Hedonopia...can be achieved.

http://www.hedweb.com/welcome.htm :sunglasse

The Hedonistic Imperative 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 developed world take its routine absence for granted. The prospect that what we describe as psychological pain, too, could be banished is equally counter-intuitive. The feasibility of its abolition turns its deliberate retention into an issue of social policy and ethical choice.

 

Some people endure lifelong emotional depression or physical pain. Quite literally, they are never happy. They may blame their misery on the very nature of the world, not just their personal clinical condition. Yet it would be a cruel doctrine which pretended that such people don't really suffer because they can't contrast their sense of desolation with joyful memories!

Conversely, the euphoria of unmixed (hypo)mania is not dependent for its sparkle on recollections of misery. Given the state-dependence of memory, negative emotions may simply be inaccessible to consciousness in such an exalted state. Likewise, it is possible that our perpetually euphoric descendants will find our contrastive notion of unhappiness quite literally inconceivable! For when one is extraordinarily super-well, then it's hard to imagine what it might be like to be chronically mentally ill.

Here's a contemporary parallel. People with Anton's Syndrome not only become blind; they are unaware of their sensory deficit. Furthermore, they lose all notion of the meaning of sight. They no longer possess the neurological substrates of the visual concepts by which their past and present condition could be compared and contrasted. Our genetically joyful descendants may, or may not, undergo an analogous loss of cognitive access to the nature and variant textures of suffering. Quite plausibly, they will have gradients of sublimity to animate their lives and infuse their thoughts. So at least they'll be able to make analogies and draw parallels. But fortunately for their sanity and well-being, they won't be able to grasp the true frightfulness lying behind any linguistic remnants of the past.

 

If I break my leg it hurts, getting high on morphine does not help. If life is hard I can get off my face on drugs, my life does not get better. Taking away the pain to ignore the problem is weakness, strength is keeping the pain as a reminder you have a problem to sort out. Of course this is largely a philosophical point, if my leg is broken of course im going to get it plastered and im sure id appreciate a painkiller to help and of course theres a host of medical conditions these days where they can be healed with time or at least life prolonged and painkillers can form a part of that.

I do however take exception to powerful drugs or any future nanotechnology being used to take away psychological pain. When pain is in the mind is far easier to take the painkiller and pretend the leg isnt broken, to use the previous example. We wouldnt accept walking into a hospital with a broken leg and just being given powerful painkillers, why should we accept it with our minds? In short this wont get rid of our psychological pain it'll just cover it up, that I would argue is medically unethical and just outright wrong, not to mention taking the whole aspect of bettering yourself as a person out of life.

 

You are speaking as if this is nothing more than a temporary fix. It's not.

Besides, suffering is often just coarsening and brutalising. If one is sunk in hopeless despair, it is as difficult to care about one's inner growth as it is to care about other people. Personal growth is more likely to unfold if one's appetite for life gets steadily keener. This will occur if one's experiences get progressively richer and more rewarding.

"Odysseys" of self-exploration across the hedonic landscape can offer scope for ever-deepening self-discovery and idealised self-reinvention. "Odysseys" of pain and misfortune are as likely to desensitise or crush one's spirit as develop it.

Under the genetic status quo, cultivating a sense of personal development is a comforting form of rationalisation, e.g: if I hadn't lost my legs in the accident 20 years ago I would never have become a great artist. So it proved a blessing in disguise after all! However, if that some person were told 20 years of suffering lay ahead if one sacrificed one's legs, but boundless self-development would follow in consequence, then one still wouldn't opt for it; and quite right too.

Yet when the biochemistry of suffering becomes only an optional neural add-on, the solace that rationalisation provides will no longer be needed.

NOW, as far as your complaint that it's unethical and "wrong" of the psychological pain... Until the development of powerful pain-killing drugs and modern surgical anaesthesiology, frightful extremes of physical suffering were simply a part of the human condition. The unendurable just had to be lived through.

Now, in the present era our access to potent narcotics means, for the most part, that we no longer need to rationalise physical torments with the desperate sophistries typical of the past.

