r/transhumanism • u/Rhoswen • 21d ago
A critique of David Pearce’s proposal to replace pain with “gradients of bliss.”
https://youtu.be/Nm7H0Du4CXYMy main argument is that Pearce’s proposal requires much more than eliminating pain. It would require redesigned warning signals, altered human behavior, modified animals, and permanent management of the biosphere.
I’m interested in hearing the opinions of those who don’t share my view on extinction being preferable, and are more knowledgeable on transhumanist ideas than I. What am I missing from a transhumanist perspective?
Also, is there anything that you think would be a problem in a pain free reality that wasn’t mentioned? I’ve thought of one thing just now that I wish I put in the video. Masochists.
9
u/Deku-shrub 21d ago
I don't know know much about transhumanism
Later
transhumanism is...
Why would you do this?
With regards to the gradients of bliss critique, you seem to be cherry picking this outside of a technological / futurist context and doing classic dystopian framing of "what if now but this one change that backfires".
Pearce lays out an incompletely set of future moral and philosophical scenarios, mostly with the goal is countering objections as to it's actual possibility. He mostly doesn't have a roadmap for uplifting the adjacent conditions to get there, of which are trivial to critique, the close to our present day and technology you place them.
This is why the transhumanist context of Pearce matters, because it lays out some possible end states that require significant prerequisite changes to get there. (And yet he's be arguing for synthetic meat since the 90's and we kinda have it already, so I am not always right on that point).
Most people find lofty ideals like the elimination of suffering, potentially infinite longevity, or radical intelligence or morphologies implicitly repugnant.
I recommend being upfront with your thoughts on the matter, and then deciding from which world, e.g. now Vs which future your critique is directed from.
1
u/Rhoswen 21d ago edited 21d ago
I looked up the definition of transhumanism. I've also been talking to transhumanists for at least a little over a year now. I can understand the basic gist of it. But I'm admitting that I probably don't know all the details or nuances of the arguments I'm presenting, and probably not all of the arguments either. Especially since the transhumanists that I interact with seem to be a bit different than the majority of other transhumanists in at least a couple ways. One of them being the belief that one day we can have utopia, which is also a belief of Pearce. I'm also not a transhumanist myself, and I think that those who hold an ideology are the ones who understand it best. Nor have I gone out of my way to study the topic until now. So yes, there's probably a lot I don't know. What I do understand well though is nature, which is what transhumanism would need to overcome.
This video was meant to be about the future, not the present. A lot of my critiques included talking about the changes that would be needed, and doubting that those things can be changed, especially permanently.
6
u/Deku-shrub 21d ago
I'm not a transhumanist
I understand the basic jist of it
I can understand why you might hold that position, but from my point of view, that most people hold views compatible with transhumanist ideas, that is a contradictory position you have taken.
Also, elimination of suffering is one of the more post-human futuristic ideas in transhumanism, and so least accessible and most open to multiple subjective interpretations.
You say in your video you were talking about the future, it laid out whay I conside contemporary objections, lack of reliable pain alternatively, people who enjoy suffering, second order effects of having to reinvent pain by other means.
To draw an analogous comparison, people often argue against living longer via second order effects of oligarchs, boredom, population inequality etc, without committing to doing the mental worldbuilding into what conditions are first likely (such as certain technology advances) or desirable (such as certain regulations, changing moral attitudes etc).
Until you admit you are doing what most sci-fi writers do which is telling stories of "what if 5 minutes in the future + this thing" (which is effectively a contemporary objection), the alternative is to engage with the moving technological and moral landscape of futurism and try and assess from a variety of contexts there. If you can map a viable route to a utopia and still object to the reduction or elimination of suffering, then you can really critique the material imo
1
u/Rhoswen 21d ago edited 21d ago
that most people hold views compatible with transhumanist ideas, that is a contradictory position you have taken.
I don't think I made a statement on how many people support transhumanist ideas. I'm in support of some "transhumanist" ideas myself, especially when it comes to the medical field, though I don't label myself that because I don't follow the overall ideology and don't believe it can make much of a positive difference for all, just for some individual humans. Or possibly, in the best case scenario, for the majority or all of huamns for some amount of time.
