The abolition of all suffering.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

http://www.hedweb.com/abolitionist-project/index.html

What do people think of the idea that we can use nanotechnology and genetic engineering to stop emotional/mental suffering and to push us into a state of permanent happiness and content?

Also, what of the idea that manipulating our environment does not affect how happy we are? The idea of a "hedonic treadmill" where even winning the lottery only provides a very brief period of elation, and you then return to mundane levels of happiness because being super rich is now a part of life?

The evidence for this being the case is quite overwhelming as far as I have read, and if this is true what are the implications for socio-economic reform? Is there still a point if material prosperity will do nothing to make us happier in anything except the very short term?

-Alex

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

http://www.hedweb.com/abolitionist-project/index.html

What do people think of the idea that we can use nanotechnology and genetic engineering to stop emotional/mental suffering and to push us into a state of permanent happiness and content?

I think it's an excellent idea.


Also, what of the idea that manipulating our environment does not affect how happy we are? The idea of a "hedonic treadmill" where even winning the lottery only provides a very brief period of elation, and you then return to mundane levels of happiness because being super rich is now a part of life?

I think that's a bloody stupid concept. If I was a millionaire, I would be able to do an absolutely huge variety of activities compared to what I can do now. If you're rich and bored, then I think you're letting your own lack of imagination bore yourself.


The evidence for this being the case is quite overwhelming as far as I have read, and if this is true what are the implications for socio-economic reform? Is there still a point if material prosperity will do nothing to make us happier in anything except the very short term?

-Alex

What evidence?

[Decolonize The Left]

http://www.hedweb.com/abolitionist-project/index.html

What do people think of the idea that we can use nanotechnology and genetic engineering to stop emotional/mental suffering and to push us into a state of permanent happiness and content?

Why would you want to do this? How about a little SOMA while you're at it? :thumbdown:

- August

[Qayin]

Brave New World....

[Jazzratt]

Why would you want to do this? How about a little SOMA while you're at it? :thumbdown:

- August


Brave New World....

The alternative, of course, is we keep these technologies capable of eradicating suffering and simply don't use them for fear that we will end up in a dystopia conceived in the early 20th century. Good one. Or maybe we should stop trying to eradicate suffering because god put it in place for us to appreciate happiness...

[Decolonize The Left]

The alternative, of course, is we keep these technologies capable of eradicating suffering and simply don't use them for fear that we will end up in a dystopia conceived in the early 20th century.

No, we don't use them because it's a stupid idea. Explanation below.


Good one. Or maybe we should stop trying to eradicate suffering because god put it in place for us to appreciate happiness...

"Eradicating suffering" is accomplished by destroying the cause of suffering, not the actual feeling. This proposed solution is nothing but a band-aid on a very relevant aspect of the current human condition.

It would be equivalent to saying:
"Oh, you don't like the sight of poor people? Just take this drug and they'll all look like little bunnies! Hooray!"

It's terribly short-sighted and pathetic. Not only does it completely ignore the cause of suffering, it patches it up in such a way that it eliminates any sort of possible development/learning which could result from suffering. Why do you think we feel so strongly about poverty? Because it causes suffering. But if you just 'drug away' the suffering, then who cares about inequality? Who cares about capitalism? Everyone can just dose up and it's all groovy.

Seriously...

- August

[JimmyJazz]

I don't have anything to link to, but there is definitely a lot of empirical evidence I've read/heard about for the idea that happiness always settles at an equilibrium. Amputees that don't kill themselves in the first few months of losing their body part rarely try after that (at least, at higher levels than non-amputees); they also self-report happiness after six months or so that is pretty much equal with other people. There have been studies of lottery winners, too, and they confirm exactly what the OP says. Americans aren't constantly in euphoria compared to Sudanese. Etc etc.

[MarxSchmarx]

What do people think of the idea that we can use nanotechnology and genetic engineering to stop emotional/mental suffering and to push us into a state of permanent happiness and content?

Also, what of the idea that manipulating our environment does not affect how happy we are? The idea of a "hedonic treadmill" where even winning the lottery only provides a very brief period of elation, and you then return to mundane levels of happiness because being super rich is now a part of life?

The evidence for this being the case is quite overwhelming as far as I have read, and if this is true what are the implications for socio-economic reform? Is there still a point if material prosperity will do nothing to make us happier in anything except the very short term?I read the article and still don't see how this is all that different from providing free booze in copious quantities to everyone.

Why are such drugs and alternatives so attractive? It's because they give people a sense of control. I can't control my job, I can't control the high cost of living, but I can control the booze I buy, and I can change my emotional state to contentment.

It's really, in the end, not about feeling depressed. It's about having a sense of control over your life.

As AW notes, these kinds of solutions offer nothing new - they only provide the illusion of control. Unless people feel they have control over their own destiny, such machinations are just yet another example of how people cope with alienation.

