Human "evil" is commonly mistaken for one or more of the following:

- Being an animal without conscious ie. not knowing any better (ignorance)
- Wickedness, selfishness, greed, any of the "sins" (knowing better but choosing to act otherwise for material or emotional gain ie. superfluous or immoral profit or one's "jollies" often regardless of future consequence, closely related to ignorance)
- Mental illness (ignorance)

None of these are in and of themself, evil, per se. You'll know evil when you see it. Or, perhaps not. That is what they call "insidious" in the business.

True evil is rare in this indebted, overpopulated world. Everyone believes themselves to be justified, that benefit will always outweigh risk, that success outweighs sacrifice, in other words "only God can judge me". But when that happens however, hypocrites and the lukewarm are revealed and tunes are changed rather quickly. At such a point however, such changes are typically futile.

How does your OP then? Is it not attempting to facilitate the functions of an absolute proof?

How ought a community deal with such a neighbor? Do we expel them? Which belief did we expel them for? How do we draw the line between a difference of opinion and something that someone ought to be expelled for? — BitconnectCarlos

Is he bothering or harassing you? You after all went onto his property and were told something he has a right to say. You can continue to attempt to get to know him, perhaps change his mind or you can tell him you appreciate his candor and just not deal with him. Better the devil you know, right? There's no threat like a hidden one, so be grateful it was made known. Might be awkward running into him at market or something. If you want to be cheeky I suppose you could casually bring it up around mixed company and see what the response is on a level playing field. Of course, that's not quite being the bigger person. And if you're a minority could be unwise. Most of the kinds of prejudices or intolerance you're describing were fathered by past actions or experiences brought on by said disliked persons. Someone probably hurt him, or someone close to him, and you simply happen to resemble or "come from" wherever the person or persons who come to mind when he sees you do.

Is this a school or are you his landlord? You can't expel a fellow taxpaying citizen from his private property just because you don't like him. You can expel him for your own private circle of friends and acquaintances, not talk to him or perhaps shun him, but unless you live in a private, gated community that has an HOA or is otherwise privately managed, there are few options along that avenue.

Well, and again it depends on the jurisdiction, but that kind of attitude is not in line with most modern Constitutions. So in a way, you can take solace knowing you're more (insert country name here) than him! Of course, in a democracy people have a right to hold and speak views that are contradictory to national values, even to protest and oppose the government itself- lawfully. So, if he's not breaking any laws or creating any problems, and neither are you, why create one?

To summarize, If he's polite and seems to otherwise be just another law-abiding, mentally-healthy member of your community, there's little to be done.

"Don't become the monster your trying to fight, for if this happens what more does it need do?; When you gaze into the abyss, the abyss will gaze into you." - Nietzsche, paraphrased

Evolution via natural selection is a fiendish engine for spreading unimaginable suffering — David Pearce

Yet it created you, did it not? So, it is therefore now, in addition to this, an incredible engine for spreading unimaginable bliss, if your ideas are to be believed. Some bite the hands that feed them, but are you not attempting to amputate it altogether?

— Outlander

I'm a researcher, not the leader of a millenarian cult with messianic delusions. — David Pearce

Was Jesus not a teacher? A leader or dealer in hope? You tell us here, against all currently possible odds a heaven of infinite currently unimaginable bliss awaits, if we only listen to you, and if not, a Hell also awaits, a lifetime of Darwinian hell? You two could be brothers at this rate!

But reprogramming the biosphere will take centuries. — David Pearce

The similarities continue. What did Jesus say to the first follower when asked what they are to do? : the response was "Change the world"!

After intelligent moral agents phase out the biology of suffering — David Pearce

Sure, and after dark becomes light it's no longer dark. Anything can be changed by this view of "oh after such and such" is applied. We need solutions. Concrete results. At least suggestions. You have a vision, that's great, so does everyone. What will you do in the here and now to see it follows through?

I guess what people will want to say/ask/want to see is.. okay David. Go ahead. Do it with your own kids, do whatever it is as you say. And let us all openly observe them before any talk of ;legislation or anything that involves anybody else.. is involved. Reasonable enough, yes?

