Post by hygenisthygenist on Jun 9, 2015 22:06:59 GMT -4
This is the work-in-progress manifesto for our new paramilitary force / political ideology. Offer comments, criticism, concerns. Hell, you could even help me write the thing if you want!
(Please note: This is a mostly-unmodified essay I wrote about Bioethical Abolitionism, and my own ideas. You will find references to one or the other.)
Bioethics has of late become a larger and larger part of public discourse. Pro-life or pro-choice, for GMOs or against, and a host of other issues that all tie into the same vein. We shall not concern ourselves with these “smaller” problems (smaller if only by comparison) in this essay. Instead we will delve into two other questions, the argument over the correct answers to which is seen by some as no less than a battle for the soul of mankind. What is asked is, to whit, is:
“Is it right to abolish suffering through the advent of bio-technology?” and
“Is using biotech on humans moral?” The writer of this essay hopes to convince the reader to be able to say, “yes” to both with a clear conscience.
The Abolitionist camp (that is, those who WANT to abolish suffering) may seem a crazy hodge-podge of different and conflicting ideas. This speaks to the disorganization of the movement. There are many differing or dissenting opinions from the main corpus of Abolitionist literature. I, for instance, deny any sort of moral system not based on net pleasure gain in addition to advocating the end of suffering. This has not made me popular with fellow Transhumanists. The essay will instead concentrate on a more palatable form of Abolitionism, one in which ethics are based on the utilitarian as opposed to the hedonistic model.
Traditional means of increasing happiness/eradicating suffering have their roots in economic reform. Communism and libertarianism immediately spring to mind. Though they are diametrically opposed, they both believe that through the abolition of the state (in communism’s case) or a laissez-faire economic policy (in the case of libertarianism) are the key to maximizing happiness. But some disagree. David Pearce at Abolitionist.com, for instance, writes “Sadly, what won't abolish suffering, or at least not on its own, is socio-economic reform, or exponential economic growth, or technological progress in the usual sense, or any of the traditional panaceas for solving the world's ills. Improving the external environment is admirable and important; but such improvement can't recalibrate our hedonic treadmill above a genetically constrained ceiling.” This is the main view of the Abolitionist, that we each have a genetic threshold for happiness, which varies among individuals, and that through biotechnology; we can eliminate the barriers to happiness that many individuals face. Also of note is that many Abolitionists turn their noses up at economic reform. While much can be said for it, it can only (at most) provide happiness to many people and never them all. Take for instance the vast wealth of Japan; it is one of the richest countries in the world. Yet it has one of the highest suicide rates ever recorded.
So what is left, then? Nothing but a complete overhaul of society and ourselves, along biological lines. For while some more may champion social reform as the panacea to all societal ills, it presents the same problem as economic reform, that of being unable to cure mental illness (the aforementioned barriers to happiness) or recalibrate the genetic set-point A.K.A the hedonistic treadmill.
There are, of course, objections to this proposal. One of the more common ones is that to eradicate suffering would make us no longer human. If suffering is a baseline requirement for being human, then I gleefully wave goodbye to humanity with one hand and welcome the post-human with the other. Another common objection is that one will lose happiness if one removes melancholy from the equation, that happiness is only extant by comparison. Would one tell the depressive-from-birth that they had not been suffering, as they have never had happiness to compare their depression to? The same principle applies to pleasure.
Still others argue that it is unnatural, or against the will of God. Many natural things we fight against, our society is an unnatural one. We have spent our entire existence as a species fighting against nature. Vaccines, books, medicine, art… How many of these things occur in nature? And conversely, how many undesired things occur in nature? Pestilence, other disease, hunger, cannibalism, murder, and rape have all existed long before humans. They are “natural” by any standard. Almost everyone, even the naturalists, would like these things gone. If unhappiness is natural and undesired, why not try to curb it like these other ills?
On the topic of religion: do you all not advocate for happiness, in this life or the next? I will use the Garden of Eden as my first example. Was not man content before the fall? Did not God bless him with perfect contentedness, ignorance of evil? And was it not through the influence of Satan that we lost it? Doesn’t this indicate that it is the will of God that we be happy, and the consul of Evil to say otherwise? And, as Christians, do you not live in eternal bliss after death? What would be the harm in bringing Heaven to Earth?
The obsession with happiness does not end at the Abrahamic religions, but has a tendril snaking through all spirituality. There are far too many religions to name that have the pursuit of happiness as the core tenet. Should you ask me, I would be able to tie it in anywhere.
And still others say that they would be bored, being constantly happy. I say back to them: “Would it please you to know that in my perfect society, we will have made boredom biologically impossible?” And some retort that this is a violation of free will, that they want to be unhappy sometimes. No one wants to be unhappy. In fact, our entire lives are marked by the pursuit of pleasure, everything that you seek out is a way to make you happy. Philanthropy, artistry, music, good food, guilt, self-sacrifice, sadomasochism, religion. what do they all share? A pleasure or obligation component. Free will in the traditional sense is but an illusion, I should also mention.
And as this essay draws to a close, I feel obligated to lay out our mission one more time:
1. The abolition of suffering through biotechnology
2. The maximization of happiness
3. The actualization of a society that allows for the above goals to be realized.
The sooner these three things are over and done with, the better for humanity and the planet as a whole. I implore you, do everything in your power to make this glorious vision of the future a reality.
