ideal:

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.

I should have written intentionally instead of consciously. No doubt there is always the possibility for error. I don't think that wireheading presents any more risk than the currently available methods of potentially destroying one's self.

There will certainly need to be controls placed on it's use.

Perhaps a long, intense session of wireheading-combined with useful learning will be an option in the future. There are many ways to make either intermittent 'pacemaker' type wireheading protocols as well as intense (therapeutic) pleasure useful to both the individual and society.

Mr. Farlops:

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

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

Yes, the Hedonistic Imperative is David Pearce's theory about how things are likely to unfold. (among other things)

When thinking about the difficulty of completing the Abolitionist project - think about the complexity of computer programs of the post-human age - a program can be very complex yet designed to operate within certain parameters (suffering is not designed into the program.)

Abolitionist:

I don't think that wireheading presents any more risk than the currently available methods of potentially destroying one's self.

Have to disagree again.  The reason I didn't constantly drink in large quantities when I was a teen(aside from the fact that doing so would have prevented me from making the money to buy more alcohol) is because everytime I drank in large quantities I regretted it later.  The apparent goal of wireheading bypasses the 'suffering' of a hangover.  While I've never personally done any illegal drugs, I would imagine most have similar drawbacks.

ideal:

Abolitionist:

I don't think that wireheading presents any more risk than the currently available methods of potentially destroying one's self.

Have to disagree again.  The reason I didn't constantly drink in large quantities when I was a teen(aside from the fact that doing so would have prevented me from making the money to buy more alcohol) is because everytime I drank in large quantities I regretted it later.  The apparent goal of wireheading bypasses the 'suffering' of a hangover.  While I've never personally done any illegal drugs, I would imagine most have similar drawbacks.

Would you choose to intentionally induce a mental state that would make you unable to live past a few days? I don't see why this goal would be likely to appeal to humans in the future when this seems likely to be feasible.

The design of deep brain stimulation protocols could be controlled by an oversight committee to ensure that people don't accidentally kill or harm themselves.

Abolitionist:

Would you choose to intentionally induce a mental state that would make you unable to live past a few days? I don't see why this goal would be likely to appeal to humans in the future when this seems likely to be feasible.

I might.  It really depends on the process that leads to it, much like knowingly taking dangerous amounts of drugs. 

The design of deep brain stimulation protocols could be controlled by an oversight committee to ensure that people don't accidentally kill or harm themselves.

The danger of people hacking the system is still there though. 

The danger is there right now - but I don't know of any cases where deep brain stimulation has been used outside of clinical research. If one was rich enough - they might be able to convince a neurosurgeon from a Cuban clinic to perform the operation... 

Brain surgery is not likely to become freely accessible to the masses anytime soon. Implantation of the DBS electrodes requires an expensive, elaborate, and risky operation.

 The operation can be streamlined through the use of better guided electrode postioning technology. Also nanotechnology may present options for less-invasive electrode implantation.

Since you asked me to bring my new objections to the abolitionist program from Nydra's mental diversity thread to this one, I've obliged:

Abolitionist wrote, "At the same time - is it ethical to choose to create beings that suffer in order to serve the percieved needs of society? (not that this is usually the motivation to procreate IMO)"

That's not really the way I'd put it. I'd ask, "Is it ethical to remove individual emotional freedom to serve some grand goal?" Or even better, I'd ask, "How do we ensure emotional healthiness and robustness and not merely emotional restriction?" Or, "How do we cure emotional pathologies, like depression and mania?" Or best of all, "How do we avoid oversimplification when we define what is emotionally pathological?"

You see, what I'm fearful of creating is an emotional monoculture of shiny, happy people. Evolution, even the Lamarkian evolution of cultural change or scientific advances, shows us that monocultures tend to be unstable. Diversity is the best way to face change robustly. If one solution fails there are dozens of others to fall back on. If this robustness in the face of change means there has to be a little unavoidable suffering, well, that's the breaks. Stasis is unhealthy.

Have you seen the movie Equilibrium? That would be an example of the abolitionist program badly applied. I'm not saying that's a certainty. I'm just saying that our enthusiasm to abolish all forms of suffering might lead to that if we are not careful.

Abolitionist wrote, "... I think that empathy is ultimately a dead end [because]... we'll need beings that are able to keep in mind a larger ethical picture than their locus."

But I don't see how that can ever be avoidable. I think that is a requirement there by definition. The eternal tension between the group and the individual will always be there. We are neither ants (Where society not only matters more than the individual, society is the individual.) nor reptiles (Where there is no society just highly territorial individuals that occasionally mate and then abandon clutches of eggs.).

I'd argue that the eternal tension is what generates a lot cultural novelty. Focus too strongly one way or the other and creativity dies.

Mr. Farlops:

Since you asked me to bring my new objections to the abolitionist program from Nydra's mental diversity thread to this one, I've obliged:

Abolitionist wrote, "At the same time - is it ethical to choose to create beings that suffer in order to serve the percieved needs of society? (not that this is usually the motivation to procreate IMO)"

That's not really the way I'd put it. I'd ask, "Is it ethical to remove individual emotional freedom to serve some grand goal?" Or even better, I'd ask, "How do we ensure emotional healthiness and robustness and not merely emotional restriction?" Or, "How do we cure emotional pathologies, like depression and mania?" Or best of all, "How do we avoid oversimplification when we define what is emotionally pathological?"