Not my business, but you surely have money. So, get a massage for 24 hours straight, longer even. Force yourself to be there in a state of pleasure, platonic if possible but whatever. You'll get bored of it after some time. You've never had a you day? Where you just eat, do what pleasures you, be pleasured, etc, it gets dull after some time. Beyond the natural need for sleep you just want to feel "normal" or "left alone" after some time. This is human nature. Increasing the hedonic "resting level" does not, at least in my theory, eliminate the hedonic treadmill, if one is aware of greater possibility, one is inclined to seek it with body and mind. If one no longer wishes to strive, would you still call this humanity? What differentiates a group of your imagined transhumans with a group of cell phones plugged in and charged to full capacity?

The previous statements make the following assumptions:

A.) That it is in fact an egg (as definition dictates and not simply something that appears as one say a Fabergé egg or unusually shaped hollow rock)

B.) That it is not old, preserved, or otherwise now (or perhaps has been) placed in new and possibly unsuitable conditions for its respective biological hatching process

Z has yet to be explicitly defined though a reader can infer this is the idea that a creature either will or will not be hatched?

1.) Sure. Not all eggs follow the respective biological hatching process for a multitude of reasons.

2.) Considering all variables are in either constant or continual reference to current or potential states of a single object, both actual and hypothetical, I suppose?

3.) Thought, in general? People have written entire books on this so. I want to say, both? I think, lol.

4.) What isn't thought? Mayhaps.. thought is an observation or statement, or series of observations or statements one believes is unheard and is made under the assumption it will not be responded to?

Therefore I think you proposal would only create a division between those in favour, and those against, and if those in favour persisted as if they were starting to proceed into the project without unanimous consent, they might be exterminated as a threat. — Metaphysician Undercover

@David Pearce, also on this sentiment, I was going to suggest if such a- in my view outlandish- reality would ever come to real and actual practice or fruition.. people would want to see the results for themselves first. Not just the first transhumans gleefully or perhaps nonchalantly being happy or blissful or any of the aforementioned in your proposal right away or for a few months or even a few years... but how they truly fare in life and through multiple generations. Perhaps a controlled experiment would be in order. An entire civilization. Somewhere far, far away where they cannot reach the outside non-transhuman world and the outside world cannot reach them. But where we can all monitor them vigorously, both advocate and opponent. Or at least a non-biased person who can offer the moral equivalent (example, a group of volunteers and their kids). Otherwise.. I tend to believe Metaphysician has a quite compelling if not forceful point to be confronted.

You don't let cancer spread, you.. neutralize it. By whatever legal and socially accepted actions of the times and society are, otherwise, if you had the opportunity to stop it but didn't, you are basically at fault for whatever further damage it causes. You were the one who knew better, not the virus. So, by ignoring it and letting it spread, you effectively become it. Tangential aiding and abetting.

Edit: Of course it's not that simple, that's why we have the law, transparency, and public scrutiny. Humans interestingly enough work like T-cells and viruses, a disease can infect a white blood cell or T-cell (or something, I'm not a medical professional) and cause a previously healthy cell that defends the body to either A.) ignore the disease or virus AND/OR B.) attack it's own body and system that supports it. That's what viruses do. The real world comparison would be a stranger telling a person a perfectly-just (which is rare, sure) government is out to get them and he, as opposition, will save them, when in fact he has no such desire. Or that said government has become tyrannical or infiltrated and must be destroyed because ignoring the fact he left where he came from to get there "everything is not quite perfect for you here so there must be an evil conspiracy against you". This is essentially exactly what happens on the cellular level in relation to viruses and blood cells.

Back to the larger world around us, accountability is important, otherwise some degenerate monstrosity could just go up to a law-abiding citizen, accuse him of a crime, or even shoot him, and claim self-defense. So it's tough today. Pick your friends wisely, and make sure they are of similar sentiment. You are who you hang out with.

It seems to me that offending someone still counts as victimization. — TheHedoMinimalist

Being a rude or terrible person (while following all applicable laws) is not a crime today. Labor is labor. Organs are valuable to someone who needs them, I wouldn't want theirs but to each their own. However a pattern of long term, coordinated efforts to harass, slander, or violate another person's freedoms or rights just short of committing actual crimes however is in many jurisdictions. A threat is not assault, though it could warrant scrutiny of one's mental health and assessment of whether that person is a threat to themselves or others and if certain privileges need to be revoked or other measures deployed to prevent a crime or tragedy against a truly innocent member of society. It's 'intimidation', which is a crime.