[Blackscare]

I think the will to make everyone uniformly happy and fix every personal woe of the individual is quite strong among some socialist/communists, and it is completely stupid.

No matter a person's material circumstances, people will always have this reason or that to be unhappy. Relationships, lack of relationships, lack of fulfillment, the feeling of being stranded. These are just a few sources of anguish we will all come to know at certain points, it's just the human condition. Of course poverty causes added unhappiness and prevents people from doing everything to satisfy their passions, which is why we want people to be as economically comfortable and free as possible. It's by no means a cure all, it simply would give everyone the chance to pursue the course of their lives basically unobstructed.

In the end it is still up to the individual to live their lives, travel, read, philosophize, and enjoy the finer and deeper aspects of life. Yes, that may even mean religion to some people. Human beings are extremely complex, social creatures, and frankly it's insulting to think that someone would take it upon themselves to make me happy. I want equality from society, I'll sort out happiness on my own terms.

Also, artificial happiness like you described is sickening, I'd rather be miserable and able to say "this is me, I am a unique human being and I am firmly in touch with reality" than a perpetually happy robot, with nothing deeper going on in my head than a constant flow of fresh endorphins.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Also, artificial happiness like you described is sickening

In what way, shape or form is slavery to the dopimine treadmill and our genes better?


I'd rather be miserable and able to say

I'd rather not


"this is me, I am a unique human being and I am firmly in touch with reality" than a perpetually happy robot, with nothing deeper going on in my head than a constant flow of fresh endorphins.

*cough* You are a meat robot with nothing deeper going on in your head than chemical impulses.



It's terribly short-sighted and pathetic. Not only does it completely ignore the cause of suffering, it patches it up in such a way that it eliminates any sort of possible development/learning which could result from suffering

There is still baseline happiness to consider, even if you consider abolition of suffering philosophically unacceptable(And I'd largely agree, though suffering could go for some muting.), which could definitely use some tuning when most people aren't happy as there baseline.

[Blackscare]

Perhaps I should have said miserable and aware of that misery, so that I can be in a position to critically examine why I am unhappy and change it. I don't want to be numbed with drugs so I can put up with circumstances in my life that I'd otherwise want to change. Why travel or appreciate anything good in life if you've just got a big chemical smile plastered on your face all the time?

True, I am ruled partly by the chemicals in my head, but I'd rather those chemicals fluctuate and respond to the choices I make than remain at a flat rate my whole life, otherwise I'd likely lead a very stagnant and uneventful existence. I don't want to be on my death said and say "Well, I never did do anything interesting, I didn't live a colorful life with all the ups and downs that come with it. I just went about my tasks like a good little worker ant without a care in the world, thanks to that nifty endorphin emitter. It was all the same to me, I just smiled the whole time." How pathetic. I'd rather not run from reality, thank you.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

I don't want to be numbed with drugs so I can put up with circumstances in my life that I'd otherwise want to change.

Such a limited imagination. Why build drugs to numb when one can build drugs to enliven.


I'd rather not run from reality, thank you.

But you are, look.


otherwise I'd likely lead a very stagnant and uneventful existence.

You already lead a stagnant and uneventful existence on the dopamine treadmill, ever looking for the next fix of endorphins. That is reality, stop running away from it.

[Decolonize The Left]

In what way, shape or form is slavery to the dopimine treadmill and our genes better?

What are you talking about? "I" am not separate from my brain and the chemicals which flow there. There is no magical "I" which is "enslaved" to the chemicals in the body (or the genes for that matter).

Your analogy is so faulty it's laughable.


*cough* You are a meat robot with nothing deeper going on in your head than chemical impulses.

More nihilist nonsense. Why post on this forum then? Why respond?

Your own actions undermine your argument.


There is still baseline happiness to consider, even if you consider abolition of suffering philosophically unacceptable(And I'd largely agree, though suffering could go for some muting.), which could definitely use some tuning when most people aren't happy as there baseline.

What? There's a "baseline happiness?" Where? How did you find this and why don't we all know about it?

It's easy to make things up... it's harder to maintain them under scrutiny.

- August

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Your analogy is so faulty it's laughable.

Eh perhaps.


More nihilist nonsense. Why post on this forum then? Why respond?

Your own actions undermine your argument.

Didn't you just agree to being a meat robot above?
Not nihilist, just materialist.
I quite love life, and want to keep existing as long as possible.
Why Post? The same reason i do anything, because i must that is who i am.


What? There's a "baseline happiness?" Where? How did you find this and why don't we all know about it?