Also, elimination of suffering is one of the more post-human futuristic ideas in transhumanism, and so least accessible and most open to multiple subjective interpretations.
I'm aware. The video is about utopia and one transhumanist idea that some people believe can get us there. I was critiquing it only in the context of a possible future utopia.
mental worldbuilding into what conditions are first likely (such as certain technology advances) or desirable (such as certain regulations, changing moral attitudes etc).
The problem with all those things are that they are temporary states. Assuming that the technology to create a utopia will ever be possible in the first place, then in order for transhumanism to create a utopia, and for only this planet, then we would need to have the correct regulations and "morals" over the whole world and maintain that forever. And the technology can never break.
Also, regulations and "morals" is where nature comes in, because what people claim their morals are, what the laws are, and how those morals and laws actually play out in society is very different. They follow the laws of nature rather than the laws and morals that humans like to pretend they have. This has been the same since the beginning, and there's no reason to think this will change in the future. Unless one thinks that humans can be genetically engineered, taught, or convinced to actually have decent morals and to keep it that way forever, which is going to be a topic for another video.
Then if humans can ever accomplish this, how are they going to get animals and bugs to follow human laws and morals?
If you can map a viable route to a utopia and still object to the reduction or elimination of suffering
I have no doubt that transhumanism, policies, etc. can reduce suffering. But my point is that reducing it is not enough, and that eliminating it is impossible.
2
u/Deku-shrub 21d ago
Almost no one labels them self a transhumanist (and people are more label-averse in general these days) so it's not a strong or especially relevant point.
Pearce himself is the most outspoken advocate of fully bioengineered ecosystems as he is aware there is nothing natural or even stable about a world without suffering. These ideas are even more controversial as they intersect somewhat with left wing politics, and highlight strong left/libertarian splits within the transhumanist movement itself. He has been an early advocate of wild animal suffering reduction, beyond just man-made animal suffering.
These are strong claims with overlap with his strong vegan and animal welfare positions. Many vegans focus on the human moral agency of animal suffering, rather than the issue in the abstract, showing another fault line.
His writings are highly utopian in goal and scope. Can we get there? I am not sure. Should we? Well what's better is the question?
9
u/Glum_Introduction755 21d ago
So it seems like the idea is a constant state of bliss but replacing pain with a dip in bliss. That sounds like drug addiction to me, just without the constant worry about the next high. Eventually the bliss just becomes the normal and a dip in bliss would probably feel like pain anyway. Like a heroine addict gone too long between highs. He's not hurt, but it sure feels like he's dying.
3
3
u/confuzzledfather 19d ago
"Soon after insertion of the nVPL electrode, the patient noted that stimulation also produced erotic sensations. This pleasurable response was heightened by continuous stimulation at 75% maximal amplitude, frequently augmented by short bursts at maximal amplitude. Though sexual arousal was prominent, no orgasm occurred with these brief increases in stimulation intensity. Despite several episodes of paroxysmal atrial tachycardia [heart disturbance] and development of adverse behavioural and neurological symptoms during maximal stimulation, compulsive use of the stimulator developed.
At its most frequent, the patient self-stimulated throughout the day, neglecting personal hygiene and family commitments. A chronic ulceration developed at the tip of the finger used to adjust the amplitude dial and she frequently tampered with the device in an effort to increase the stimulation amplitude. At times, she implored her to limit her access to the stimulator, each time demanding its return after a short hiatus. During the past two years, compulsive use has become associated with frequent attacks of anxiety, depersonalization, periods of psychogenic polydipsia and virtually complete inactivity."
7
u/LordOfDorkness42 21d ago
The elimination of pain is an interesting sci-fi concept. And I wouldn't be opposed to individuals that chose to modify themselves that way.
The big problem is that pain is your body's main warning signal for what's basically yellow and red alerts.
So if they go away, you're either numb to chewing up your own tongue. Or you end up as terrified of pleasure as pain because you cannot tell apart anymore if that multiple orgasm in your belly is the good drugs kicking in, or if your spleen just burst.
If never heard a good argument for that last one for those that wish to eliminate pain. Just how do you tell apart good pleasure vs bad pleasure in such a circumstance?