I can flick you off, call you any name I wish, and insult anything about you or how you are and you can't call a cop or pursue legal action for that alone, but if someone is going on a profanity-ridden tirade amongst mixed company in a public place potentially including children it can be considered 'disturbing the peace'.

Life is disturbing enough. We don't need people who make it even worse. But again, labor, etc.

Most libertarians believe that there are certain things that are illegal that should be legal because they are victimless activities. — TheHedoMinimalist

Very few things codified into law are truly victimless activities. Being told not to do something, being stopped, and perhaps receiving a nominal fine is a world of difference from being incarcerated against one's will.

I don’t understand how smoking weed could be considered a victimless crime if the activity could cause a pretty significant amount of distress to others. — TheHedoMinimalist

It makes stupid, lazy, and/or forgetful people even more so. Don't do that to your fellow man. Sure most can handle it, but if you let some people do it you have to let everyone do it. Fast food orders get mixed up, traffic lights and signs get ignored, appointments and important obligations are put off if not missed altogether, entire fridges and pantries become depleted, these actions alone are permissible of course they can lead to surprisingly disproportionate conflict, injuries, and suffering. It's the net impact on society after adding up all these little things that by themselves are basically nothing.

Kind of like how a 1 cent global tax on everyone once a month for a year will create a surplus fund of a billion dollars.

Yet perhaps we can use biotech and IT to build a world fit for euphoric realism – a world where reality itself seems conspiring to help you. — David Pearce

Does the transhumanist vision ultimately lead to something of a morgue where bodies are stored side-by-side and atop on another in a state of unconsciousness (or even cold storage) offering an identical experience to reality, say a new world to explore the size of ten Earths with geographic features only found on other planets along with personal indestructibility? Would we even require bodies anymore, perhaps it will become a requirement to give one's up?

Wouldn't shrinking people (an old myth that perhaps may be a crypto-technological metaphor) make more sense for human well being? An entire metropolitan city of 1 million people - each and every denizen - would now be able to live in their own private three-story mansion with 20 bedrooms, an Olympic sized swimming pool, and their own private petting zoo and race track (or something) in no more combined space and area than an average strip mall. Fancy that eh?

I wasn't saying everyone should own the same things. Capitalism causes a lot of misery and I see that everyday — Gregory

Are you not forgetting the first noble truth of the Buddha (or any religion that pays any attention to anything and wants to gain members aka "exists"): Existence is suffering. The cause of suffering is desire.

I got it! you answer the question in your own mind by simply asking it. So I ask you again (or for the first time, sorry I can't quite recall..) .. is it?!

Why do you seem so sure? IF we had the ability to spread to other planets, we probably wouldn’t feel like our species is doomed to extinction. I think having the ability to realistically hope for a better tomorrow, if not for ourselves, then for others, would certainly lessen our feelings of insignificance. — Pinprick

Alcohol. However onto the next point of having a greater ability to create life in multiple places.. well, I'm reminded of an old saying "if you can't make yourself happy, how can you expect to (or why should others believe you can) make others happy" or perhaps even "home is where the heart is" or even as far as something along the lines of (I can't recall any catchy metaphor or witty saying at present) failing to address a problem from it's source is not solved by simply creating more environments where the same problem simply has more chances or opportunity to somehow resolve itself on its own simply because it does not have any more chances here nor there. You can't kick the can down the road per se however I suppose your premise is proven at least somewhat by use of decoys and body doubles. Like how presidents often travel in one of two airliners or vehicles traveling in unison. Beyond all that however, how is life of a species on another planet even in an entirely different galaxy any more hope other than trivial hope? We can just as easily be destroyed by a black hole, cosmic ray burst, star explosion/implosion, asteroid, heat death of the universe, or any other cosmic phenomena one could imagine. Furthermore, if one errs on the side of evolution, life will just re-create itself, perhaps even better here, so why worry about it so much? Selfishness. Myopia. Fear. Arrogance. Ignorance. That is all that will be "spread" throughout the universe if your maniacal plot of galactic domination ever comes to fruition.

Care to explain? Compassion for whom? — Pinprick

Just a theory. Highly religious. "Fallen world", etc

This is rhetoric right? Or do you believe there is a God that simply ignores us? Either way, I don’t see how being ignored by God makes life tolerable. — Pinprick

Could be. I wouldn't know for certain. It's not about it being tolerable, it's about it simply being able to continue to exist. Again, just a theory.

