43 replies to this topic

[abolitionist]

If you want to use science and biotechnology to solve the inherent problems of life, (ultimately suffering in various forms) then I would consider you an Abolitionist. I know of no other term for this approach.

The Abolitionist Society is an outgrowth of the memes furthered by David Pearce of www.hedweb.com.

Our new site is;

www.abolitionismnow.com

Please sign up at the forums and contribute to the meme/idea factory.

[GiovanniR]

Your site is very interesting.
And yes, I can consider myself an abolitionist.

[forever freedom]

It all seems nice on paper, but instilling continuous mental states of euphoria and bliss through chemical/genetic manipulation is very complex, not to mention the many possible side effects, on an individual and collective levels, of turning people into happy zombies.


If people want to avoid/minimize suffering then they should lead a righteous life from an ethical standpoint, instead of trying to get these states of happiness for free. Suffering has a very important function: it punishes those that are evil, lazy, weak, stupid, etc. Why should these be as happy as the ones that are productive and make a great positive difference in society?

Now those that are constantly suffering because of physical reasons like chemical imbalances in the brain, disabilities etc then yes i'm all for helping them out. But a universal right to happiness? I don't think so.

[abolitionist]

It all seems nice on paper, but instilling continuous mental states of euphoria and bliss through chemical/genetic manipulation is very complex, not to mention the many possible side effects, on an individual and collective levels, of turning people into happy zombies.


If people want to avoid/minimize suffering then they should lead a righteous life from an ethical standpoint, instead of trying to get these states of happiness for free. Suffering has a very important function: it punishes those that are evil, lazy, weak, stupid, etc. Why should these be as happy as the ones that are productive and make a great positive difference in society?

Now those that are constantly suffering because of physical reasons like chemical imbalances in the brain, disabilities etc then yes i'm all for helping them out. But a universal right to happiness? I don't think so.

First a question : Why do you want to see a great and positive difference in society?

It's undeniable that suffering is a part of our learning system, but like aging it's just a throw-away design of nature, and something that we can improve upon over time.

Edited by abolitionist, 08 July 2010 - 06:42 PM.

[forever freedom]

First a question : Why do you want to see a great and positive difference in society?

Because without it we'd still be in the stone ages. We either grow or decay, we either advance or retrocede, be it as individuals or as civilization.

It's undeniable that suffering is a part of our learning system, but like aging it's just a throw-away design of nature, and something that we can improve upon over time.

Maybe, but while aging is undeniably bad, i'm not sure suffering isn't useful enough to be maintained, at least to some extent. Avoidance of suffering is a great motivator. If we're always happy no matter how precarious our physical surroundings and state, our long term survival would be be at risk. Better to use the pursuit of happiness as a motivator for progress in all areas.

[valkyrie_ice]

I would consider myself an abolitionist, to the extent that I wish to see an end to all PHYSICAL suffering.

I do not however think that "chemically induced BLISS" is an answer, as we already have that in various forms, all of which cause far more harm than good. Physical suffering is unnecessary, but the ups and down of emotional life enable humans to learn and grow and develop. Like FF says "Pursuit of Happiness" is preferable.

[Reno]

What she said.

I advocate repairing that which is damaged in the human body. I also advocate augmentation of physical traits already present. If you want your intelligence augmented and there is technology available which can do that you should be within your rights to pursue it.

If getting high is an unnatural state then I don't advocate it. If you want to be super happy all the time then go to California and buy a pot farm.

Edited by Reno, 08 July 2010 - 07:43 PM.

[abolitionist]

I would consider myself an abolitionist, to the extent that I wish to see an end to all PHYSICAL suffering.

I do not however think that "chemically induced BLISS" is an answer, as we already have that in various forms, all of which cause far more harm than good. Physical suffering is unnecessary, but the ups and down of emotional life enable humans to learn and grow and develop. Like FF says "Pursuit of Happiness" is preferable.

Yes Chemicals are a crude mechanism with alot of side effects, and not much benefit.

You define the goal 'learn and grow and develop' - what constitutes learning, growth, and development in your mind?

Isn't it the increased wellbeing, lifespan, and elimination of involuntary suffering that measures progress?

Edited by abolitionist, 09 July 2010 - 05:29 AM.

[abolitionist]

What she said.

