www.abolitionist-society.com

Please post any and all reasons why you think the Abolitionist project should not be adopted as humanity's prime ethical directive.

As well as whether or not the WTA should adopt the Abolitionist directive - as opposed to simply the concern for the wellfare of all sentient beings.

It would be a little easier if we could examine each smallest facet of the project, point by point. To do the whole thing would take a book, I think.

basically the Abolitionist project is the application of this directive;

a rational/scientific approach towards minimizing suffering and maximizing happiness leading to the abolition of involuntary suffering

Dave Pearce and others (myself included) may put forward theories regarding what we believe to be critical technologies, but those are just individual theories and not neccessarily the opinion of all who would promote the prime directive.

Specifically, what I'd like to debate is whether or not we should promote that humanity adopt the global prime directive.

 

There is no way to implement this as a "global prime directive"

The best you can do is to spread your memes effectively.  Though considering that a singularity will probably occur this century, we better get moving.  I think that your memes are productive and I have brought up the Hedonistic Imperative on my school message boards and so forth.

Nevertheless, I am dedicating much more of my time to promoting the WTA, which was also co-founded by Pearce.  The Abolitionist Project seems to be focusing on convincing those who are already transhumanists, whereas the WTA are a broader group dedicated to promoting and defending science and reason to ensure a safe and positive posthuman future.

Abolitionist:

a rational/scientific approach towards minimizing suffering and maximizing happiness

This is my problem.  Life as always sucked and should continue to do so.  Old problems our solved, new ones are realized.  This is what causes advancement.  Utopia leads to nothing but stagnation and death.

Ideally, I'd like to see the WTA adopt the Abolitionist directive - though I think it will likely require many updates as we progress.

We don't currently have the power to implement the Abolitionist directive globally - I hope it will be adopted by all nations over time until we eventually unify. It's an ideal that runs counter to Darwinian-designed behaviors, so I expect it will be accepted gradually.

 

 

ideal:

Utopia leads to nothing but stagnation and death.

We've never seen a utopia.

Our ability to change and adapt must be preserved if we wish to continue to have the ability (as a species) to create happiness.

So how can we learn without suffering? ;

www.gradients.com

In a very real way I think we have(wireheading in rats).  Wireheading seems, to me, to be the only way to accomplish utopia.  It could be done in a fashion that prevents it from being harmful but, unlike rats, humans are intelligent enough to bypass security percautions(or simply kill themselves trying).

I don't particularly believe suffering is necessary to learn.  I believe it's necessary to function and possess the normal motivations of a human being, along with maintaining health.  Obviously, there are areas where pain and 'suffering' are necessary for learning, but this pain is often soon forgotten.

ideal:

In a very real way I think we have already seen utopia for rats (wireheading).  Wireheading seems, to me, to be the only way to accomplish utopia.  It could be done in a fashion that prevents it from being harmful but, unlike rats, humans are intelligent enough to bypass security precautions (or simply kill themselves trying).

Unfortunately, the rats were still suffering in the experiments - though they experienced intense pleasure.

I agree there is the danger of deep brain stimulation being used to transform one's self into a mono erotic vegetable - but I doubt many are likely to pursue that route. So far - studies have shown that when humans have the ability to stimulate their pleasure centers directly and at will - they do not do so compulsively like rats do - instead only stimulating when a boost is percieved to be necessary;

http://www.paradise-engineering.com/brain/

Abolitionist wrote, "a rational/scientific approach towards minimizing suffering and maximizing happiness"

As a general goal I have no problem at all with this. My criticism is that this is a neverending process. There will never be a point where we achive perfection and that will be that. Suffering can and should be reduced but, I don't think it will ever be totally eliminated. I think change ensures that suffering might arise again in new, unexpected forms. If we solve the old problems, the solution creates new ones, forever.

I don't know exactly how to prove this. I suppose it's my creed but, I think that the universe is structured in such a way that novelty never ceases. There'll always be something new around the bend. Perfection, like infinity or eternity, is something to be strived for but never reached. The absolute elimination of all suffering implies a level of perfection--and stasis!-- that I don't think is attainable by finite beings, superhumanly intelligent or not.

That said, it may be possible to attain near perfect mental health for the homo sapiens brain but, this implies nothing about the mental health problems of superhumanly intelligent beings which are simply beyond our ken.

There might be an infinite heirarchy of intelligent creatures, each more intelligent than the creatures of previous levels. The creatures can quickly understand and solve the problems of less intelligent creatures (We can make life very good for ants for example.) but will find their own problems very difficult. They, in turn, are regarded with some pity and compassion by still more intelligent creatures.

As on Earth, so in Heaven--only there is no heaven, no paradise. It's just an infinite regress.

I arrived at this line of thinking after considering the implications of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. Basically Godel implied that within any interesting (And "interesting" is not a trivial word to use here.) formalizable system, you can formulate statements that can't be proved within that system. You might be able to prove some of these statements but often you forced to create a new, grander system that includes the previous system as a subset. This process is open ended and endless because in the new system you can again make statements that the new system can't prove. It just goes on and on.

So if math means anything, I think that we are forced to accept that science will never be complete, that ethics will never be complete, that anything interesting based on logic will never be complete.

Anyway, that's where I'm coming from when contemplating the abolitionist project. Nice enough goal, I just don't think it will ever be finished. 

Abolitionist:

I agree there is the danger of deep brain stimulation being used to transform one's self into a mono erotic vegetable - but I doubt many are likely to pursue that route.

 I'm afraid I don't share your faith in the strength of character of my fellow man.

Mr. Farlops:

Abolitionist wrote, "a rational/scientific approach towards minimizing suffering and maximizing happiness"

As a general goal I have no problem at all with this. My criticism is that this is a neverending process. There will never be a point where we achive perfection and that will be that. Suffering can and should be reduced but, I don't think it will ever be totally eliminated. I think change ensures that suffering might arise again in new, unexpected forms. If we solve the old problems, the solution creates new ones, forever.

It might prove to be neverending, it is possible that the human race could become extinct before the project is realized.

IMO - it doesn't matter, in part because we can't say that the Abolitionist project is impossible.

ideal:

Abolitionist:

I agree there is the danger of deep brain stimulation being used to transform one's self into a mono erotic vegetable - but I doubt many are likely to pursue that route.

 I'm afraid I don't share your faith in the strength of character of my fellow man.

Apparently continuous pleasure center self-stimulation (as seen in the Heath studies) was aversive rather than pleasurable - otherwise the humans involved in the study would have continuously pressed the button.

This could simply be due to the design of Heath's study protocols. There may very well be a form of pleasure center stimulation that would cause humans to compulsively self-stimulate like rats. Would a human be likely to consciously turn themselves into a permanent quivering mass of bliss? I doubt it considering the design of human consciousness, yet the danger would still need to be addressed.

IMO, society can rightly intervene when an individual chooses an action that can destroy their ability to experience pleasure in the future (through inability to survive in this context) and when an individual's behavior causes suffering to others.

 

Abolitionist wrote, "It might prove to be neverending...."

Well, as long as you are aware of that, my key objection is answered. 

Abolitionist:

Would a human be likely to consciously turn themselves into a permanent quivering mass of bliss?

 

 I think so.  I have nothing solid to go on for this assumption, but I've seen a lot of intelligent, happy people do incredible damage to themselves through drug use.