"Don't you see the danger inherent in what you're doing here? Genetic power is the most awesome force the planet's ever seen, but you wield it like a kid that's found his dad's gun. Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn't stop to think if they should. It's a violent, penetrative act that scars what it explores. What you call discovery, I call the rape of the natural world." Dr. Malcolm
Great video, do make more! As BLTC's page says, the abolitionist project is held up not by technical challenges but by social ideology. Continuing to spread this information will help bring about change sooner.
Weird shit man. I don't really support the abolishment of suffering. I believe that pain and pleasure are two side of the same coin, and that it is impossible to experience one without the other.
Obviously at the same time I do not support needless/fruitless pain. I would have no problem abolishing fruitless pain, but I think it would first have to be clearly and universally defined.
So because in today's world you need pain (real or perceived) to have a motivation of a sorts, does that mean pain is intrinsically valuable or that one cannot have motivation through other means? Take for instance a healthy body. Why is it better to have to endure pain to get it, rather then just have it ensured by your dna or anti-aging therapies for example? Isn't pain a very primitive motivator, and useless in a more desirable society, where certain goods are guaranteed without pain?
Also, I call your attention to the part that says, "several gradients of bliss" that still provide motivation, via the contrast principle. All you need is to know there is a more pleasurable state to be motivated to get it, for example... you don't really need to be in pain and suffering. You may just want MORE bliss. Wouldn't that be preferable?
"Isn't pain a very primitive motivator, and useless in a more desirable society"
I agree that it is a primitive motivator (in fact genetic). But useless?
If you do not feel hunger or thirst, how will you know it is time to eat or drink? If you are in the desert and do not feel hot, how will you know you must seek shade to live?
If the answer is artificial stimulus, then I'm not sure I would want to live a life filled with artificial stimuluses.
Bro, I understand your reserves. And I appreciate that you are concerned that we still have a way to know when to act, namely in the face of danger. I also assure you that your concerns are shared by the very same people who are working on this. Rigorous controls must be in place. About artificiality, it is not inherently less valuable than the current outcome of darwinian evolution.
We can program robots to recharge themselves when batteries or low, and we can program them to avoid things like excessive heat. All that is needed for the latter is a microprocessor, motors, and a thermometer. Of course computers do not feel pain, so in principal it is possible to avoid it while feeling nothing.
Many of the computations your brain performs are done without conscious knowledge.. language processing, driving your car, etc. So in principal you can "know" it
is time to eat through a similar abstraction, where the raw feeling of starving is removed. There are many things we intellectually know which are detached from feelings. So why not have hunger/thirst/pain replaced in a similar fashion?
Alternatively, in the far future, I can imagine a network of microscopic implants throughout our entire nervous system, connected to our muscles, which will make us move away from extreme heat sources (ie hot oven) without our brain doing any processing at all.
These motivators can be replaced with another feeling... Doesn't have to be that raw experience that one is forced to endure! Also, humans can be genetically programmed to be self-sufficient - so if isolated, they won't starve/go crazy!
As with your repugnance to unnatural artifacts: nothing you have really is natural. Your haircut is unnatural. Your clothing is unnatural. Basically if you shave, that is unnatural as well. Natural = not equal to = Good. Natural is neutral. As simple as that!
Seems to be a very good idea, if done with rigorous controls in place. I would definitely love to have stuff like wings, superintelligence, much more resistant bones, enhanced senses like vision and smell. The idea is humans guiding their own evolution and become post-human. The idea of living forever in a state of bliss sounds very very appealing to me. And it's not compulsory, so it's cool.
Why would only a few people have these new powers and abilities? If you plot technological developments over the last 100 years, you will see they are adopted by larger proportions of the society with increasing speed. One example is Africa skipping landline and going straight to cell phones. Another is how fast people starting using the web, whereas it took much longer for everyone to get a TV. Also, many who abuse power are looking for pleasure. So why abuse it when experiencing sublime bliss?
"Don't you see the danger inherent in what you're doing here? Genetic power is the most awesome force the planet's ever seen, but you wield it like a kid that's found his dad's gun. Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn't stop to think if they should. It's a violent, penetrative act that scars what it explores. What you call discovery, I call the rape of the natural world." Dr. Malcolm
KawaiiKemonomimi 4 months ago
Comment removed
freekbeta 2 years ago
huhhh what are you talking about? can you be more vague?
dakshinamurti 2 years ago
Great video, do make more! As BLTC's page says, the abolitionist project is held up not by technical challenges but by social ideology. Continuing to spread this information will help bring about change sooner.
savegoogleanswers 3 years ago
heh thanks, I do what I can since the abolitionist desire is a good desire :)
dakshinamurti 3 years ago
I didn't know you were on YouTube :p my bad...
GoodJokeGoneBad 3 years ago
Unforgivable!!! Kidding :) Glad you found me.
dakshinamurti 3 years ago
Weird shit man. I don't really support the abolishment of suffering. I believe that pain and pleasure are two side of the same coin, and that it is impossible to experience one without the other.