I advocate repairing that which is damaged in the human body. I also advocate augmentation of physical traits already present. If you want your intelligence augmented and there is technology available which can do that you should be within your rights to pursue it.

If getting high is an unnatural state then I don't advocate it. If you want to be super happy all the time then go to California and buy a pot farm.

Unfortunately we have bad examples of scientifically induced happiness upon which to base our opinions. Drugs are a delusive shortcut and smoking pot 24/7 doesn't make you any more happier.

The criteria of avoiding the unnatural is difficult to work with, how do you define natural? Many would say that it's natural for human beings to use science to improve their condition in life.

As to how much better we can make life, we shouldn't let our imaginations limit us, nor set preconceived limits IMO.

[abolitionist]

First a question : Why do you want to see a great and positive difference in society?

Because without it we'd still be in the stone ages. We either grow or decay, we either advance or retrocede, be it as individuals or as civilization.

It's undeniable that suffering is a part of our learning system, but like aging it's just a throw-away design of nature, and something that we can improve upon over time.

Maybe, but while aging is undeniably bad, i'm not sure suffering isn't useful enough to be maintained, at least to some extent. Avoidance of suffering is a great motivator. If we're always happy no matter how precarious our physical surroundings and state, our long term survival would be be at risk. Better to use the pursuit of happiness as a motivator for progress in all areas.

Thanks for your response Freedom Forever. The point I was hoping to make is that we value progress and learning because they are useful towards eliminating suffering and increasing happiness.

The pain/pleasure axis is the only system that we have experienced subjectively, so it's hard to imagine a better system - one that is subjectively better and objectively more effective.

We certainly don't make to make ourselves extinct by blissing out and forgetting to eat or adapt to our environment.

www.gradients.com - is a good site that provides a glimpse of how we might improve our learning system.

Edited by abolitionist, 09 July 2010 - 05:28 AM.

[chrwe]

Has anyone here read Brave New World ? I am not prepared to become a happy Zombie.

[abolitionist]

Has anyone here read Brave New World ? I am not prepared to become a happy Zombie.

The brave new world is already here and now with mass media, attenuating anti depressants, mass forced medications, surveillance state, and a pyramid scheme controlling governments and the world economy.

That's why the use of the term 'involuntary suffering' is so critical. This is where I differ from some proponents of Abolitionism.
I don't agree that we should try to improve the hedonic calculus as a lump sum measurement - this infringes upon rights and subjective sense of free-will. These are important checks and balances against Darwinian design.

Also, the hedonic calculus cannot be;
1. defined
2. measured
3. predicted

So it's not rational to say that a greater good justification is based upon logic.

[valkyrie_ice]

I would consider myself an abolitionist, to the extent that I wish to see an end to all PHYSICAL suffering.

I do not however think that "chemically induced BLISS" is an answer, as we already have that in various forms, all of which cause far more harm than good. Physical suffering is unnecessary, but the ups and down of emotional life enable humans to learn and grow and develop. Like FF says "Pursuit of Happiness" is preferable.

Yes Chemicals are a crude mechanism with alot of side effects, and not much benefit.

You define the goal 'learn and grow and develop' - what constitutes learning, growth, and development in your mind?

Isn't it the increased wellbeing, lifespan, and elimination of involuntary suffering that measures progress?

The human mind operates in part on a reward system. These rewards are complex and driven by numerous factors. As children, we expect instant and constant reward, regardless of behavior. When that reward is negative, we learn not to engage in those behaviors.

As an adult, we continue to learn in such manners. If I was "Blissfull" at all times, what motive do I have to leave my bed? What motive do I have to do anything? Say I do manage to go do something, if the reward and punishment both equal "bliss" how will I know which is which? I could cheerfully cut my arm off, and smile at it and STILL FEEL HAPPY! I could blow up other people AND STILL FEEL HAPPY! I could slaughter entire towns while laughing in ecstasy the whole time. There would be NO NEGATIVE REWARD FOR SUCH BEHAVIOR.

So, no, CONTINUAL happiness, REGARDLESS OF OTHER SIDE EFFECTS, is detrimental to the individual and to society.

Look at my Avatar Abolitionist. I am a SUCCUBUS. Believe me, I am all for increasing the total ratio of happiness to sadness, and pleasure to pain, but not for slamming it all the way to Eternal Bliss and leaving it stuck there.

