any change to a complex system is almost certain to be detrimental.

Eradicating a virus like smallpox is justified. Eradicating malarial mosquito's is justified. So too, certain genetic diseases. The risks are still there, but there's already such clear and preventable suffering - it's worth the risk. Golden rice - extra vitamin D; probably fine. 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.

If you are serious about your philosophy, you need to address these things. Simply saying:

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

...is dismissive, and doesn't address the risks of what you are proposing.

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

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?

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

This is something we can and should do immediately? Or more research is required?

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?

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

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?

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.

You're a canard! (Couldn't resist it.)

I have seen Gattaca, yes - and the underlying premise of a creating a genetic elite is a genuine problem - particularly with regard to health insurance, bearing on employment prospects, and many other quality of life issues. 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?

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

How can you stop there when you've established an overt genetic competition - by the difference between augmented, and naturally conceived humans; you think the genetic elite will be satisfied with modest enhancements?

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

You don't intend to stop there. You're okay with genetic arms race. And you haven't answered my question:

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

Again, the human organism is 'designed' by the function or die algorithm of evolution, to live within a complex living environment - such that, you would not only have to account for how the 60,000 or so bases of human DNA interact, but how they relate to other organisms, including bacteria and viruses.

Don't make me out to be some anti-science religious nutjob. I value science, but argue it needs to be accepted as an understanding of reality, and applied systematically, staring with energy technology - and that this is the way to reduce suffering. (i.e. avoid extinction.)

I believe you are making the same mistake humankind has made in regard to science: using it as a tool box, in pursuit of your own subjectively, or ideologically conceived priorities - with little or no regard to a scientific understanding of reality. You despise evolution, but it works - in far more subtle ways than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

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.

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.

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

While I do have some eccentric sprititual/metaphysical beliefs, I'm going to do my best to bracket them here. They help me in my own life, but when talking ideas I don't want to use them as dei ex machina. If those eccentric beliefs are legit, they should be able to deal with whatever happens in rational argument.

So:

I think you make a good point: if I look at my life and my suffering, and spin a narrative where I had to suffer what I did in order to get where I am now (i.e. a state I find better than where I was before) then doesn't that lead to me suggesting that others go through similar suffering?

I agree, right away, that such a line of thought is abhorrent.

I shift it this way:

Instead of saying, e.g. 'you too have to suffer corporal punishment, as I did,' I would, if I had kids, understand they're entering into a dicey space, and convey to them (through all the means parents have) 'you are loved, but shit's going to be hard. You're going to need to learn to feel and make sense of suffering/hurt/pain/heartbreak'

The meaning isn't in the particular suffering. Meaning is produced through a stance, or mode-of-being - what will come will come; what I have to do, over time, is learn how to make sense of it. I have to cultivate a meta-capacity for undergoing and recovering from suffering.

I think this scales from -100 to n-1 (where n is a state where there is no suffering at all.)

in raising my kids I simulatenously
(1) aim to reduce their suffering
&
(2) cultivate their capacity to work through suffering.

But, as you correctly point out, some shit is so fucked up, this doesn't work:

There are overwhelming sufferings - traumas - that so flood the victims, knocking over all their sense-making categories, that there's no nice, neat way to wrap it up. I don't see suicide as a weakness of will, or failure to make sense as one should - I see, usually, justified desperation in the face of irremediable suffering, psychological or social double binds, etc. I had a nervous breakdown in my twenties, spent some time in a psych ward - and the chaotic pain you see there blasts away moral and religious categories of suffering in an instant. You don't forget it.

So I'm not fetishizing suffering either. I was once an antinatalist - and while I only am familiar with Benatar through osmosis, I once went deep into Schopenhauer, Beckett & (to a lesser extent) Cioran. I'm coming at this from the lens of : Ok, we're in it; and, being in it, how to proceed?

My concern is in some ways about (dialectical) tempo. I have reservations about too readily positing a suffering-free state from a suffering-saturated state. One way to look at this is from a Bayesian lens. As a student of history, one of my (strong) priors is that utopian projects tend to be inverted mirrors of present-suffering, and so create new forms of suffering in doing away with the old (they can see how to reverse present suffering, but, understandably, can't anticipate the conditions and flavor of future suffering.)

To me, this seems like a historical hard-limit: you only know what you know now. Now my position isn't that we should never knock down Chesterton's Fence( Besides, I think its inevitable - beyond good and evil, as a matter of history - that all fences eventually come down) but I also doubt strongly that we can know now what we're knocking down, and the ramifications of that breaking-down, when the state of scientific knowledge and historical reality is accelerating at breakneck pace. It's not that I don't think not-suffering wouldn't be better - it's that thinking we know what that would mean now seems unlikely. again, back to Bayes - our understanding shifts dramatically, again and again. The historical evidence is overwhelming: what we think we understand now is likely only a scaffolding to another paradigm shift. The people in the (recent!) past couldn't know then the frame-shattering things we know about neuroscience now. But we can't know now what the people in (not-too-distant!) future will know. And that future-knowing will likely not be simply a filling-in-the-gaps in our current paradigm, but an overturning of our paradigms altogether. (its possible not - but we would need realllllly strong philosophical reasons to overturn the priors we get studying how these things tend to unfold historically.)

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?)

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.