You see, what I'm fearful of creating is an emotional monoculture of shiny, happy people. Evolution, even the Lamarkian evolution of cultural change or scientific advances, shows us that monocultures tend to be unstable. Diversity is the best way to face change robustly. If one solution fails there are dozens of others to fall back on. If this robustness in the face of change means there has to be a little unavoidable suffering, well, that's the breaks. Stasis is unhealthy.

Have you seen the movie Equilibrium? That would be an example of the abolitionist program badly applied. I'm not saying that's a certainty. I'm just saying that our enthusiasm to abolish all forms of suffering might lead to that if we are not careful.

Abolitionist wrote, "... I think that empathy is ultimately a dead end [because]... we'll need beings that are able to keep in mind a larger ethical picture than their locus."

But I don't see how that can ever be avoidable. I think that is a requirement there by definition. The eternal tension between the group and the individual will always be there. We are neither ants (Where society not only matters more than the individual, society is the individual.) nor reptiles (Where there is no society just highly territorial individuals that occasionally mate and then abandon clutches of eggs.).

I'd argue that the eternal tension is what generates a lot cultural novelty. Focus too strongly one way or the other and creativity dies.

Thanks Mr. F, I'm always happy to see your posts even when they contradict mine because they are high-quality and sincere.

Here's my take on your message : there is the danger of focusing blindly on hedonic maximization at the cost of survival of the species. I agree this is a valid concern.

IMO, we should evaluate our drive to survive in light of the Abolitionist directive. If we pursue the maximization of happiness - it might be ethical to continue Darwinian procreation in some cases.

IMO, survival of the species (though not in the present manner) will be needed to promote the maximization of happiness and our ability to eliminate suffering.

How might we resolve the tension between individual and society (or the tension caused by learning and interaction in general)?;

www.gradients.com - is a start

Ab,

I'm not as concerned over the survival of the species as I'm concerned over the survival of our culture. I'm concerned that the abolitionist project, if we are not careful, will steer our civilization towards stasis and away from creativity and innovation. It's possible that a society, treated in the manner your program suggests, might become very reactionary and fearful of change because change is a threat to their happy stasis.

I'll state it bluntly: Suffering generates novelty. That seems to be the unavoidable horror of the world. If society has nothing to struggle for or fight against, if everyone is perfectly and eternally satisfied, change stops.

Maybe I only see this as an insoluble problem because I'm limited to human levels of intelligence but, I have a suspicion that this is fundamental.

I also wish to make plain this is not an luddite argument. If anything it embraces change and embraces new solutions to current problems. I just mean that this process is neverending and anything that smells of stasis is to be avoided. 

I agree with Mr.Farlops and I have to add that it could constitute as an existential risk. Persuing the abolitionist prime directive would be extremly dangeorous, not for the reason that it might fail, but for the potential to succede.

As far as suffering is concerned it is necesary evolutionary tool. One that has no replacement in the short term. Maybe in posthumans some methods arise, but simply to switch it off would be insane.

Mr. Farlops:

I'm not as concerned over the survival of the species as I'm concerned over the survival of our culture. I'm concerned that the Abolitionist project, if we are not careful, will steer our civilization towards stasis and away from creativity and innovation. It's possible that a society, treated in the manner your program suggests, might become very reactionary and fearful of change because change is a threat to their happy stasis.

I'll state it bluntly: Suffering generates novelty. That seems to be the unavoidable horror of the world. If society has nothing to struggle for or fight against, if everyone is perfectly and eternally satisfied, change stops.

Maybe I only see this as an insoluble problem because I'm limited to human levels of intelligence but, I have a suspicion that this is fundamental.

I also wish to make plain this is not an luddite argument. If anything it embraces change and embraces new solutions to current problems. I just mean that this process is neverending and anything that smells of stasis is to be avoided.

IMO, change is only useful if it leads to increased happiness. Why else should we change?

Humans can (in theory) still be motivated to change, learn, and adapt to their environment without suffering - but this will require a redesign of the motivational system.

 We'll need to be able to change and adapt in order to survive and propagate pleasure throughout the known universe.

Suffering naturally seems unavoidable - IMO : it's impossible to imagine a world free of suffering given the design of the human mind.

urchinstar47:

I agree with Mr.Farlops and I have to add that it could constitute as an existential risk. Persuing the Abolitionist prime directive would be extremly dangerous, not for the reason that it might fail, but for the potential to succeed.

As far as suffering is concerned it is a necesary evolutionary tool. One that has no replacement in the short term. Maybe in posthumans some methods arise, but simply to switch it off would be insane.

Pleasurable alternatives to suffering can be developed and are already available in the here and now. I know of no Abolitionist that advocates switching pain off without a viable alternative in the present.

urchinstar47:

I don't think that we can do that right now.

Pleasurable alternatives to suffering?

Ab wrote, "IMO, change is only useful if it leads to increased happiness. Why else should we change?"

What if we face something unexpected? Again, your opinion seems to suggest a reactionary stance to me--the apathetic bliss of the lotophagi. 

Ab wrote, "Humans can (in theory) still be motivated to change, learn, and adapt to their environment without suffering - but this will require a redesign of the motivational system."

Well, maybe so, I'll need to see it to believe it. Or maybe you can outline specifically what needs to be changed in the human motivational system to accomplish this.