Would we suddenly become significant if we spread to other planets throughout several galaxies? — Pinprick

NO. We are confined to this doomed planet out of compassion. The only place left where the existence of human life and the suffering we deal and tolerate is tolerable due to the fact God doesn't pay much attention here. Most of these will not like it if that was different. Well, not for long anyway. Few would remain if so. We wouldn't survive for long anywhere else. "Earth", as those before us who actually valued wisdom as currency, so desperately and idealistically wished to call this place.. is the sole cosmic "blind spot" in the Universe. The veil is wearing thin I fear. Though.. evil people create the equivalent of ozone when killed. Do the math.

Yeah that's atheism for ya. How any decent people who are that manage to keep their sanity is beyond me.

P.S. We assume it is better to have a 100 serial killers go free than to have one innocent person executed. — James Riley

Actually the saying goes, it's better for 10 criminals to go free before an innocent person is harmed. But.. why are the criminals criminals. Because they break the law and harm innocent people. Lol. See they know people are stupid and they prove it by saying these things that people repeat. Lol. It's really not funny, I mean it is and will be, later.. but now is not later. I think anyway.

Very much so yes. Tiny people want tiny things, while greater persons wish for far greater things. Mind over matter. What is small and what is great does not always correlate in physical size or appeal for attention and admiration, especially these days.

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.

So then for example, you would say if someone was debating policy and leadership quality, but your interlocutor, let's call him "Trump" starts talking about how your a bumbling idiot with kids who take cocaine and are of low character.. this is legitimate argumentation? I don't get your machismo, "who can take a punch". — schopenhauer1

I believe I just explicitly called it nonsense but nevertheless the right crowd will eat it up. In a land of the blind the one eyed man is king, even or especially rather if he only pretends to be. Am I a bumbling idiot? I could be. That implies he'd be willing to compare intellectual works. Do my kids in fact take cocaine and happen to be of low character? Another opportunity for comparison. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Of course, it all circles back to the why a discussion or argument began in the first place and in a political context what the observers and crowd is expecting, entertainment or productivity. Though its usually about swaying opinion, garnishing interest, or sometimes even simply gaining attention.

It is not "my" anything, I already told you or at least implied I find that style of communication revolting. I simply know how some people, who even if are not the majority are unfortunately sizeable enough to not be dismissed entirely, think and go about life.

People like a guy who can take a punch. Or who don't abandon their beliefs under pressure, especially low pressure.

Shallow as this may be, people view leaders as extensions of themselves subconsciously and without knowing it, so, the stronger your leader is perceived to be, the stronger or perhaps more confident you as a follower or whatever you want to call yourself will be. It's all subconscious. I'd even call it nonsense. Yet that would make me the majority. It's how the world works.

Edit: that would make me the minority, sorry.

This implies that it would be okay to throw the sand if people can do it.. Shouldn't they both just not throw the sand? — schopenhauer1

People should "just not" do lots of things. This is why wars are fought. :grin:

I meant the boxing match as something of importance.. We can make the analogy to whatever suits your sense of important. — schopenhauer1

Humor and a sense of projected strength is favored by many. It's disheartening to acknowledge and think about how genuine logic and morality can be defeated and hold less ground in the minds of many. So they don't. :grin:

I suppose the counterargument would be "if candidate B is so smart, correct, confident, and faithful in how his beliefs would hold in true chaos, yet he mentally and emotionally retreats under controlled scrutiny, what torch or rather for how long would he be able to hold it against the views of candidate A", etc.

Is this sand available only to you? Have you become resistant to such sand? If either of these are true you have a clear advantage. I wouldn't participate in a setting I don't find inherently legitimate which implies there are rules in place. The difference between a real debate of importance and a boxing match is that the latter is purely for entertainment and ticket sales while the former is what allows/determines/or dictates something far greater. One would hope at least.

A drop of wine in a vat of sewage is still sewage. A drop of sewage in a vat of wine is also sewage. An analogy for a perfect world, one which we do not live in. People like being spoken to in their own language and level, for some reason makes the speaker seem as if they were more honest by showing negative or "genuine" human emotion. A folly undubutably but a common one. Humor or even shock can override the minds natural defenses and logical senses. Life and thinking can often be unpleasant and hard, so when something is introduced that can if even for a moment alleviate this burden, it is generally well received. More of a war tactic though. You make more mistakes when you're angry and not in a state of calm levelheadedness. Then again, iron sharpens iron. If there's no truth to the statement what merit does it hold? That said, as a prominent and influential figure one should be hesitant about lowering the social bar as it were even further. Of course, this is precisely what some set out to do.