Being it's been invoked several times in this very thread? Baseline happiness is your normal happiness when shit good or bad isn't happening to you. It's a genetically controlled factor, and one which we could tweek so that everyone is happy if nothing bad is happening to them.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

NoXion - The evidence is from self-reports of happiness/wellbeing. Economic welfare doesn't seem to have a bearing on them, nor do any of the classic environmental recipes for happiness - love does not affect it, house and kids doesn't, having had a good life doesn't. The idea would be that we are stuck at a happiness average for want of a less crude term; whatever we achieve we normalise and that becomes a standard, anything less would be saddening and we are forever chasing a new goal to try and hold on to the immedate pleasure of fulfilling one. Not sure if I've articulated that especially well but I hope you see what I'm trying to say. Basically people's self-reported happiness overwhelmingly fluctuates around 6-8/10, irresepctive of their material circumstances as far as we can see. We are biologically set up to be stuck at this level so that we never rest on our laurels is I suppose the conclusion of this line of thinking.

What do you think? Glad you think the general idea of genetically hardwiring wellbeing is sound, I thought you might.:)

[Coggeh]

Drugs that keep us happy all the time would ruin happiness .:(

Edit : Sorry kind of short post .

Anyway , if a drug were capable of give us a constant content feeling without side effects , it still wouldn't solve much .

If the ruling class handed these out to people strikes , riots and basically every counter action would stop . its a stupid idea in short .

[Decolonize The Left]

Being it's been invoked several times in this very thread? Baseline happiness is your normal happiness when shit good or bad isn't happening to you. It's a genetically controlled factor, and one which we could tweek so that everyone is happy if nothing bad is happening to them.

When is "shit good or bad" not happening to you? People don't live in a vacuum....

- August

[Sean]

Or maybe we should stop trying to eradicate suffering because god put it in place for us to appreciate happiness...
That's by no means a purely religious point of view. I for one would hate to be happy all the time and the second you would create any happy people whatsoever you immediately make unhappiness a mental disorder and a new unclass of unenhanced people whom you can blame everything on. After all, happy people to commit crimes, it would have to be those scary depressive types. You got your dystopia right there.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

drugs that keep us happy all the time would ruin happiness .:(

ahaahahahaahahaahaahahaaha

[BurnTheOliveTree]

If the ruling class handed these out to people strikes , riots and basically every counter action would stop . its a stupid idea in short .

Why would it matter if we were completely happy? No need to really do anything if we've got infinite bliss is there, except set up conditions to maintain it, i.e staying alive.

I'm being a devils advocate here a bit, but I want to see your response.

-Alex

[BlackCapital]

I was thinking about this exact same thing a few weeks ago after reading an article about nano-technologies ability to control emotions. Aside from the fact that I have some skepticism of how perfect it may be and possible side effects, I came to a conclusion for now.

If we all sat around with chips in our brains in a complete state of ecstasy our entire lives, there would not be an incentive to improve actual standards of living or progress technologically and scientifically. We wouldn't care about human advancement because we would all be sitting around smuggling grinning about how awesome our false reality was. If we had these chips we would not be on this forum advocating and discussing the social progress that we do. For instance, why don't people save up money to buy enough drugs and alcohol to hold them over their entire life, so they can be fucked up and happy all the time, despite their living conditions? I realize its not quite the same deal, but humans generally don't want this at least currently they desire accomplishment of some type. In other words, if I were a strict nihilist I would rush to my nearest surgeon ASAP and get one.

Not that this technology can't be useful or should'nt be considered, but I think mass implementation of this would lead to a mildly retarded population who has no drive to evolve. If our goal is only to end all suffering, this is great, but if our goal is to minimize suffering while continuing to advance, not so great.

[Qayin]

Music would start sucking hardcore
without anger,and emotion just a bunch of over the top happy people
god that would be horrible

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I don't understand why you think genetically engineered happiness would be false. After all, any happiness we get currently is also genetically engineered, but by the blind hand of natural selection. What makes you think that humans taking control of our biology makes the subsequent experiences false? Also what makes you think we'd stop progressing if we were really happy? I find I am at my most constructive when I'm in a good mood and at my least constructive when I'm in a bad mood.

I think critics of the idea are imagining that genetically engineered well-being involves us all lying around in some sort of blissed out stupor while society rots and we don't care. This should pretty obviously be seen as misconception. There are variants of happiness that aren't just intense and incapacitating pleasure ya know. =s


just a bunch of over the top happy people
god that would be horrible

yeah that would be shit. I sure do hate those happy fuckers. I prefer when I'm really pissed off and depressed, 'cause that's more aesthetically valuable, yeah! :thumbup1:

-Alex

[Jazzratt]

Music would start sucking hardcore
without anger,and emotion just a bunch of over the top happy people
god that would be horrible

Okay. Everyone should suffer because you'll like the music better, thanks for your input.

[DesertShark]

If you didn't experience any emotion besides happiness, how would you know that you were happy? Feeling sad is what makes feeling happy better. Experiencing different emotions is one of the best parts of life, even if they're not good because you can grow and learn so much from it. The type of suffering that should be ended is the kind caused by other people (ie poverty, rape, abuse, etc.); those types of suffering are unnecessary.