We don't need to suffer physically, but we need a reward system to ensure we act in beneficial ways to both ourselves and society. The more we seek out the positive reward, the better it is for all of us, and the more we will enjoy those moments of bliss, and work to ensure there are more of them. But if you give us the reward prior to the challenge, you've taken away the reason to play.

[abolitionist]

I would consider myself an abolitionist, to the extent that I wish to see an end to all PHYSICAL suffering.

I do not however think that "chemically induced BLISS" is an answer, as we already have that in various forms, all of which cause far more harm than good. Physical suffering is unnecessary, but the ups and down of emotional life enable humans to learn and grow and develop. Like FF says "Pursuit of Happiness" is preferable.

Yes Chemicals are a crude mechanism with alot of side effects, and not much benefit.

You define the goal 'learn and grow and develop' - what constitutes learning, growth, and development in your mind?

Isn't it the increased wellbeing, lifespan, and elimination of involuntary suffering that measures progress?

The human mind operates in part on a reward system. These rewards are complex and driven by numerous factors. As children, we expect instant and constant reward, regardless of behavior. When that reward is negative, we learn not to engage in those behaviors.

As an adult, we continue to learn in such manners. If I was "Blissfull" at all times, what motive do I have to leave my bed? What motive do I have to do anything? Say I do manage to go do something, if the reward and punishment both equal "bliss" how will I know which is which? I could cheerfully cut my arm off, and smile at it and STILL FEEL HAPPY! I could blow up other people AND STILL FEEL HAPPY! I could slaughter entire towns while laughing in ecstasy the whole time. There would be NO NEGATIVE REWARD FOR SUCH BEHAVIOR.

So, no, CONTINUAL happiness, REGARDLESS OF OTHER SIDE EFFECTS, is detrimental to the individual and to society.

Look at my Avatar Abolitionist. I am a SUCCUBUS. Believe me, I am all for increasing the total ratio of happiness to sadness, and pleasure to pain, but not for slamming it all the way to Eternal Bliss and leaving it stuck there.

We don't need to suffer physically, but we need a reward system to ensure we act in beneficial ways to both ourselves and society. The more we seek out the positive reward, the better it is for all of us, and the more we will enjoy those moments of bliss, and work to ensure there are more of them. But if you give us the reward prior to the challenge, you've taken away the reason to play.

I think you have assumptions about what means would necessarily be implemented in order to accomplish the goals of Abolitionism.

Abolitionism is simply a value system, not a prescription for a specific path.

I know of no Abolitionists who advocate destructive bliss. No one is saying that the path is about putting pleasure center electrodes in your brain and laying down till you die.

We tend to loose sight of the end and focus on short term objectives or means to the end.

Myself - I work alot, exercise, eat healthy, educate myself, help others, and avoid drugs and alcohol.

Edited by abolitionist, 09 July 2010 - 03:39 PM.

[David Styles]

Absolutely.

[valkyrie_ice]

I think you have assumptions about what means would necessarily be implemented in order to accomplish the goals of Abolitionism.

Abolitionism is simply a value system, not a prescription for a specific path.

I know of no Abolitionists who advocate destructive bliss. No one is saying that the path is about putting pleasure center electrodes in your brain and laying down till you die.

We tend to loose sight of the end and focus on short term objectives or means to the end.

Myself - I work alot, exercise, eat healthy, educate myself, help others, and avoid drugs and alcohol.

I did read the hedonistic imperative. The use of chemicals or hormones to ensure that one is ALWAYS happy seemed to be the primary goal. If that is NOT the primary goal, perhaps less emphasis should be placed on it.

I'm quite willing to concede I might have missed some of the "finer points" as it was some time ago that I read it. To summarize my views, I'm all for increasing total happiness. I am NOT for ENFORCING IT to prevent ever having to feel a negative emotion.

Repair of damaged neural systems that over produce certain hormones is needed. I live with a sufferer of Bi-polar disorder, and sadly she's one who is far too depressed and almost never manic. Allowing her to live a normal life is one of my goals. But I know all too well that Manic is sometimes even more destructive than depressed. Balance can be maintained and we can enable the bulk of experience to be "good" but we cannot let ourselves slide into thinking everyone HAS to be happy all the time.



If we agree on that, then cool.

Edited by valkyrie_ice, 09 July 2010 - 05:12 PM.