Ethically, the supposedly ennobling properties of agonies of the spirit are still widely respected just as those people rationalized their own torments (which we now don't have to suffer thanks to progress). Perhaps this attitude will change when retaining the capacity to feel psychological pain becomes a perverse genetic aberration rather than a condition of existence; and when inflicting it on others becomes an unthinkable crime.

 

My point is that pain has a cause, if you take a drug that takes away the pain of hunger you can still die of starvation. If your depressed because your grieving, you can numb the pain, you cant bring back the relative and one day the patient will have to come to terms with that fact. It is true that conditions like manic depression can occur from seemingly nothing or at least from something minor and temporary, but the majority of the worlds pain comes from something real. For those few specific examples like manic depression then some kind of nano-technological prozac would be brilliant.

Chemically, yes pain is is just some kind of sensory input, physical pain comes from nerves and mental pain comes from more complex situations such as fear or depression. Im going to take a wild guess that the billions of people living below the poverty line mostly feel the pain of hunger, thirst, cold and disease in varying orders. I dont suggest that we take away peoples ability to feel thristy, hungry or cold, I can guarantee that the outcome will be worse. The ability to take away pain is a very useful ability but you have to be careful or you take away peoples motivation and passion.

 

First of all, it is not suggested that we take away essential workings necessary to the survival of the human race, but only to gratify them on a consistent basis. Why should hunger be painful? One could still retain rational thought and realize the importance of survival situations when they arise. People would not be doped up or blissed out of their heads, mind you.

Not only will we be more encouraged to take care of ourselves, but enriched serotonergic, phenylethylamine, oxcytocin and opiate functions will allow us to care much more for each other and our dependants than normally allowed today.

 

Talking from me personally my pain and my regrets make me aim to be a better person, they remind me of my mistakes, help me not to make them again. Taking them away would take away something of me as a person. Im not going to pretend they're pleasant feelings, but I wouldn't say they're bad feelings. Taking that away would not only be a form of social (possibly rather clandestine genetic) engineering but I think it would make me worse as a person. I would not worry about deadlines, so why aim to achieve them. Infact my life would be bliss regardless of what I did, so why do anything?

Mental pain or physical pain I cant see how my life would be made better by removing either one. Of course we need treatments for when things go out of control. As for hunger not being painful im sure we've all felt 'pangs' of hunger, im pretty sure that when you convert that to poor countries, we can assume it hurts. Pain is simply the minds way of telling us that something is wrong, not having enough food is definately something wrong.

I certainly do not agree that pain is necessarily bad, in the same way I do not necessary think euphoria is always good.

 

Apparently, you are equating this technology with loss of common sense. My deadlines can be completed without the stress that comes with it. I have met deadlines without stress and those with it. And I have to say that I did a much better job without it.

Again, this would enable us to be able to have more energy and willpower to accomplish our goals without headache and heartache. I don't see the quality suffering at all just because the pain has been removed.

You may see things from a Negative Liberty philosophy, but this is a Positive Liberty technology. To say that we need to pain to appreciate pleasure will soon be primitive in thought. Of course a prisoner is happy when he gets out of prison (negative liberty), but I do not contrast my happiness with my misery to lead me to appreciate my happiness. Why does it have to be measured in this way?

It doesn't.

Pleasure is in degrees, but it is still pleasure. We feel it in degrees even today. However, pain and suffering "teaching lessons" is the primitive mindset. As I stated earlier, the pain that many people went through in the past may HAVE led them in certain directions that were beneficial, but today many others can have this and much more benefit without suffering that pain. Essentially positive liberty says that pleasure is not dependent on recollections of pain.

As far as our survival, you are merely seeing it from the instinctual/emotional brain. But, the rational brain does not diminish these qualities, thus this technology would not diminish the ability to conceive of taking care of ourselves. It would simply create a more pleasurable atmosphere.

 

Im not someone who believes that you need pain to appreciate happiness, there may well be an element of truth, but I dont necessarily buy it. To use the hunger analogy you seem to be assuming that hunger and pain are somehow separate emotions, that we can still feel hunger without feeling pain. Of course for most people reading this hunger rarely lasts long but that doesnt change anything. The pain is not separate from the hunger they are the same thing take away the pain and you take away the hunger.

