The Hedonistic Imperative (http://www.hedweb.com/) outlines how genetic engineering and nanotechnology will abolish suffering in all sentient life.

The abolitionist project is hugely ambitious but technically feasible. It is also instrumentally rational and morally urgent. The metabolic pathways of pain and malaise evolved because they served the fitness of our genes in the ancestral environment. They will be replaced by a different sort of neural architecture - a motivational system based on heritable gradients of bliss. States of sublime well-being are destined to become the genetically pre-programmed norm of mental health. It is predicted that the world's last unpleasant experience will be a precisely dateable event.

Two hundred years ago, powerful synthetic pain-killers and surgical anesthetics were unknown. The notion that physical pain could be banished from most people's lives would have seemed absurd. Today most of us in the technically advanced nations take its routine absence for granted. The prospect that what we describe as psychological pain, too, could ever be banished is equally counter-intuitive. The feasibility of its abolition turns its deliberate retention into an issue of social policy and ethical choice.




What are your opinions on this subject? How does it fit in with your beliefs about the universe and about human nature?

Do you believe the end of suffering to be a 'goal' for humanities future? Or an inevitability? Do you contrarily believe such changes should be avoided? For what reasons?

What do you think about humans altering their own genes?

My opinion: I find it very interesting and I do not see any reasons why it should be avoided. Its all the same in Gods eyes.

Call me lazy, but I think the best way to stop suffering is to decide to stop suffering.

Pain is mandatory; suffering is optional.

Call me lazy, but I think the best way to stop suffering is to decide to stop suffering.

Pain is mandatory; suffering is optional.

I think thats a very stoic perspective, and one which I do agree with.

However, these people are suggesting that pain is not mandatory. Popping a pill to rid yourself of some physical pain is a luxury many of us take for granted that would have been thought impossible by the everyman only a few hundred years ago.

These people suggest that the state you have called "Spiritual Ecstasy" in the past can become the normal state of mind, just like "painless" has become the normal state of being, opposed to "living hurts", and that the current 'normal' state of mind will become something completely undesirable.

Strife, struggle, suffering, und so weiter is life. Existence is absurd but the strong find beauty in it. Suffering will reach you on every possibly plane of existence. Even in your numb drug-addled utopian fantasy, some sort of anguish will eventually overcome you. Bliss is only achieved when one reaches a greater harmony or connection to the whole, only to be humbled by the ensuing dissonant chaos which consumes all. This comes by transcending dualistic notions to see the interplay of the two and the necessity of each. Modern religion is flawed in that it sees suffering as inherently bad, wrong, and unnatural. You shouldn't attempt to stop suffering, you should learn from it.

...Humanities...?

weakness. the pain lets me know i'm alive. i would rather not exist then exist in a sea of pleasure, one indistinguishable from the other, all of them meaningless without their counterpart.

Nah, fuck y'all. Give me gradients of pleasure.

Interesting topic, perhaps you've read The Giver?

The problem with the hedonistic imperative idea is that it implies an evolutionary superiority in being blissful and happy. I won't believe it's feasible for a human to be productive and a survivalist plus euphoric at the same time until I lay my eyes on it's method. As for me, I'd just hope that it's not a forceful shift for everybody. I prefer my existence as it is. Possibly this could be used only part-time, as a product, or perhaps as method of self-control?....

Also, what kind of effect do you think this would have on music and other methods of self-expression? Where will I put my fully diminished seventh chords?!? WHERE WILL THE TENSION GO?!? WILL EDGAR ALLEN POE BE OUT OF A JOB?!? :rolleyes:

...humanities...?

54321

I tried reading this a few months ago but even the neuropharmacology was a bit complex for me (a drug geek by all accounts). I actually meant to read it today, and the arguments that I've read so far (most of chapter 3 I think) are pretty sound.

Under heaven all can see beauty as beauty only because there is ugliness.
All can know good as good only because there is evil.
Therefore having and not having arise together.
Difficult and easy complement each other.

I would assume the corollary would be that happiness and sadness contrast each other as well. The book says something about that, but I can't find it atm.

54321

Binary please.

1. Pleasure is nothing without suffering. You need the contrast to even comprehend either one.

2. In 1808 they sure as fuck had powerful opiate derivatives/painkillers/anesthetics. Hell, heroin was first synthesized by Bayer in 1874. The use of opium as a painkiller dates back thousands of years.