[Kolos]

If you want to live forever it's quite logical that you want this life to be happy. In a way most people are "abolitionists" some would say that suffering makes us stronger and somehow better but would they choose to suffer if it was a choice? Well perhaps instead of eliminating suffering completelyit would be better to control it so you don't have to suffer if you don't want to?
If we want to keep some sort of society it would be hard to eliminate pain caused by interpersonal relations unmutual feelings etc.
If we want to eliminate all kinds of suffering we would have to become fully self-sufficient so we wouldn't have to interact with anything external to us. Perhaps if there wasn't anything external to ourselves it would be the optimal situation from this perspective but not necessarily the best one since this solution would be very hard... and drastic

[The Immortalist]

There may be a way to be in a state of eternal euphoria while still somehow being motivated accomplish things. This could be accomplished by making it so that the brain experiences different levels of euphoria for different things done. there could be for example a standard level of euphoria (When your not doing anything exciting like lying in bed) and a high lvl of euphoria (winning the lottery, having sex).
This I think would solve the problem of destructive bliss.

Edited by The MILE/The Immortalist, 11 July 2010 - 04:00 PM.

[abolitionist]

There may be a way to be in a state of eternal euphoria while still somehow being motivated accomplish things. This could be accomplished by making it so that the brain experiences different levels of euphoria for different things done. there could be for example a standard level of euphoria (laying in bed) and a high lvl of euphoria (winning the lottery, having sex).
This I think would solve the problem of destructive bliss.

Gradients of bliss would definately be a step up from the pain/pleasure axis with the same functional equivalent. I get a stab of pleasure whenever someone proposes this - partly because I'm tired of the 'no progress without pain is the universal unbreakable law' response.

The question of why we subjectively experience suffering... the age old philosophical problem. What purpose for survival would the subjective experience of pain have - I mean why didn't nature create us so that we only experience gradients of bliss?

Why awareness of loss or pain? There are many complex systems that respond and adapt to environment without experiencing suffering - like the immune system.
The immune system simply adapts - there's no need for pain or even pleasure.

Consciousness is a downstream event from decision making and a distorted perception of the biological signals - so what purpose does it serve? Wouldn't unconsciousness be more efficient? Is consciousness merely the creation of a learning experience to be encoded?

Is there a reason why an organism would benefit from being conscious of it's learning process?

Just thoughts...

We've got alot to learn about our design before we'll be able to eliminate suffering through re-design.

In the meantime, the value of eliminating suffering through science can be implemented in a myriad of ways - and help one to lead a more meaningful and satisfying life.

[The Immortalist]

To everyone reading this. What do you think of the concept of gradients of bliss? Wouldn't it be better than the pleasure/pain system our minds have now?

[The Immortalist]

Oh and if anyone brings up the argument of "you need pain because without it you wouldn't know something was wrong with your body", the answer to that is we implement sensor devices in our bodies that tells us when something is wrong. The sensors would just make us aware of what is wrong but they wouldn't make you feel any pain.

[The Immortalist]

This abolitionist stuff seems very interesting from what little I've read on the site. In my personaly opinion the most important thing we all should be doing to eliminate suffering is to cure aging and disease.

[Kolos]

Oh and if anyone brings up the argument of "you need pain because without it you wouldn't know something was wrong with your body", the answer to that is we implement sensor devices in our bodies that tells us when something is wrong. The sensors would just make us aware of what is wrong but they wouldn't make you feel any pain.

I have better solution: just eliminate the body.

[Daniel Memenode]

What if we already are on "gradients of bliss", but we interpret lower levels of bliss as pain and higher levels of bliss as pleasure? This seems to call for a clear definition and conceptualization of "bliss", as well as "pain" and "pleasure".

[valkyrie_ice]

Oh and if anyone brings up the argument of "you need pain because without it you wouldn't know something was wrong with your body", the answer to that is we implement sensor devices in our bodies that tells us when something is wrong. The sensors would just make us aware of what is wrong but they wouldn't make you feel any pain.

I have better solution: just eliminate the body.

ummmm Kolos, I hate to tell you this, but changing the substrate intelligence runs on will still require having some sort of "physical body" even it that body is computronium.

[Kolos]

ummmm Kolos, I hate to tell you this, but changing the substrate intelligence runs on will still require having some sort of "physical body" even it that body is computronium.