[synthesis]

http://www.hedweb.com/abolitionist-project/index.html

What do people think of the idea that we can use nanotechnology and genetic engineering to stop emotional/mental suffering and to push us into a state of permanent happiness and content?

Incredibly frightening.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If you didn't experience any emotion besides happiness, how would you know that you were happy?

Because you wouldn't be sad, or angry, or whatever.


Feeling sad is what makes feeling happy better.No, what makes being happy good is the feeling of being happy.


Experiencing different emotions is one of the best parts of life, even if they're not good because you can grow and learn so much from it.Sounds like a religious canard dressed up in secular clothing: "Suffering is good for the soul".

Fuck that shit! You know why that's rubbish? Because it's a perfect excuse for the shittiness of the world.


The type of suffering that should be ended is the kind caused by other people (ie poverty, rape, abuse, etc.); those types of suffering are unnecessary.What makes "natural" suffering so "good"? Why should someone be forced to suffer intense, unrelenting pain simply because it's being inflicted by the universe at large?

Sure, if you've got a fetish for experiencing pain, that's fair enough, but don't expect the rest of the human race to suffer alongside you because it would otherwise offend your idea of what human experience should be like.

[DesertShark]

Because you wouldn't be sad, or angry, or whatever.
That doesn't explain how you would know what happiness is. Think about this: after you have your clothes on for minutes do you feel them? No because your brain filters out the messages from your skin that something is on them. Its only when your tag or a seam scratches your skin that you notice your clothes again. Why? Because its a sudden more intense input. Your brain constantly has to filter through messages and as long as the message stays at the same intensity and length, its ignored. If it increases or decreases in intensity or length, its not ignored.


No, what makes being happy good is the feeling of being happy.
Have you ever been happy after just being happy? Have you ever been happy just after being sad? Which one was more enjoyable? Emotions are relative, which is why the happiness after sadness is more enjoyable then happiness after being happy.


Sounds like a religious canard dressed up in secular clothing: "Suffering is good for the soul".
My apologies, I was speaking from personal experience.


Fuck that shit! You know why that's rubbish? Because it's a perfect excuse for the shittiness of the world.
I think making everyone not aware of how shitty things are is a better excuse to keep them in a shitty situation.


What makes "natural" suffering so "good"? Why should someone be forced to suffer intense, unrelenting pain simply because it's being inflicted by the universe at large?
Because its part of life/nature. What intense, unrelenting pain are you talking about?


Sure, if you've got a fetish for experiencing pain, that's fair enough, but don't expect the rest of the human race to suffer alongside you because it would otherwise offend your idea of what human experience should be like.
Physical pain saves lives/body parts. If you didn't know something was hot, you'd continue to touch it and destroy your skin and whatever body part is touching the hot object. If you stepped on something sharp and couldn't feel it, it could be left untreated, become infected, and you could have your foot amputated. If you broke a limb and couldn't feel it, you could end up causing more damage to yourself (tendons, muscle, other connective tissues) by not getting it set properly. If you had a toothache and couldn't feel it, it could end up leading to heart problems (I don't really understand it, but there are many connections between problems in your mouth and problems with your heart - don't believe me? Ask your dentist). Pain also induces learning, so if you touch something hot and burns you, you're not going to touch it again (unless you're sadistic I guess). If you need more examples of how pain is beneficial, let me know.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That doesn't explain how you would know what happiness is. Think about this: after you have your clothes on for minutes do you feel them? No because your brain filters out the messages from your skin that something is on them. Its only when your tag or a seam scratches your skin that you notice your clothes again. Why? Because its a sudden more intense input. Your brain constantly has to filter through messages and as long as the message stays at the same intensity and length, its ignored. If it increases or decreases in intensity or length, its not ignored.

Your analogy doesn't work because it fails to take into account that even single emotions can have variations. First there is range, where one can be merely contented to deliriously happy, and then there is breadth, where happiness is intermixed with or influenced by other positive emotions.

Pleasure and happiness are also modulated through physical experience. The pleasure I get from smoking a cigarette is different from that of eating good food, for example.


Have you ever been happy after just being happy? Have you ever been happy just after being sad? Which one was more enjoyable? Emotions are relative, which is why the happiness after sadness is more enjoyable then happiness after being happy.That might be the case for yourself, but I would prefer not to be sad at all.


I think making everyone not aware of how shitty things are is a better excuse to keep them in a shitty situation."Happy" does not mean "stupid" or "lacking empathy". In any case, I think that by the time we get enough knowledge to control emotions to such a degree, we'll have cleared up a hell of a lot of the world's shittyness along the way.