That would suck ass. Nothing would get done; everyone would just spend all day chain smoking menthol cigarettes, talking shit and dancing to repetitive music while wearing animal costumes.

That would suck ass. Nothing would get done; everyone would just spend all day chain smoking menthol cigarettes, talking shit and dancing to repetitive music while wearing animal costumes.

Read the intro, plox.

1. Pleasure is nothing without suffering. You need the contrast to even comprehend either one.
No, you don't. They're caused by certain reactions in my brain and stimuli to my nerves. Completely separate. Your brain will release feel-good chemicals and they'll make you feel good even if you've never suffered. Rather say, perhaps, you need gradations of either one: i.e., I can either be content like after a good meal, or I can be euphoric like I just shot up some heroin.

I approve of the hedonistic imperative. Suffering needs to be eliminated, as anyone who's suffered knows.

No, you don't. They're caused by certain reactions in my brain and stimuli to my nerves. Completely separate. Your brain will release feel-good chemicals and they'll make you feel good even if you've never suffered. Rather say, perhaps, you need gradations of either one: i.e., I can either be content like after a good meal, or I can be euphoric like I just shot up some heroin.

I approve of the hedonistic imperative. Suffering needs to be eliminated, as anyone who's suffered knows.

there is more to happiness then pleasure.

there is more to happiness then pleasure.

Not for a nihilist.

Not for a nihilist.

well, nihilists can go annihilate themselves.

well, nihilists can go annihilate themselves.

It doesn't work if you pronounce it nee-ya-list like I do.

It doesn't work if you pronounce it nee-ya-list like I do.
Nee-ya-lists can go ah-nee-ya-late themselves!

neeyuk neeyuk neeyuk!

there is more to happiness then pleasure.

What more is there to 'happiness' then chemical reactions?

Unless by 'happiness' you mean living a good life, being virtuous, etc...

But if you simply mean that temporary state of mind, that joyfully content feeling, then this type of happiness is completely governed by the chemical reactions occurring within your brain.

2. In 1808 they sure as fuck had powerful opiate derivatives/painkillers/anesthetics. Hell, heroin was first synthesized by Bayer in 1874. The use of opium as a painkiller dates back thousands of years.

Sure, and so does pot. For the majority of people living back then however, these options were not readily available. For most people if you had pain (physical or psychological), you dealt with it.

What more is there to 'happiness' then chemical reactions?

Unless by 'happiness' you mean living a good life, being virtuous, etc...

But if you simply mean that temporary state of mind, that joyfully content feeling, then this type of happiness is completely governed by the chemical reactions occurring within your brain.

you don't understand, then, and there is no way for me to make you. you might come to understand it someday, but most people don't. you will probably simply say that it's bullshit, most people would.

but it is entirely possible for man to evince himself of his animal self, and become wholly human, and to have no dependence on animal, chemical reactions. when every human is like this, devoid of their natural instincts and desires, mankind will be ready to live in peace and harmony.

you don't understand, then, and there is no way for me to make you. you might come to understand it someday, but most people don't. you will probably simply say that it's bullshit, most people would.

but it is entirely possible for man to evince himself of his animal self, and become wholly human, and to have no dependence on animal, chemical reactions. when every human is like this, devoid of their natural instincts and desires, mankind will be ready to live in peace and harmony.

Maybe for you the good life consists of a lack of desire and instinct, sitting around thinking your deep thoughts, but for most people a good life requires those "undesirable characteristics" and many would consider a life lacking these things inhumane. This is not to say pleasure should be our only concerns and we should all become gluttons to our desires and care for nothing else. But I, for one, would require a moderation of both pleasure and reason to be leading what I consider the good life.

How are humans not animals? How are we not chemical reactions? How is everything you do, think, experience not entirely dependent on chemical reactions? You, me, Earth, the universe, this is all chemical reactions taking place. It is just another level to reality.

Tell me, where is the desire for pleasure in a pleasure filled existence? I could argue that these desires only exist in me because of the lack of pleasure I experience in the first place. The world envisioned in the Hedonistic Imperative is your ideal world devoid of the desire to be happy; happiness is mandatory.

....


there is no answer to your questions.