It depends from your definition of "body" does internet have a body?

[chris w]

What if we already are on "gradients of bliss", but we interpret lower levels of bliss as pain and higher levels of bliss as pleasure? This seems to call for a clear definition and conceptualization of "bliss", as well as "pain" and "pleasure".

Evolutionarily this kind of veil of illusion wouldn't make sense. Basically pain is to tell that you're on your way to get eliminated from the gene pool and it would be wise to get out, while the feeling of pleasure is to tell you the opposite. So in evol terms it's very understanble that there is the domain of pain and there is the domain of pleasure and on equal level the two are exclusive.

Edited by chris w, 13 July 2010 - 12:44 PM.

[Daniel Memenode]

What if we already are on "gradients of bliss", but we interpret lower levels of bliss as pain and higher levels of bliss as pleasure? This seems to call for a clear definition and conceptualization of "bliss", as well as "pain" and "pleasure".

Evolutionarily this kind of veil of illusion wouldn't make sense. Basically pain is to tell that you're on your way to get eliminated from the gene pool and it would be wise to get out, while the feeling of pleasure is to tell you the opposite. So in evol terms it's very understanble that there is the domain of pain and there is the domain of pleasure and on equal level the two are exclusive.

Right. I ask because there are people who actually enjoy pain to some extent. The fact that they enjoy it would implicate pleasure, yet what they are enjoying we call pain.

Perhaps the two can still be quite opposite and exclusive to each other in the same sense that two opposite poles of the same thing or two sides in a spectrum are. I could call it "gradients or bliss" then or I could call it "gradients of pain" or some other term that refers to how we feel. If we already are gradiented between what we call pain and what we call pleasure then switching to what "gradients of bliss" in this discussion refers to sounds more like just cutting out the lower levels on the spectrum.. Trouble is, we might just end up adapting to the new low levels and call those "pain".

Look at small kids and how little tolerance they have towards even a little bit of pain or too little pleasure. A baby can think it's the end of the world for something that an adult endures as completely normal and acceptable.

[valkyrie_ice]

ummmm Kolos, I hate to tell you this, but changing the substrate intelligence runs on will still require having some sort of "physical body" even it that body is computronium.

It depends from your definition of "body" does internet have a body?

scattered across several billion computer "cells" indeed it does. We could turn the planet to computronium and if the sun exploded, we'd still all die when our "body" dissociated into atoms


Changing the substrate allows us to improve our bodies, it doesn't "eliminate them" Not until we can figure out how to upload ourselves into a "superstring matrix" the "quantum vacuum" or some other unknown tech.

[valkyrie_ice]

What if we already are on "gradients of bliss", but we interpret lower levels of bliss as pain and higher levels of bliss as pleasure? This seems to call for a clear definition and conceptualization of "bliss", as well as "pain" and "pleasure".

Evolutionarily this kind of veil of illusion wouldn't make sense. Basically pain is to tell that you're on your way to get eliminated from the gene pool and it would be wise to get out, while the feeling of pleasure is to tell you the opposite. So in evol terms it's very understanble that there is the domain of pain and there is the domain of pleasure and on equal level the two are exclusive.

Right. I ask because there are people who actually enjoy pain to some extent. The fact that they enjoy it would implicate pleasure, yet what they are enjoying we call pain.

Perhaps the two can still be quite opposite and exclusive to each other in the same sense that two opposite poles of the same thing or two sides in a spectrum are. I could call it "gradients or bliss" then or I could call it "gradients of pain" or some other term that refers to how we feel. If we already are gradiented between what we call pain and what we call pleasure then switching to what "gradients of bliss" in this discussion refers to sounds more like just cutting out the lower levels on the spectrum.. Trouble is, we might just end up adapting to the new low levels and call those "pain".

Look at small kids and how little tolerance they have towards even a little bit of pain or too little pleasure. A baby can think it's the end of the world for something that an adult endures as completely normal and acceptable.

"Pain" triggers an Opiate release of "pain blockers" which is in most aspects identical to a "morphine rush". It's a well documented process, particularly in long distance runners. It's only natural that a percentage of the human race releases far more of those pain blockers than others, or have learned how to initiate their "release" in various ways.


It's just another way of getting "high" so in these instances, it's a bliss reaction, not a pain one. Much like thrill seekers and adrenaline rushes.