I've heard the proposal to create a hyperthymic civilisation ( cf. Happiness is the Key by Andrés Gómez Emilsson. As a teen, I used naively to think I was the world’s only negative utilitarian. That said, a lot of interesting theoretical work has been done in recent years. Biotechnology, the CRISPR revolution and IT mean you can believe we should get rid of the biology of suffering without endorsing any kind of utilitarian ethic at all.
But we don't want to tie phasing out suffering - or even building a world of superhuman bliss - to utilitarian ethics. It's good rigorously to systematise our values and explore their implications. Transhumanists are just exploring some of the implementation details. "Good health for all" is a slogan unlikely to raise the hackles of even the most conservative critic. If taken literally, it's insanely radical. Compare the World Health Organisation definition of health: It's worth stressing is that one needn't be a utilitarian of any kind at all to support phasing out the biology of involuntary suffering. Can conservation biology adapt to the challenge? Post- CRISPR life could be based on gradients of intelligent bliss. I just wonder how many people will like the sound of the principle - the "Declaration of Sentience" has an inspiring ring - and then balk at what such an affirmation genetically entails? Unlike a lot of high-flown rhetoric, a commitment to the well-being of all sentience has profound implications for the biosphere in an era of synthetic biology. (And apologies, anyone hoping this inspiring mix is going to come out of Brighton is going to be disappointed. So why, sociologically speaking, are we still just a "fringe" group – of which the Internet has countless examples? Complex reasons, but taking the project forward will take strong leadership, movement-building, serious PR, fund-raising and organisational skills, youthful dynamism, and a level of all-round professionalism far greater than anything we've seen to date. The purely technical objections to phasing out the biology of suffering - and indeed creating a civilisation based on gradients of intelligent bliss - get flimsier by the day. ) But if confounded, I’d assign its feasibility a much higher credence than I do now.] If such researchers are right, then how should anyone who believes we should ethically prioritise the minimisation of suffering respond? The experimental falsification of my preferred non-classical account of phenomenal binding wouldn’t prove digital sentience is feasible. Biological sentients will shortly be a minority. I've responded to a few QUORA questions & criticisms too.īrian and many other AI researchers believe that classical digital computers either are - or will soon become – subjects of experience. " Don't Focus on The Hedonistic Imperative" (Brian Tomasik) Life animated by gradients of superhuman bliss needn't be as bad as it sounds.ĭoes HI rest on a metaphysical mistake? Are biological-genetic solutions to the problem of suffering a dead end? ("Animal Rights and the Problem of r-Strategists") Kyle Johannsen makes the first print-published scholarly proposal to use CRISPR-based gene drives to prevent free-living animal suffering:
But CRISPR/Cas9 based "gene drives" challenge one's naive chronological intuitions. Might humans be the last species to benefit from phasing out the biology of suffering rather than the first? ("Genetically designing a happy biosphere") What is the optimal level of suffering in the biosphere? CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing and 'gene drives' are an awesome tool. Gene drives, CRISPR, suffering, happiness, panpsychism, physicalism, the binding problem, effective altruism, transhumanism. 2016: gene drives, CRISPR, consciousness, suffering, transhumanism: Unsorted Postings on social networks by David Pearce
0 kommentar(er)