As someone I admire used to say "sounds like a whole lot of kitsch to me."

Generally I don't like them because they've become the go-to weapon for the ignorant when one is losing a logical or moral argument to save face or perhaps continue their misdeeds and corruption of others. The people like what they like however..

Hell is a place where everything once beautiful and pure will become ravaged, vile, and destroyed. Heaven is a place where everything once vile and corrupted may be redeemed and restored. Are these two different places or merely different phases? We may all live on the same planet, but we're worlds apart.

A child is more a spirit in a body than a family progressing device, owned by the parents. — ghostlycutter

Owned by? Heh, you mess up and you'll not only lose said child but your own liberties, if not more.

Children are merely at an age and form in the likeness of a child. — ghostlycutter

I don't get this one. Does the assertion that water is merely at a state and form in the likeness of water make much sense to you? Eh.. maybe it does. But continuing..

Though a child may like it's parents and its role, this is pain suppression, and doesn't contest the practice of child birth as immoral. — ghostlycutter

Not trying to pry but, who on Earth raised you lol. The parent provides controlled discipline, boundaries, and punishment, whereas the real world would provide all these and more yet unrestricted with no limits.

If we could freely change our form, and age, then being a child linked to parents should be their choice, and not the parents choice, or should have a potential cut-off point. — ghostlycutter

We already have too many adult children who weren't raised properly, these are the criminals, the lazy, the dregs, the liars, the thieves, the urchins and overall leeches of society. Might as well make those who brought them here responsible as opposed to the innocent taxpaying citizen.

To conclude, childbirth is immoral but is beautiful art, some may prefer this lifestyle, but that should be a decision for the child to make primarily as it must live in unison with it's parents. — ghostlycutter

What is morality? Why so should we listen to someone born of immorality. After all, you claim doing so is bad. So what makes you begin to think you know anything or your statements, observations, and opinions are anything but immoral and should be ignored, isn't that the basis of your argument after all?

I need an example of something to investigate before I can provide a response. I don't think it is possible to talk about 'truth' in general terms, as it means a range of things. I need details. — Tom Storm

The only thing I questioned, is what you know and I suppose as a result are willing to share. We are similar in this respect, that is to say, you speak from something I assume to be more than a philosophical passing glance, and this is what is unknown to me yet known to you. Now I'm the one who need details.

Beyond that though, my general statement in recent posts was along the lines of what works for you in this moment may not work for you in the next. Or perhaps even that you deny yourself the true destination and yes even journey of enhanced knowledge or virtue, from your own ingrained limitations and belief.

Mine has served me well. — Tom Storm

Ah, here we go. The classic statement. What I do works for the moment for me and me alone. If only you knew how many men greater than you chose these last words in their pursuits here in this life.. though, perhaps your right, in a sense. What doesn't serve you well? Why not? Why doesn't it? Perhaps because it serves another just a little bit better? Does this advance the human condition or merely the human tolerance of life? These are the questions one may only hope to live long enough to ponder.

You see, for some people (I'm one) the journey is way more important and interesting than the destination. — Tom Storm

Perhaps you seek the wrong destination, then. What made you seek what you do? Or even believe or want what you do? Your own human nature? Perhaps.. or perhaps it was your environment and upbringing. Does this world seem to be an ideal place for the best of experiences to be had and formed? The best of ideas and visions of ideal and real desires and pursuits of being both temporal and eternal? Does it?

You confuse the being with it's breath. An eclipse of the Sun with it's disappearance. A newborn's belief of a parent or guardian ceasing to exist due to hands covering the face. In the scope of theism, such philosophies are little more than the speaker becoming an infant in a game of celestial peek-a-boo. You don't have to believe in any of this wild speculation and possibility of course, but if you would choose to use such terms in a serious manner as if you do, well, be sure to know what they mean.