Because its part of life/nature. What intense, unrelenting pain are you talking about?The natural consequence of having a nervous system, of course. It's one thing to have something to alert you that damage is being caused to the body, but it's quite another thing to suffer through pain when there is nothing else one can do about it.


Physical pain saves lives/body parts. If you didn't know something was hot, you'd continue to touch it and destroy your skin and whatever body part is touching the hot object. If you stepped on something sharp and couldn't feel it, it could be left untreated, become infected, and you could have your foot amputated. If you broke a limb and couldn't feel it, you could end up causing more damage to yourself (tendons, muscle, other connective tissues) by not getting it set properly. If you had a toothache and couldn't feel it, it could end up leading to heart problems (I don't really understand it, but there are many connections between problems in your mouth and problems with your heart - don't believe me? Ask your dentist). Pain also induces learning, so if you touch something hot and burns you, you're not going to touch it again (unless you're sadistic I guess). If you need more examples of how pain is beneficial, let me know.Like I said, it's one thing to be alerted to damage being caused, but pain does more than that. It can linger for longer than the initial cause of pain, and can overpower even the strongest anaesthetics, to the point where if they gave you any more it would knock you out or kill you. I dunno about you but I would sure like the ability to shut off nerve receptors in such instances.

[black magick hustla]

Why would it matter if we were completely happy? No need to really do anything if we've got infinite bliss is there, except set up conditions to maintain it, i.e staying alive.

I'm being a devils advocate here a bit, but I want to see your response.

-Alex

it only does not matter if you are a hedonist. fortunately, i am not an animal

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There is another reason for advocating control of emotions - they can severely cloud one's judgement. Think of all the stupid things that people do or say when they get all emotional. We're not animals in the jungle anymore, modern civilisation has popped up in less than the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms, and our natural instincts and emotions are simply inadequate for the task - they may have aided survival back in the day, but now they can be a hinderance.

[synthesis]

To me, it is obvious that there was some sort of evolutionary benefit in developing the capacity to suffer. Suffering tells us that we ought to be doing something differently - if touching a hot stove didn't hurt, how would you know not to touch it any more?

The answer is eliminating the causes of suffering, not just trying to "abolish suffering" with the use of brain-altering technology. That's short-sighted at best and terrifying at worst.

[DesertShark]

Your analogy doesn't work because it fails to take into account that even single emotions can have variations. First there is range, where one can be merely contented to deliriously happy, and then there is breadth, where happiness is intermixed with or influenced by other positive emotions.

Pleasure and happiness are also modulated through physical experience. The pleasure I get from smoking a cigarette is different from that of eating good food, for example.
I agree there are ranges of each emotion, but if they're inducing happiness in people I doubt it will be at different levels every time. It would probably be automated and everyone gets the same amount every time.


That might be the case for yourself, but I would prefer not to be sad at all.
You didn't answer the question.


"Happy" does not mean "stupid" or "lacking empathy". In any case, I think that by the time we get enough knowledge to control emotions to such a degree, we'll have cleared up a hell of a lot of the world's shittyness along the way.
I thought there'd be flying cars by now, but we can't even mass produce fuel efficient cars and convince people to drive them. But we can give men boners who can't normally get it up. And we can give people children who naturally couldn't have them. And we turn food into fuel and other products while people starve to death. So I doubt we'd have all the shittyness fixed; it'd be more likely we used the happy inducing drugs to alleviate people's suffering from the shittyness they were experiencing instead of actually fixing the shittyness.


The natural consequence of having a nervous system, of course. It's one thing to have something to alert you that damage is being caused to the body, but it's quite another thing to suffer through pain when there is nothing else one can do about it.
I don't think the natural consequence of having a nervous system is "intense, unrelenting pain;" if that were the case, I don't think things with early nervous systems would have reproduced because they would have been in too much pain to move. Ending physical pain is different from convincing people they are happy no matter what is happening around them.


Like I said, it's one thing to be alerted to damage being caused, but pain does more than that. It can linger for longer than the initial cause of pain, and can overpower even the strongest anaesthetics, to the point where if they gave you any more it would knock you out or kill you. I dunno about you but I would sure like the ability to shut off nerve receptors in such instances.
Being happy won't end physical pain...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I agree there are ranges of each emotion, but if they're inducing happiness in people I doubt it will be at different levels every time. It would probably be automated and everyone gets the same amount every time.

Who are "they" and what precisely gives them the right to dictate people's emotions? One can't even get water flouridated without hordes of conspiracist morons decrying the "contamination" of our precious bodily fluids.


You didn't answer the question.

OK, right now, I'm pissed off because I've had nearly ten pounds effectively stolen off me and I now have pretty much fuck-all in terms of cash. If I were to find a bundle of notes I would be overjoyed, but firstly, just because emotions can be changed and enhanced by real-world events doesn't necessarily mean they are, and secondly, I'd like the ability to deal with setbacks without feeling a boiling urge to commit grevious bodily harm or extensive property damage.