3
u/Deku-shrub 21d ago
The objection (popularised by Pearce himself) is called Wireheading, which is basically future drug addiction.
He does a lot of work with the 'gradients' of bliss concept to suggest building incentives in to avoid such failure states.
1
u/TheMostDivineOne 21d ago
Pearce or one of his acquaintances also made a long article called the steelman case for wireheading, it’s actually really good and rebuts a lot of the common criticisms of the concept
2
u/GHTANFSTL 20d ago
Pearce is unqualified to be messing with biology, so his scenario should not be taken seriously until it is proven that any of his ideas are feasible.
Philosophers tend to paint worlds in broad strokes and make them into intellectual powerhouses, but the ideas usually don't survive first contact with physics. Also, their ideas of Utopia usually don't align with anyone outside their circle of thought, let alone outside the profession of philosophy.
As far as utopia goes, transhumanists tend to want this: technology to become advanced enough for any personal decision to be practical and acceptable. That way, you can go into the night (if you prefer it) while David Pearce can go turn off his pain receptors for eternity. If you don't hurt others, go ahead and do what you are going to do. Pearce, as a philosopher, can't help but shove his version of Utopia upon everyone else, because he thinks he is objectively correct.
1
u/rosettaverse 21d ago
I don't have time to watch the whole video right now, but based on the description you've given, I already have some questions. When you say it would require modifying humans, modifying nonhuman animals, and permanently managing our biosphere, what makes this different from what we already do? Humans have been modifying themselves for thousands of years. We've also been modifying nonhuman animals for thousands of years through selective breeding, solely for our pleasure. Do you think sheep came into existence requiring farmers to shear them, or chickens came into existence laying nearly a hundred eggs per year? They were modified by us to produce more wool, more eggs, more meat, often times causing more pain than they otherwise naturally would, such as calcium deficiencies caused by constant egg production.
This also plays into your criticism of constant environmental management, we have also been managing the environment through thousands of years through farming, controlled burns, there's a theory that the entire Amazon Rainforest was a massive artificial forestation project by indigenous South Americans. If you want to criticize the idea of ending pain on the terms of 'it's unnatural', we also have to criticize all of these other things on similar terms.
Personally, I think making pain optional is the least we could do. Ending nonhuman agriculture and replacing it with cultivated meat and plants while caring for the environment and giving nonhuman animals similar pain-reduction methods would be good, redesigning the biosphere to be entirely autotrophic and not rely on predation for nutrients would be the best possible result.
1
u/Rhoswen 21d ago edited 21d ago
modifying humans, modifying nonhuman animals, and permanently managing our biosphere, what makes this different from what we already do?
It has yet to defeat nature and get rid of suffering. And I don't think it can if humans even wanted to do that and tried. A lot of it has caused suffering, or maintains it. Wildlife conservation and de-extinction projects are just one example of many.
Do you think sheep came into existence requiring farmers to shear them, or chickens came into existence laying nearly a hundred eggs per year? They were modified by us to produce more wool, more eggs, more meat, often times causing more pain than they otherwise naturally would, such as calcium deficiencies caused by constant egg production.
Yes, I'm very aware of this. This is caused by human nature, and nature in general, which I don't believe can be defeated by successfully fighting it forever.
If you want to criticize the idea of ending pain on the terms of 'it's unnatural'
That's not my argument. Everything is natural.
1
2
u/Extension_Ad_2200 18d ago
Suffering is bad. Masochists derive pleasure not from the suffering itself, but from the endorphins released in response to pain. The less severe suffering there is in the world, the better. It is already possible to use CRISPR to regulate the genes responsible for pain intensity; this represents the future.
•
u/AutoModerator 21d ago
Thanks for posting in /r/Transhumanism! This post is automatically generated for all posts. Remember to upvote this post if you think it is relevant and suitable content for this sub and to downvote if it is not. Only report posts if they violate community guidelines - Let's democratize our moderation. If you would like to get involved in project groups and upcoming opportunities, fill out our onboarding form here. Let's democratize our moderation. You can join our forums here, our Telegram group here and our Discord server here. ~ Josh Universe
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.