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. — David Pearce
we've both touched the harsh nerve of pain, really touched it, and realized how frame-shatteringly painful real pain is. — csalisbury
I absolutely respect your devotion to mitigating clearly-defined evils (to say you're doing much more than me to help others would be a wild understatement) - but how do you sustain your pinpointing of (biologically based, and so capable-of-being-engineered-out) evil against, say, the knocking-down-chesterton's-fence argument? What I'm trying to get at is, it feels to me you have full faith in the current scientific framing (an end of scientific framing ala the much discussed political 'end of history') Is that fair? — csalisbury
I absolutely respect your devotion to mitigating clearly-defined evils (to say you're doing much more than me to help others would be a wild understatement) - but how do you sustain your pinpointing of (biologically based, and so capable-of-being-engineered-out) evil against, say, the knocking-down-chesterton's-fence argument? What I'm trying to get at is, it feels to me you have full faith in the current scientific framing (an end of scientific framing ala the much discussed political 'end of history') Is that fair? — csalisbury
In our discussion, I've glossed over the role of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance (cf.what about epigenetic engineering? — counterpunch
The question to ask is: What should be the "default settings" of new life? Should we continue to create people genetically predisposed to a ghastly range of unpleasant experiences they will only later be able to palliate? Or should we design healthy people:because arguably, epigenetic engineering could bypass many of the moral dilemmas associated with germ-line genetic alteration foisted on subsequent generations — counterpunch
In our discussion, I've glossed over the role of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance — David Pearce
Philosophers need to acquaint themselves with what's technically feasible so we can have a serious ethical debate on what should be done. — David Pearce
Recall that all humans are untested genetic experiments. The germline can be edited – and unedited. But if we don't fix our legacy code, then atrocious suffering will proliferate indefinitely. — David Pearce
Germline interventions are not irreversible. They merely change the genetic default. Might a future hyperthymic civilisation revert to creating babies with high-pain, low-mood (etc) alleles and allelic combinations? It's technically feasible. Likewise breeding babies with alleles for cystic fibrosis and other nasty genetic disorders. But such scenarios lack sociological credibility.Interfering in the human genome, so altering every subsequent human being who will ever live, is a risk that's not justified by depression — counterpunch
Germline interventions are not irreversible. — David Pearce
Children don't consent to be born. If lack of prior consent is the key issue, one should stay child-free.epigenetic engineering - that could be performed on the adult individual with their consent — counterpunch
If one believes that antinatalists are wrong to condemn baby-making as inherently unethical, then one must show that genetic experimentation can and will be conducted responsibly. I'm not convinced that responsible experimentation is yet feasible. But we now at least know enough to mitigate the harm of coming into existence in a Darwinian world.Nor, apparently, necessary to address the problem. — counterpunch
Children don't consent to be born. — David Pearce
If one believes that antinatalists are wrong to condemn baby-making as inherently unethical, then one must show that genetic experimentation can be conducted responsibly. I'm not convinced that responsible experimentation is yet feasible. But we now at least know enough to mitigate the harm of coming into existence in a Darwinian world. — David Pearce
"Responsible" adults are engineered by evolution to maximize the inclusive fitness of their genes, not impartially to weigh whether it's ethical to generate more pain-ridden Darwinian malware. I coo over babies as much as anyone. But on an intellectual level, I recognise they are the victims of our evolutionary psychology.Children can't consent to be born - because they don't exist, and for a long time after they are born, are not deemed responsible enough to give consent. Consent is the purview of responsible adults — counterpunch
If I (or transhumanists in general) advocated getting "blissed out", thereby robbing people of their ability to learn, then you might have a point. However, you may recall we urge intelligence-amplification. Sentient beings with a hedonic range of +70 to +100 can learn as well as savages with a hedonic range of -10 to 0 to +10.I do not regard causing suffering as inherently unethical. Suffering allows us to navigate the world by teaching us to avoid that which is harmful. The fact that a child born is destined to suffer - is just part of the learning process. Depriving the child of the ability to suffer is harmful. — counterpunch
Apologies, I've done my fallible best to respond, and cited your comments verbatim in my replies. Possibly the conceptual gulf that separates us is too large. Either way, I promise I'm as keen on fostering education as you are – just not by means of suffering:If I too ignore everything you say — counterpunch
Remediation is harder than prevention. Preimplantation genetic screening and counselling are available now. By contrast, the gene-repressing strategy I cited above for pain reduction has been invesigated only in "mouse models". I hope human trials can begin soon.The question I asked is quite simple: why do you advocate genetic interventions - which are passed on through germ cells to subsequent generations - when, epigenetic therapies are not passed on to subsequent generations, but merely effect the expression of genes in the individual? — counterpunch
high-tech Jainism — David Pearce
Please forgive me if I've missed a post / point you'd like to see addressed. If you let me know, I'll do my best!Magnifique! Superb! Excelente! Carry on. Just ignore me! — TheMadFool
Recall I'm an antinatalist:So. The real question is, David. Will you use your wealth and influence to purchase a large enough area where, your own and this is the most important, your own offspring can participate in these trials and we all can watch from a distance and see how they fare over time — Outlander
Should prospective parents be encouraged to mitigate the suffering their experimentation creates? — David Pearce
Or should pain-ridden Darwinian malware be encouraged to proliferate indefinitely in its existing guise? — David Pearce
Where in this chronology would you call a halt:Life sucks. You wish to make it better. That's admirable. However. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" .. and no that doesn't mean what others think it does. More of a Pandora's Box, better the devil you know, such and such is a double-edged sword, one step forward two steps back, etc.. — Outlander
Current scientific evidence does not support the therapeutic benefit of prayer:Do you really think you knew the world as it was when you were 6? What about when you were 12? Or 20? Or now? The answer has always been the same. A resounding yes. Why do you limit yourself to further knowledge and potential. The answer is the same as why you did when you were 6. Ignorance. Pray some. — Outlander
Creativesoul, you are very kind. It's much appreciated.Kudos for actually engaging. I appreciate you keeping the implicit promise that many others did not. — creativesoul
Kudos for actually engaging. I appreciate you keeping the implicit promise that many others did not.
Cheers! — creativesoul
Apologies if I've left any loose ends. — David Pearce
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.