Of course feeling happy after feeling sad is going to feel better. Sadness is a negative emotion, it is not something that is deliberately sought out as a part of life. Sadness may be portrayed in art, but that doesn't mean there's anything beneficial or noble about it.


I thought there'd be flying cars by now, but we can't even mass produce fuel efficient cars and convince people to drive them. But we can give men boners who can't normally get it up. And we can give people children who naturally couldn't have them. And we turn food into fuel and other products while people starve to death. So I doubt we'd have all the shittyness fixed; it'd be more likely we used the happy inducing drugs to alleviate people's suffering from the shittyness they were experiencing instead of actually fixing the shittyness.

We already have drugs that can induce intense feelings of happiness and wellbeing, yet they're not being used to drug the sheeple into compliance.

Try again!


I don't think the natural consequence of having a nervous system is "intense, unrelenting pain;" if that were the case, I don't think things with early nervous systems would have reproduced because they would have been in too much pain to move. Ending physical pain is different from convincing people they are happy no matter what is happening around them.

Being happy won't end physical pain...

I never said it would. I was speaking of physical as well as emotional pain. Wasn't that obvious enough for you?

[DesertShark]

Who are "they" and what precisely gives them the right to dictate people's emotions? One can't even get water flouridated without hordes of conspiracist morons decrying the "contamination" of our precious bodily fluids.
My understanding from the link was that the "they" were the people doing the manipulating or making the things that do the manipulating. You were gungho earlier in the thread (post #2) about these people doing their thing; now you're against it?


OK, right now, I'm pissed off because I've had nearly ten pounds effectively stolen off me and I now have pretty much fuck-all in terms of cash. If I were to find a bundle of notes I would be overjoyed, but firstly, just because emotions can be changed and enhanced by real-world events doesn't necessarily mean they are, and secondly, I'd like the ability to deal with setbacks without feeling a boiling urge to commit grevious bodily harm or extensive property damage.

Of course feeling happy after feeling sad is going to feel better. Sadness is a negative emotion, it is not something that is deliberately sought out as a part of life. Sadness may be portrayed in art, but that doesn't mean there's anything beneficial or noble about it.
[side note: sorry you lost some money, that always sucks especially when you don't have much]
You just said why its beneficial: " Of course feeling happy after feeling sad is going to feel better."



We already have drugs that can induce intense feelings of happiness and wellbeing, yet they're not being used to drug the sheeple into compliance.

Try again!
I think alcohol does a good job of it now. But most of the good drugs are illegal. From the link (why the shittyness you talked about probably won't be gone before we change peoples perceptions):

Improving the external environment is admirable and important; but such improvement can't recalibrate our hedonic treadmill above a genetically constrained ceiling. (...)
Unfortunately, attempts to build an ideal society can't overcome this biological ceiling, whether utopias of the left or right, free-market or socialist, religious or secular, futuristic high-tech or simply cultivating one's garden. (...)
So if manipulating our external environment alone can never abolish suffering and malaise, what does technically work?
Here are three scenarios in ascending order of sociological plausibility:

a) wireheading
b) utopian designer drugs
c) genetic engineering and - what I want to focus on - the impending reproductive revolution of designer babies
I never said it would. I was speaking of physical as well as emotional pain. Wasn't that obvious enough for you?
You were the one that made the original jump from happiness to physical pain in post #27, I was just responding to your leap, no need to be sassy.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

My understanding from the link was that the "they" were the people doing the manipulating or making the things that do the manipulating. You were gungho earlier in the thread (post #2) about these people doing their thing; now you're against it?

I'm against it if it is enforced. If people want to rewire their own minds or take a lifelong course in hedonic chemicals, that's fine by me. But to force people to undergo such things represents an intolerable imposition on individual autonomy.


[side note: sorry you lost some money, that always sucks especially when you don't have much]
You just said why its beneficial: " Of course feeling happy after feeling sad is going to feel better."But why feel sad in the first place? Candy floss tastes better than dog shit, but you don't eat some dog shit before having some candy floss in order to "make it better" do you? So why the double standard when it comes to emotions?


I think alcohol does a good job of it now. But most of the good drugs are illegal. From the link (why the shittyness you talked about probably won't be gone before we change peoples perceptions):What makes you think these technologies won't turn out just like the flying car you mentioned - predicted to be hitting in society in 20 years for over half a century?

Chemicals are crude and each course would need to be tailor-made to the individual taking them, taking into account their biochemistry and any habits they have that would effect that. Of course, that's not taking into account side-effects, allergic reactions, long-term complications, contraindications, and effects on judgement and reactions. This means you can't simply dump those chemicals into the water supply and not expect some kind of major disaster. I'll believe the "happy pill" when I see it.