Then there is no reason to avoid the alterations of our genes to create gradient states of bliss as the "normal" state of mind.

There may certainly be more to the good life then feeling good all the time, I agree. But as far as the state of mind we call 'happiness' goes, I do not see how it is not dependent on chemical reactions and why this concept would not work to achieve constant happiness.

you aren't going to understand. i would be a block head to try and make you.

It's quite, quite possible to stand on the Vale of Pain and Pleasure and keep going, saying "goodbye" forever to both of them.

you aren't going to understand. i would be a block head to try and make you.

I could give this same response about anything.

I could give this same response about anything.

yes, you could.

yes, you could.

You druggies piss me the fuck off.

You druggies piss me the fuck off.

yes, we do.

yes, we do.

You suck.

You suck.

no u

no u

I thought I could get you there. :(

sorry...

I still don't understand why some of you are opposed to this.

What terrible consequences would a total lack of human suffering have on the world?

I still don't understand why some of you are opposed to this.

What terrible consequences would a total lack of human suffering have on the world?

They obviously haven't even bothered to read the introduction.

I still don't understand why some of you are opposed to this.

What terrible consequences would a total lack of human suffering have on the world?

Scared of turning us into a race of decadent, indolent pussies?

Maybe human suffering plays a valid role, If it were possible to test it on a small group and nothing bad happened, then, yah, why not.

But I can see the possibility that it could backfire. Mind you I'm kinda hesitant towards genetic/chemical/etc engineering, just because I can see there there might be unseen side effects that may take generations to come to the fore; that said, I'm all for all kinds of crazy gene experiments.

Maybe human suffering plays a valid role,
It used to. But you would have known that had you bothered to read the introduction.
If it were possible to test it on a small group and nothing bad happened, then, yah, why not.
How about safe MDMA users? There are plenty of nootropics out there for anyone to experiment upon, and the different neurotransmitters they affect can be cycled so that you never get bored.

It used to. But you would have known that had you bothered to read the introduction.

Right, yeah, sure. My point is not about the survival of genes or any of that; my thoughts are that perhaps pain has a positive effect on the human psyche in smaller doses.

I have no proof of this, save for the fact that some people seem to become batter people because of pain. Then again, other do become worse for it, so it's either way really.

Then again, I guess I could raise the possibility of the fact that a lack of suffering could have a negative effect on a genetic level. I mean, I'm not sure how advanced we are in regards to gene manipulation, but is there the possibilty that we could seriously fuck up something that seriously harms our races chance of survival, maybe some genetic disease that only manifest after so many generations of painless breeding, ultimately fucking us up. We're also not guaranteed to stay in the state techonologically and socially we are at now. If, and I suppose it's possible, Civilisation colappsed and we had to return to running around in skins, perhaps the lack of pain might fuck the survival of our race up.

And again, I have no proof of these things, but the possibility may be there, and it's never as simple as just saying 'we got rid of suffering, lol'. We can discuss it theoretically forever, the practicality of it though is still something that we can't comment on until we have tested it.

Another objection I could raise is one based in Art/Aesthetics. Pain has, does and will continue to play a large part in Art (of all kinds). Once again, I can't prove this, but maybe pain adds something to the realms of art, perhaps it causes humans to appreciate certain finer feelings, that wouldn't be appreciated, or perhaps even there, if we cannot experience suffering.

I could go on, but I hope you get the point, I'm all for the abolition of pain if it is worthwile, and a good goal, but if it is going to have negative side-effects that out-weigh the positives, then it is obviously a bad idea. It has nothing to do with reading the OP, I belive myself to be rasing valid points. If you have evidence to show that they are not valid points, I will drop everything.

How about safe MDMA users? There are plenty of nootropics out there for anyone to experiment upon, and the different neurotransmitters they affect can be cycled so that you never get bored.

Sorry, I know I'm being an idiot, but I don't quite follow what you mean here.

oscar wilde would punch someone if they tried to eliminate suffering. so would most brilliant artists. that's enough for me. without suffering, there is no beauty.

oscar wilde would punch someone if they tried to eliminate suffering. so would most brilliant artists. that's enough for me. without suffering, there is no beauty.

Yeah, but is that an assumption , or the truth.

Is it neccesary to have suffering to have beauty, perhaps a lack of suffering would add a new or differant kind of beauty to our lives. maybe it would inspire new art.