A future society will learn to embrace its pain and use it to make them strong. However its doesnt take away that my central point is that pain is a symptom not a cause. Taking away societies problems by stopping caring about them is certainly not a feature of any society I want to be part of, sounds rather Orwellian to me.

Anyway its largely irrelevant, im not a biochemist, so I cant really comment on the GE aspect, but nanotechnology is so laughable at the moment, I dont think we're going to live long enough to have to worry about this technology personally. I sat through a lecture on nanomangetism techniques recently it rememinded me of being a caveman using a flint stone as a hammer, on a nanoscale. On a macroscale it was very impressive. What your talking about would almost require the nanotechnoloy, assuming it is even possible to take something as qualitative as human emotion and monitor it with a computer, to be able to detect the exact mental state of the mind and the type of pain and severity and act accordingly, this could not be done with current comuting. So your talking about progressing from lumps crude lumps of nanostuff to developing computers more powerful (or at least clever) than availbale today, im not suggesting it'll take 2000 years but I wouldnt hold your breath. Thankfully.

 

It appears that you are basically saying two things here:

1) That certain instincts necessary for survival would be eliminated.
2) That pain is necessary for personal development.

First off, I do not wait until I am in pain before I eat, drink, bathe or whatever. Now, the situation of unpriviledged people in the world is one thing, but on all but the most optimistic projections, the great majority of the world's population aren't going to achieve First World lifestyles for the foreseeable future. We most assuredly do, however, have the resources to enable the whole planetary population to be magnificently happy. And life enjoyable.

If, for a start, a minute fraction of the resources currently poured into zero-sum status-goods and consumer fripperies were diverted to researching the development of safe, cheap, effective mood brighteners, delayed-action designer euphoriants, and genetically pre-programmed mental super-health, then we would all be far better off. This is no less true of the jaded plutocrat than the impoverished Third World peasant.

You this technology doesn't fill your belly or give you instant gratification. It is not a substitute for satisfaction, but a development to give us a much better life...a much happier existence.

Now, the second point I think has already been covered.

Although such maxims as "No Pain, No Gain" are ingrained in today's primitive mind, this is may be true (relatively), but is certainly not necessary. Much can be gained without suffering. We have come extremely far from the last century in eliminating such suffering that our ancestors had to endure, yet we don't consider them as "better for it" than we had did not suffer those indignities and excruciating pains.

Again, pain is not necessary for human development. This is sophistry spun by apologists of the primitive thought process and has been exposed in the light of current medicines and modern technological comforts.

Today, needless to say, this sounds like the wildest science fantasy. But even if we rely only on extrapolation, not revolutionary conceptual and technical breakthroughs, then the implementation of the abolitionist program is still grounded in relatively well-understood science.

 

I disagree I believe that pain is just as important as happiness for human development, especially as you seem to be extrapolating pain tomean a generally low state of happiness. As I said I dont necessarily believe you need one to appreciate the other, I do believe they're both important. We're clearly not going to agree on this one, perhaps its better that the 'treatment' is optional, but then again im one of those old fashioned people who waits till they have cancer before starting on chemo.

As for the science leaving philosophy behind. A couple of quick calculations leads to the conclusion that a computing nano device capable of permeating the brains membrane is amost certianly going to need sub 100A component sizes. Which in turn is going to require at the very minimum molecular computers. This is comforatbly a couple of nobel prizes away form where we are. Given that right now there is no analytical technique for protein folding or any kind of molecular behaviour.

 

Personal growth is more likely to unfold if one's appetite for life gets steadily keener. This will occur if one's experiences get progressively richer and more rewarding.

Again, our ancestors used their suffering as "blessings in disguise" (religious-motivated language) and took solace in rationalizing their pain. We, today, don't have to suffer much of the same pain they did, yet we are not lesser humans. If anything, I am sure they'd have traded places with us in a heartbeat given the chance.

Thus, as I see physical pain of surgery unnecessary (and most people will agree), there is no need for psychological suffering in order to progress with dignity and develop into a better human being.

On this perspective, our descendants are no more likely to submit themselves to emotional pain and malaise than we would today opt to undergo a major surgical operation without an anaesthetic.