Obviously at the same time I do not support needless/fruitless pain. I would have no problem abolishing fruitless pain, but I think it would first have to be clearly and universally defined.
Sepero1 3 years ago
What is fruitful pain?
dakshinamurti 3 years ago
Exercise is one example.
Fruitful pain is putting in effort and receiving a reward.
Another example is:
person A works for money, and person B is given money for no effort
Person A is more likely to place a higher value on the acquisition of money.
(The word "money" can be replaced with food, clothing, or anything else)
Sepero1 3 years ago
So because in today's world you need pain (real or perceived) to have a motivation of a sorts, does that mean pain is intrinsically valuable or that one cannot have motivation through other means? Take for instance a healthy body. Why is it better to have to endure pain to get it, rather then just have it ensured by your dna or anti-aging therapies for example? Isn't pain a very primitive motivator, and useless in a more desirable society, where certain goods are guaranteed without pain?
dakshinamurti 3 years ago
Also, I call your attention to the part that says, "several gradients of bliss" that still provide motivation, via the contrast principle. All you need is to know there is a more pleasurable state to be motivated to get it, for example... you don't really need to be in pain and suffering. You may just want MORE bliss. Wouldn't that be preferable?
dakshinamurti 3 years ago
"Isn't pain a very primitive motivator, and useless in a more desirable society"
I agree that it is a primitive motivator (in fact genetic). But useless?
If you do not feel hunger or thirst, how will you know it is time to eat or drink? If you are in the desert and do not feel hot, how will you know you must seek shade to live?
If the answer is artificial stimulus, then I'm not sure I would want to live a life filled with artificial stimuluses.
Sepero1 3 years ago
Bro, I understand your reserves. And I appreciate that you are concerned that we still have a way to know when to act, namely in the face of danger. I also assure you that your concerns are shared by the very same people who are working on this. Rigorous controls must be in place. About artificiality, it is not inherently less valuable than the current outcome of darwinian evolution.
dakshinamurti 3 years ago
By incorporating self-directed chances in our genome, we are focusing on value in a way no random mutation could aspire to.
dakshinamurti 3 years ago
Very good question.
We can program robots to recharge themselves when batteries or low, and we can program them to avoid things like excessive heat. All that is needed for the latter is a microprocessor, motors, and a thermometer. Of course computers do not feel pain, so in principal it is possible to avoid it while feeling nothing.
Many of the computations your brain performs are done without conscious knowledge.. language processing, driving your car, etc. So in principal you can "know" it
savegoogleanswers 3 years ago
is time to eat through a similar abstraction, where the raw feeling of starving is removed. There are many things we intellectually know which are detached from feelings. So why not have hunger/thirst/pain replaced in a similar fashion?
Alternatively, in the far future, I can imagine a network of microscopic implants throughout our entire nervous system, connected to our muscles, which will make us move away from extreme heat sources (ie hot oven) without our brain doing any processing at all.
savegoogleanswers 3 years ago
These motivators can be replaced with another feeling... Doesn't have to be that raw experience that one is forced to endure! Also, humans can be genetically programmed to be self-sufficient - so if isolated, they won't starve/go crazy!
As with your repugnance to unnatural artifacts: nothing you have really is natural. Your haircut is unnatural. Your clothing is unnatural. Basically if you shave, that is unnatural as well. Natural = not equal to = Good. Natural is neutral. As simple as that!
GoodJokeGoneBad 3 years ago
food for thought eh?
teganjames 3 years ago
precisely :) yummy stuff.
dakshinamurti 3 years ago
lets play with our DNA thats an awsome Idea
Jessusslapper 3 years ago
Seems to be a very good idea, if done with rigorous controls in place. I would definitely love to have stuff like wings, superintelligence, much more resistant bones, enhanced senses like vision and smell. The idea is humans guiding their own evolution and become post-human. The idea of living forever in a state of bliss sounds very very appealing to me. And it's not compulsory, so it's cool.
dakshinamurti 3 years ago
thats to much power for a group of a few peolpe, humans are too easily swayed by power like that.
Jessusslapper 3 years ago
Why would only a few people have these new powers and abilities? If you plot technological developments over the last 100 years, you will see they are adopted by larger proportions of the society with increasing speed. One example is Africa skipping landline and going straight to cell phones. Another is how fast people starting using the web, whereas it took much longer for everyone to get a TV. Also, many who abuse power are looking for pleasure. So why abuse it when experiencing sublime bliss?
savegoogleanswers 3 years ago
there are peolpe who get pleasure from others pain. this could help peolpe but this could
also be used to bring endless pain to millions
if this techniogy falls into the hands of peolpe who only want to further their own agenda like
* a corupt goverment
*terrorist
* or the D.M.V
Jessusslapper 3 years ago
Brilhante. Mais palavras para quê?
saradulce 3 years ago
This sounds absolutely brilliant. Excellent, extremely informative video.
Orygyn 3 years ago
You're so kind :)
dakshinamurti 3 years ago