Also, alcohol is a pretty shitty drug for the ruling classes as a whole to impose on the lower orders (of course the owners of alcohol companies have a vested interest in promoting their product, but I needn't point out that the ruling class is not entirely composed of brewers and distillers, do I?), since it can make people violent and reduces productivity due to hangovers, hospital visits and death. It is also a drain on the public purse since the anti-social behaviour, illness and death engendered by widespread alcohol usage requires the attentions of the emergency services more often than not. Then of course, there is the rather important point that alcohol consumption is not only not mandatory, but is in fact strictly controlled. Of course, the real reason most people drink alcohol is because they enjoy it, not because of some borgeouis conspiracy to trample on the masses. Unless you think that average working people are brainless sheeple with no will of their own.

Now, wireheading. I can easily see this becoming a voluntary operation on an individual basis, but if it became mandatory the uproar would be immense, especially if little or no steps had been taken at the time to actually improve the vast majority of humanity's lot in the world. Do you really think that people are that stupid that would let something like that whizz past them without them raising an unholy stink about it?

Genetic alteration. Now, again, on an individual basis I can certainly see this happening, but as the relevant thread in this very forum demonstrates, people are very wary of anything that even has the whiff of eugenics about it.


You were the one that made the original jump from happiness to physical pain in post #27, I was just responding to your leap, no need to be sassy.Considering we had been discussing physical pain for at least of couple of posts before now, it seemed disingenuous of you at the very least for you to suddenly bring it up.

[ZeroNowhere]

But we can give men boners who can't normally get it up. And we can give people children who naturally couldn't have them. And we turn food into fuel and other products while people starve to death.
Um, biofuels don't contribute to starvation, that's the market. As for the rest, that's awesome.


I think alcohol does a good job of it now.
Oh dear.
Hey, y'know, maybe you could ask the Loose Change people to make up some silly 'documentary' about this.

Though really, genetic engineering is overrated. It's like everybody goes into genetic determinism mode when discussing that even though we don't even know how the fuck the genes work in the first place.


You just said why its beneficial: " Of course feeling happy after feeling sad is going to feel better."This really reminds me of the schooler argument that we need to subjugate the young in order for them to truly appreciate the freedom that they get. That is, it's bollocks. I don't listen to Job for a Cowboy before Jag Panzer, I don't see why anything else should apply here.

[DesertShark]

I'm against it if it is enforced. If people want to rewire their own minds or take a lifelong course in hedonic chemicals, that's fine by me. But to force people to undergo such things represents an intolerable imposition on individual autonomy.
Thanks for clearing that up, I'm all about personal autonomy as well. I never implied it was forced or enforced: "if they're inducing happiness in people;" I was using the word "induce" as "to bring about, produce, cause" not "to force" (the other actual definition being "To lead or move, as to a course of action, by influence or persuasion").


But why feel sad in the first place? Candy floss tastes better than dog shit, but you don't eat some dog shit before having some candy floss in order to "make it better" do you? So why the double standard when it comes to emotions?
Candy floss?...I wouldn't eat floss...I also wouldn't compare feeling sad to eating dog shit. I might compare it to eating something I don't like, like brussel sprouts or corn. So there's no double standard there. Personally, I enjoy eating desert before a meal because I think it makes the meal taste better, but that's not relevant. I think its odd to compare emotions to a sense. Why not say that seeing people tortured to death before seeing a happy baby makes the baby seem happier is the same as touching sandpaper then touching a soft fluffy bunny because it makes the bunny softer? Because its odd, even though its a comparison of two different senses. I wasn't saying that to be happy you have to be sad first. I was saying that to even know what happiness is (or sadness for that matter) you have to know the opposite. Its not until you've experienced both emotions that you can even make the claim that you'd rather be happy then sad.


What makes you think these technologies won't turn out just like the flying car you mentioned - predicted to be hitting in society in 20 years for over half a century?
I'm sure they probably will, but that's not what the thread was about. It was about people's personal opinions on the use of the technologies:

What do people think of the idea that we can use nanotechnology and genetic engineering to stop emotional/mental suffering and to push us into a state of permanent happiness and content?


Chemicals are crude and each course would need to be tailor-made to the individual taking them, taking into account their biochemistry and any habits they have that would effect that. Of course, that's not taking into account side-effects, allergic reactions, long-term complications, contraindications, and effects on judgement and reactions. This means you can't simply dump those chemicals into the water supply and not expect some kind of major disaster. I'll believe the "happy pill" when I see it.
Who said anything about dumping it into the water supply? Also, if everyone's happy, then no one would be sad if someone died from the happy drugs... I too will believe the "happy pill" when I see it.