And as far as optional treatment, in practice, an ethic of absolute personal freedom is probably untenable. We sometimes override the choices and desires of simple minds. It would be cruel to do otherwise. Non-human animals, the severely mentally disabled and very young children don't know their own interests; mature adults are presumed different. The problem here is that our advanced descendants - may perceive us as primitive and as comparatively no less mentally defective than are toddlers or pets in our eyes today.

Any advanced intelligence may discern the analogous way that Darwinian minds are locked in dysfunctional cycles of self-abuse - unaware of our own interests. If so, then should we/small children be allowed to keep on hurting ourselves so badly? However, there is no coercion in this project. The option indeed lies with the person.

But, it will be almost impossible to operate in future world if you are not up to par with the times. Most people aren't forced to drive cars or take public transportation to work. Most people aren't forced to watch television or use a cell phone or internet. But, most people do.

This technology will not have to be forced, it will be a force that is irresistible. A force that our primitive minds can only dream of. Or fear unnecessarily.

This is no more a wild science fiction than the concept of the vast majority of technological advances. It only appears to be such to our primitive mind. Can you imagine our ancestors of the ancient world contemplating the internet? Or space probes? Even tv? What about the advances in psychological sciences or the medicinal evolution of man? Hardly.

The reason that the prospect of molecular hedonic engineering hasn't yet been explored by nanotechnology theorists is not that the technology involved is uniquely challenging. It's because tough-minded technocrats have different ends in mind.

 

A paralyzed person still needs to insure that they have not injured themselves. Because they can quite easily do very real damage to themselves without even knowing it.
Wouldn't taking away emotional pain cause some people to mire in apathy? It does have motivational properties.
Much of what I've gone through since the car accident I was in...On days with no narcotic pain meds I would sink myself into work to distract myself from the pain. I still would've worked either way..
Granted, this is all conjecture.. I think lessening pain, while still recognizing it as pain might be an admirable goal.

 

Im not saying its impossible, infact it probably isnt. Im just saying that there is no clear path to it right now, nor do I think there will be very soon. Its not science and technology we're waiting on but maths. At the moment the only way to describe such systems uses equations is to use computational techniques. Theres a project called folding@home which uses the worlds computers to try and calculate the folding of proteins, this is an example of how such things are done at the moment, you get everybody on the planet to do a bit and after enough years you may get some worthwhile data. Its all very interesting but does lead to the big problem with doing any actual engineering at this level, theres no easy way to design things as the equations are not soluble. Also you have to worry about quantum mechanical effects allthough they can be a blessing not just a hinderance. It really is an interesting field but we really are starting from scratch.

 

No pain no gain !

 

Ironically thats pretty much what you would be doing.

 

If you are pyschologically in pain, then you need to confront those pains and solve them.

Anyway, I agree with Fattony, if you don't feel pain, many won't be motivated to remedy the situation. Maybe this technology you're talking about could be more of a perscription, a short term fix to a big problem. Ignoring the problem isn't ever the solution. And pain is the only way our body or mind can tell us something is wrong. So, if we don't feel pain, we may not realize the problems.

 

Our primitive brains will awaken from the psychological dependence on "suffering" one day and our descendents will laugh at our reasoning in ridicule. As we laugh at the primitive notions that pain is needed in childbirth.

Only our psychological pain will not be given an epidural, but a chemical change of awareness and positivity.

 

We dont suffer pain bacause all of our primitive minds possess some sadistic subconscious, or at least not as a rule. We suffer pain because something is wrong, the cure is not a drug or some kind of futuristic anesthetic that only numbs certain parts of us. The cure is to solve the problem.

I may be wrong and as a man ill probably never find out, but ive always been under the impression that women like child birth to be as natural as possible for the achievement and in some cases that after millions of years natures way may be best in some way. Im guessing it comes with a huge sense of achievement, that in the long run is worth more than dulling a few minutes of pain. I think a future society will develop the mental capacity to think of physical pain as a short moment in time and have the ability to remove themselves from it, even now there are plenty of people who can do it. Of course its not always a good thing they tend to be the ones who only go to the doctor very late in th day which for something like cancer isnt always the best long term decision.