(Please note: This is a mostly-unmodified essay I wrote about Bioethical Abolitionism, and my own ideas. You will find references to one or the other.)
Bioethics has of late become a larger and larger part of public discourse. Pro-life or pro-choice, for GMOs or against, and a host of other issues that all tie into the same vein. We shall not concern ourselves with these “smaller” problems (smaller if only by comparison) in this essay. Instead we will delve into two other questions, the argument over the correct answers to which is seen by some as no less than a battle for the soul of mankind. What is asked is, to whit, is:
“Is it right to abolish suffering through the advent of bio-technology?” and
“Is using biotech on humans moral?” The writer of this essay hopes to convince the reader to be able to say, “yes” to both with a clear conscience.
The Abolitionist camp (that is, those who WANT to abolish suffering) may seem a crazy hodge-podge of different and conflicting ideas. This speaks to the disorganization of the movement. There are many differing or dissenting opinions from the main corpus of Abolitionist literature. I, for instance, deny any sort of moral system not based on net pleasure gain in addition to advocating the end of suffering. This has not made me popular with fellow Transhumanists. The essay will instead concentrate on a more palatable form of Abolitionism, one in which ethics are based on the utilitarian as opposed to the hedonistic model.
Traditional means of increasing happiness/eradicating suffering have their roots in economic reform. Communism and libertarianism immediately spring to mind. Though they are diametrically opposed, they both believe that through the abolition of the state (in communism’s case) or a laissez-faire economic policy (in the case of libertarianism) are the key to maximizing happiness. But some disagree. David Pearce at Abolitionist.com, for instance, writes “Sadly, what won't abolish suffering, or at least not on its own, is socio-economic reform, or exponential economic growth, or technological progress in the usual sense, or any of the traditional panaceas for solving the world's ills. Improving the external environment is admirable and important; but such improvement can't recalibrate our hedonic treadmill above a genetically constrained ceiling.” This is the main view of the Abolitionist, that we each have a genetic threshold for happiness, which varies among individuals, and that through biotechnology; we can eliminate the barriers to happiness that many individuals face. Also of note is that many Abolitionists turn their noses up at economic reform. While much can be said for it, it can only (at most) provide happiness to many people and never them all. Take for instance the vast wealth of Japan; it is one of the richest countries in the world. Yet it has one of the highest suicide rates ever recorded.
So what is left, then? Nothing but a complete overhaul of society and ourselves, along biological lines. For while some more may champion social reform as the panacea to all societal ills, it presents the same problem as economic reform, that of being unable to cure mental illness (the aforementioned barriers to happiness) or recalibrate the genetic set-point A.K.A the hedonistic treadmill.
There are, of course, objections to this proposal. One of the more common ones is that to eradicate suffering would make us no longer human. If suffering is a baseline requirement for being human, then I gleefully wave goodbye to humanity with one hand and welcome the post-human with the other. Another common objection is that one will lose happiness if one removes melancholy from the equation, that happiness is only extant by comparison. Would one tell the depressive-from-birth that they had not been suffering, as they have never had happiness to compare their depression to? The same principle applies to pleasure.
Still others argue that it is unnatural, or against the will of God. Many natural things we fight against, our society is an unnatural one. We have spent our entire existence as a species fighting against nature. Vaccines, books, medicine, art… How many of these things occur in nature? And conversely, how many undesired things occur in nature? Pestilence, other disease, hunger, cannibalism, murder, and rape have all existed long before humans. They are “natural” by any standard. Almost everyone, even the naturalists, would like these things gone. If unhappiness is natural and undesired, why not try to curb it like these other ills?
On the topic of religion: do you all not advocate for happiness, in this life or the next? I will use the Garden of Eden as my first example. Was not man content before the fall? Did not God bless him with perfect contentedness, ignorance of evil? And was it not through the influence of Satan that we lost it? Doesn’t this indicate that it is the will of God that we be happy, and the consul of Evil to say otherwise? And, as Christians, do you not live in eternal bliss after death? What would be the harm in bringing Heaven to Earth?
The obsession with happiness does not end at the Abrahamic religions, but has a tendril snaking through all spirituality. There are far too many religions to name that have the pursuit of happiness as the core tenet. Should you ask me, I would be able to tie it in anywhere.
And still others say that they would be bored, being constantly happy. I say back to them: “Would it please you to know that in my perfect society, we will have made boredom biologically impossible?” And some retort that this is a violation of free will, that they want to be unhappy sometimes. No one wants to be unhappy. In fact, our entire lives are marked by the pursuit of pleasure, everything that you seek out is a way to make you happy. Philanthropy, artistry, music, good food, guilt, self-sacrifice, sadomasochism, religion. what do they all share? A pleasure or obligation component. Free will in the traditional sense is but an illusion, I should also mention.
And as this essay draws to a close, I feel obligated to lay out our mission one more time:
1. The abolition of suffering through biotechnology
2. The maximization of happiness
3. The actualization of a society that allows for the above goals to be realized.
The sooner these three things are over and done with, the better for humanity and the planet as a whole. I implore you, do everything in your power to make this glorious vision of the future a reality.