Also, alcohol is a pretty shitty drug for the ruling classes as a whole to impose on the lower orders (of course the owners of alcohol companies have a vested interest in promoting their product, but I needn't point out that the ruling class is not entirely composed of brewers and distillers, do I?), since it can make people violent and reduces productivity due to hangovers, hospital visits and death. It is also a drain on the public purse since the anti-social behaviour, illness and death engendered by widespread alcohol usage requires the attentions of the emergency services more often than not. Then of course, there is the rather important point that alcohol consumption is not only not mandatory, but is in fact strictly controlled. Of course, the real reason most people drink alcohol is because they enjoy it, not because of some borgeouis conspiracy to trample on the masses. Unless you think that average working people are brainless sheeple with no will of their own.
You are correct that alcohol is not mandatory, but have you ever been of legal drinking age in the United States and gone out anywhere? I am consistently hassled for not drinking by almost everyone around me (even when I'm the DD); its socially unacceptable to be somewhere that people drink (a restaurant or a bar) and not drink with them, it actually makes some people uncomfortable. The people who make the drug laws in the US aren't looking out for everyone's best interest because if they were tobacco and alcohol would be schedule 1 drugs and marijuana wouldn't even be scheduled. [Schedule 1 means its highly addictive and has no medicinal purposes, oddly marijuana is a schedule 1 drug.] Especially because each year there are about 100,000 tobacco related deaths and 100,000 alcohol related deaths. [One thing to remember about alcohol laws is that when it was illegal the crime rate sky-rocketed.]


Now, wireheading. I can easily see this becoming a voluntary operation on an individual basis, but if it became mandatory the uproar would be immense, especially if little or no steps had been taken at the time to actually improve the vast majority of humanity's lot in the world. Do you really think that people are that stupid that would let something like that whizz past them without them raising an unholy stink about it?
I'm not sure how this is relevant. But honestly, it depends on the group of people they make it mandatory for. I'm sure I don't need to tell you about what happened to Jewish people (along with gays, gypsies, and others) after WWI in Germany (and surrounding countries); but nobody said anything when they started forcing them to wear stars on their clothes then took most of their money then move to another area of the cities then move to concentration camps (eventually something was done, but there were a lot of "mandatory" things happening before these people's rights were defended). In Australia, they had a "mandatory" sterilization of Aboriginal girls in orphanages once they menstruated. They also claimed that Aboriginals couldn't raise their children and made it "mandatory" for all the children they found to go to orphanages. There's other examples of things being "mandatory" for only some groups and the other groups not saying anything about it (mostly because it wasn't happening to them). So if there were some evil genius who wanted to force happiness on a population, that evil genius would probably target specific groups first so there would not be an uprising.


Genetic alteration. Now, again, on an individual basis I can certainly see this happening, but as the relevant thread in this very forum demonstrates, people are very wary of anything that even has the whiff of eugenics about it.
Again, I'm not sure how this is relevant.


Considering we had been discussing physical pain for at least of couple of posts before now, it seemed disingenuous of you at the very least for you to suddenly bring it up.
It wasn't sudden as it seemed the line between the two became blurred and so it was the appropriate time to point that out.

[DesertShark]

Um, biofuels don't contribute to starvation, that's the market. As for the rest, that's awesome.
There's a whole lot of steps in between that you're not acknowledging. Something along the lines of: the government pays some farmers not to farm so there's not a surplus of corn, keeping the price of corn at an acceptable level (not too low or too high). The left over corn is then sold in other countries (usually 3rd world countries that could probably use the food) cheaper then what the local farmers can sell their locally grown corn for. These local farmers then have no money to continue their crop. Then when there's not an excess of corn to be sold to these people, there's not enough food to go around because the local farmers couldn't afford to grow enough. So now these people need our corn. It's a fucked up vicious cycle. Also, producing fuel from corn makes the global price of corn rise.
It's awesome that people who biologically can't reproduce now can? Why so they can spread the genes that stopped them from being able to reproduce in the first place? That's counter intuitive to our species survival.


Oh dear.
Hey, y'know, maybe you could ask the Loose Change people to make up some silly 'documentary' about this.
I don't know who or what you're talking about. Or it's the relevance.


Though really, genetic engineering is overrated. It's like everybody goes into genetic determinism mode when discussing that even though we don't even know how the fuck the genes work in the first place.
Actually we do...its called The Central Dogma (because it can only be reversed by retroviruses: ex. HIV): DNA -> RNA -> Protein. The genes being in the DNA. How is this relevant to the discussion?


This really reminds me of the schooler argument that we need to subjugate the young in order for them to truly appreciate the freedom that they get. That is, it's bollocks. I don't listen to Job for a Cowboy before Jag Panzer, I don't see why anything else should apply here.
What you said reminds of me of this: the “Downfall of Democracies” often attributed to Alexander Tyler (or Alexander Tytler, or Arnold Toynbee, or Lord Thomas Macaulay).

The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;

From dependency back into bondage.