Then again, maybe it wouldn't.

i think if this pipedream thing happened, art would become a thing of the past.

i would start a terrorist group to destroy this program, if it was going to succeed.

i think if this pipedream thing happened, art would become a thing of the past.

i would start a terrorist group to destroy this program, if it was going to succeed.

Who says it would be some mandatory process all people have to go through? If you could choose whether or not to have something done to you that would eliminate a persons psychological suffering and allow a person to live in varying states of bliss, would you still stand in the way of those deciding to have it done to them?

How can you be so sure this would kill art? How do you know such a process wouldn't have a chance of producing very creative people? Do you think art is merely a by-product of suffering?

Who says it would be some mandatory process all people have to go through? If you could choose whether or not to have something done to you that would eliminate a persons psychological suffering and allow a person to live in varying states of bliss, would you still stand in the way of those deciding to have it done to them?

How can you be so sure this would kill art? How do you know such a process wouldn't have a chance of producing very creative people? Do you think art is merely a by-product of suffering?

yes, i would stand in the way of other people doing this. it's... revolting.

and i am simply sure it would kill art. read oscar wildes De Profundis.

the entire idea sickens me.

yes, i would stand in the way of other people doing this. it's... revolting.

and i am simply sure it would kill art. read oscar wildes De Profundis.

the entire idea sickens me.

So, let me get this right:

It is wrong for people to choose to not suffer, it is wrong that they have that choice, but it is not wrong that you can effectively decide how far someones free-will extends?

And, of course, Oscar Wilde knows, with exact certainty, that the death of pain is the death of art?

What about if they tested it on a group of people and it was found that Art was enhanced, or if there was no change at all, would it still be wrong then?

Edit: Also, as a last question, have you ever suffered to such a brutal degree that it was intolerable? I personally never have, but I can imagine that un-imaginable torment would be something that would have had an effect on my decision in this matter, and until I suffer indescribable torment, I don't believe myself to be able to make a fully informed decision.

So, let me get this right:

It is wrong for people to choose to not suffer, it is wrong that they have that choice, but it is not wrong that you can effectively decide how far someones free-will extends?

And, of course, Oscar Wilde knows, with exact certainty, that the death of pain is the death of art?

What about if they tested it on a group of people and it was found that Art was enhanced, or if there was no change at all, would it still be wrong then?

Edit: Also, as a last question, have you ever suffered to such a brutal degree that it was intolerable? I personally never have, but I can imagine that un-imaginable torment would be something that would have had an effect on my decision in this matter, and until I suffer indescribable torment, I don't believe myself to be able to make a fully informed decision.

it's not wrong to choose not to, it's wrong to choose never to. and i trust oscar wilde. i don't believe any tests can be done either way. and the worst pain i've personally felt is horrendous, repetitive ear infections, which are supposed to be a 6-7 out of 10 on the pain scale. i might have jumped at the chance to eliminate suffering then. but i don't believe that judgment marred by the impulses your brain send out to override your will into protecting your physical embodiment is sound.

on a purely practical level, Leprosy is the death of pain. leprosy is not a skin disease, it is a nerve disease; it destroys pain receptors, and people damage themselves without knowing it, and are not alerted to problems with their body, and it's a short period of time before they begin to fall apart.

Art can certainly be used to express suffering. But to say that suffering is the sole cause of art?

I mean, I can remember back in kindergarten, painting or making stuff with clay or whatever, and I was having fun and enjoying it. Whatever I made were expressions of those emotions.

Art can certainly be used to express suffering. But to say that suffering is the sole cause of art?

I mean, I can remember back in kindergarten, painting or making stuff with clay or whatever, and I was having fun and enjoying it. Whatever I made were expressions of those emotions.

i didn't say it was the sole cause, but it's a big enough part to kill it.

How much of art do you think is caused by pain, danzig?

i don't know.

i don't know.

Then you can't say that the loss of pain could kill all of art.

Then you can't say that the loss of pain could kill all of art.

yes, i can. statistics are the lie, not intuition.

yes, i can. statistics are the lie, not intuition.

Prove it.

Prove it.

with what, statistics? it's a circular system...

with what, statistics? it's a circular system...

With your method of choice. Personally I prefer deduction, but if you can make me intuit this truth I'd accept that as well.