The way I see it there are a few options. Absent of sci-fi spookiness (religion) we'll call it two options. We'll continue as we are, barely getting by in our current diplomatic situations, perhaps they'll be small skirmishes that are quickly condemned due to atrocities denounced by all nations thus guiding our fleeting peaceful existence. Or someone will screw up big time and all out nuclear war will follow.. I'd like to believe it'd destroy all weapons and technology and current status quos (with the expense of most of humanity) .. but it probably wouldn't. Everyone has their secret weapons and bunkers to go to thus ensuring the systems that nearly destroyed everything can and will reform to exactly as they were if not greater. Being gifted with life is being sentenced to die anyhow, so there's always a perpetual aspect of "being screwed" regardless. It just depends on how pleasurable the experience will be before then. Or.. perhaps not? But that's forbidden on these forums, absent of technological mumbo jumbo.

God is already dead. — Fooloso4

Oh but of course. Because if this were to be false... we surely are. And that's not something the mind wishes to comprehend. So it won't. Nothing wrong with such a perspective in the grand scheme of things. Surprises are after all, the spice of life.

Nietzsche himself predicts years of bloodshed noting that the entire system of Western Europe is predicated on Christian values and codes. — Tom Storm

Christian values, are essentially democracy. Giving people, who have no right or reason to have such a freedom, the ability to live and rule alongside those who do. "Salvation". Thoroughly abused, as history shows. Aka "liars".

Theism often seems to behave as barbarism on crystal meth. — Tom Storm

See above, liars. There is no less hesitancy for a soldier of fortune to kill an unarmed person he has been indoctrinated to perceive as a threat under the guise of "God's will" than there is under the guise of "national interest", both have been set in such a way they interconnect with the only intrinsic and universal plea men of all walks of life are capable to understand. that being self-interest and survival.

If you're ill or injured, pain can sometimes be the only thing to inform you something's not quite right. If it becomes merely a vague "numbness" of no severity or actual discomfort, especially if it doesn't scale up like biological pain does.. well, is that really safe? — Outlander

You can't "edit out" human nature, without resulting in either a passive animal or monotonous robot. Do you really think, if this results in the success you envision, those rich and often less-inclined toward human well being will let it continue toward the masses? Why would they? You would simply usher in an age of Greek Mythology and "gods" ("Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic").

We wouldn't know. If God wants to be three people, or one, or several thousand, that's wonderful. Meanwhile we're all still just ignorant people destined to die and furthermore have no idea what the heck we're really supposed to do or believe anyhow. I'm sure we'll be forgiven if we follow the golden rule, defend the positive virtues that derive what we know to be positive experiences, and stand against and defeat the negative virtues that derive what we know to be negative experiences, regardless of where fate places us.

Without the molecular signature of experience below hedonic zero, there can be no more suffering. It's hard to imagine, I know. — David Pearce

What of the quote "Some of the worst things in my life never even happened" by Mark Twain. The mind is more than malleable enough to deliver levels and depths of suffering on par with physical torture. How will gene editing make us feel toward tragedy, such as death, etc? If we no longer even have the ability to be distraught at that which is tragic.. is this really progress toward humanity? If you're ill or injured, pain can sometimes be the only thing to inform you something's not quite right. If it becomes merely a vague "numbness" of no severity or actual discomfort, especially if it doesn't scale up like biological pain does.. well, is that really safe?

I've heard testimonies of people who became addicted to strong opiate painkillers, some by major surgery, some out of recreation. The pleasure rewired their body so greatly that when they had to come off of them cold turkey it was described as "the worse pain imaginable" as if "[one's] bones were being crushed into dust" throughout the entirety of their body. What if gene-editing doesn't remove suffering but simply re-calibrates it in an unfavorable way?

As you may have gathered, I'm a "better the devil you know" kind of guy when it comes to these matters.. a keeper of Pandora's Box, if you will.

For context, consider the previous ethical dilemma of causing the rape of 1 woman in order to prevent the rape of 5 women — Cartesian trigger-puppets

What on Earth are you even trying to begin to talk about? Cool name btw, was wondering where it came from/what it meant to you?

A criminal action is a criminal action and will be neutralized and/or punished to the fullest extent of the law. Any person who does not believe this is a savage and will be punished.. heh, even if they try to duck out and think death will save them.. I am proud to say, this is not so.

No one exists in the future. — Andrew4Handel

Oh but apparently your truths and ideals do. This is encouraging, at least to a discernible degree.