With your method of choice. Personally I prefer deduction, but if you can make me intuit this truth I'd accept that as well.

i can't do that. i simply tell you that this idea frightens me. without pain and suffering, there is no motivation... without self hatred, we wouldn't have beethoven, mozart, bach, berlioz, holst, byron, milton, baudelaire, wilde, rafael, michealangelo, goya, etc etc etc. all the truly great artists. i wish i still had my copy of De Profundis; oscar wilde says something to the effect of 'a long time ago i said that i wished to eat every fruit in the garden of pleasure and delight; and so i have. but i had neglected the entire other garden, of sorrow and suffering, and now, in jail, i see that without sorrow, man can not be uplifted, without suffering, man is ignoble." only it's much more meaningful and concise in his words.

i can not defend myself on any other ground then that everything inside of me rebels against the notion of the end of pain and suffering, strongly. the distinct and terrible permutations i can barely grasp are too vague for me to discern and communicate.

deduction is useful in certain matters, mostly practical matters. i wouldn't use my intuition to build a house. but with such a spiritual thing as this, i wouldn't use deduction to find a answer.

i can't do that. i simply tell you that this idea frightens me. without pain and suffering, there is no motivation... without self hatred, we wouldn't have beethoven, mozart, bach, berlioz, holst, byron, milton, baudelaire, wilde, rafael, michealangelo, goya, etc etc etc. all the truly great artists. i wish i still had my copy of De Profundis; oscar wilde says something to the effect of 'a long time ago i said that i wished to eat every fruit in the garden of pleasure and delight; and so i have. but i had neglected the entire other garden, of sorrow and suffering, and now, in jail, i see that without sorrow, man can not be uplifted, without suffering, man is ignoble." only it's much more meaningful and concise in his words.
Maybe you should read the introduction. Wilde is describing the pain-pleasure paradigm as we know it today, but in fact pain is not necessary for pleasure. Like I said earlier:

Under heaven all can see beauty as beauty only because there is ugliness.
All can know good as good only because there is evil.
Therefore having and not having arise together.
Difficult and easy complement each other.

With the naturalization of heaven, there would be no need for suffering to contrast with happiness, there would only be perpetual bliss. It's a difficult concept to understand only because you are not used to anything else; but that is the reality of it.

i can not defend myself on any other ground then that everything inside of me rebels against the notion of the end of pain and suffering, strongly. the distinct and terrible permutations i can barely grasp are too vague for me to discern and communicate.
Everything inside me rebels against the notion that we landed on the moon. I can't really explain why this is though because the distinct and terrible permutations i can barely grasp are too vague for me to discern and communicate.

deduction is useful in certain matters, mostly practical matters. i wouldn't use my intuition to build a house. but with such a spiritual thing as this, i wouldn't use deduction to find a answer.

For a truth to be objective it must be accessible to all. Why can't I find the answer with intuition?

i don't believe that pleasure can exist independent of pain. i believe that to be absurd; a creature finds it's way into a dark cave and can not escape. through successive generations, they become blind.

we may well NOT have landed on the moon. but whether we did or not could be seen with your eyes. if we went up there, we could determine for sure whether or not we had landed. when will we ever be able to prove whether or not mankind is enriched or enslaved by suffering?

truth is subjective, facts are objective. it is a objective fact that lead weighs more then hydrogen. it is subjective truth that 'the richest mantle a man can wear is that of sorrow'. while i believe that to be true, you may not. nothing that is 'true' can be proven, in the sense of 'truth' as differentiated between 'fact'.

actually, re reading this, it appears as if they want to eliminate physical pain, which is quite a seperate entity from sorrow. but eternal dopamine saturation would conflict with experience the emotion one feels at the loss of a loved one, or the emotion one feels when inadequacy torments them. when my friend dies, i want to be able to weep for him, and feel loss.

as i said, on a purely practical level, WE NEED PAIN. we will HURT ourselves without it, as in, we'll be ripping muscles apart overexerting, burning ourselves while cooking, not shifting our gait and damaging our tibia, stepping on sharp things and not noticing the wound until we can smell it... the loss of pain already has a vehicle: LEPROSY. eliminating our ability to physically hurt is a bad idea. there's a reason why the higher evolved a creature, the greater its ability to feel pain.