Eradication of suffering

{{short description|Eradicating involuntary pain and suffering using biotechnology}}

{{distinguish|Abolitionism|text=abolitionism (commodity status)}}

The eradication or abolition of suffering is the concept of using biotechnology to create a permanent absence of involuntary pain and suffering in all sentient beings.

Biology and medicine

The discovery of modern anesthesia in the 19th century was an early breakthrough in the elimination of pain during surgery, but acceptance was not universal. Some medical practitioners at the time believed that anesthesia was an artificial and harmful intervention in the body's natural response to injury.{{cite journal |last1=Meyer |first1=Rachel |last2=Desai |first2=Sukumar P. |title=Accepting pain over comfort: resistance to the use of anesthesia in the mid-19th century |journal=Journal of Anesthesia History |date=October 2015 |volume=1 |issue=4 |pages=115–121 |doi=10.1016/j.janh.2015.07.027 |pmid=26828088}} Opposition to anesthesia has since dissipated; however, the prospect of eradicating pain raises similar concerns about interfering with life's natural functions.{{cite web|title=Scientists may soon be able to turn off pain with gene editing: should they?|url=https://leapsmag.com/scientists-may-soon-be-able-to-turn-off-pain-with-gene-editing-should-they/|last1=Hildebrandt|first1=Eleanor|date=2020-05-19|website=leapsmag|publisher=Leaps by Bayer}}

People who are naturally incapable of feeling pain or unpleasant sensations due to rare conditions like pain asymbolia or congenital insensitivity to pain have been studied to discover the biological and genetic reasons for their pain-free lives.{{cite journal |last1=Shaer |first1=Matthew |title=The Family That Feels Almost No Pain |journal=Smithsonian Magazine |date=May 2019 |url=https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/family-feels-almost-no-pain-180971915/ |language=en}} A Scottish woman with a previously unreported genetic mutation in a FAAH pseudogene (dubbed FAAH-OUT) with resultant elevated anandamide levels was reported in 2019 to be immune to anxiety, unable to experience fear, and insensitive to pain. The frequent burns and cuts she had due to her full hypoalgesia healed quicker than average.{{Cite news|last=Murphy|first=Heather|date=2019-03-28|title=At 71, She's Never Felt Pain or Anxiety. Now Scientists Know Why.|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/28/health/woman-pain-anxiety.html|access-date=2020-05-27|issn=0362-4331}}{{Cite journal|last1=Habib|first1=Abdella M.|last2=Okorokov|first2=Andrei L.|last3=Hill|first3=Matthew N.|last4=Bras|first4=Jose T.|last5=Lee|first5=Man-Cheung|last6=Li|first6=Shengnan|last7=Gossage|first7=Samuel J.|last8=van Drimmelen|first8=Marie|last9=Morena|first9=Maria|last10=Houlden|first10=Henry|last11=Ramirez|first11=Juan D.|date=August 2019|title=Microdeletion in a FAAH pseudogene identified in a patient with high anandamide concentrations and pain insensitivity|journal=British Journal of Anaesthesia|language=en|volume=123|issue=2|pages=e249–e253|doi=10.1016/j.bja.2019.02.019|pmc=6676009|pmid=30929760}}{{Cite news|last=Sample|first=Ian|date=2019-03-28|title=Scientists find genetic mutation that makes woman feel no pain|work=The Guardian|url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/mar/28/scientists-find-genetic-mutation-that-makes-woman-feel-no-pain|access-date=2020-05-30}}

In 1990, Medical Hypotheses published an article by L. S. Mancini on the "genetic engineering of a world without pain":{{cite journal |last1=Mancini |first1=L. S. |title=Riley-Day Syndrome, brain stimulation and the genetic engineering of a world without pain |journal=Medical Hypotheses |date=1990 |volume=31 |issue=3 |pages=201–207 |doi=10.1016/0306-9877(90)90093-t |pmid=2189064 |citeseerx=10.1.1.628.3624 }}

{{quote |text=A hypothesis is presented to the effect that everything adaptive which is achievable with a mind capable of experiencing varying degrees of both pleasure and pain (the human condition as we know it) could be achieved with a mind capable of experiencing only varying degrees of pleasure.}}

The development of gene editing techniques like CRISPR has raised the prospect that "scientists can identify the causes of certain unusual people's physical superpowers and use gene editing to grant them to others."{{cite news |last1=Regalado |first1=Antonio |title=The next trick for CRISPR is gene-editing pain away |url=https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/08/22/133291/the-next-trick-for-crispr-is-gene-editing-pain-away/ |work=MIT Technology Review |date=2019-08-22}} Geneticist George Church has commented on the potential future of replacing pain with a painless sensory system:{{cite web |last1=Church |first1=George |last2=Perry |first2=Lucas |title=FLI Podcast: On the Future of Computation, Synthetic Biology, and Life with George Church |url=https://futureoflife.org/2020/05/15/on-the-future-of-computation-synthetic-biology-and-life-with-george-church |website=Future of Life Institute |date=2020-05-15}}

{{quote |text=I imagine what this would be like on another planet and in the future, and... given that imagined future, whether we would be willing to come back to where we are now. Rather than saying whether we're willing to go forward... ask whether you're willing to come back.}}

Ethics and philosophy

Ethicists and philosophers in the schools of hedonism and utilitarianism, especially negative utilitarianism, have debated the merits of eradicating suffering.{{cite journal|last1=Power|first1=Katherine|date=July–August 2006|title=The End of Suffering|url=https://philosophynow.org/issues/56/The_End_of_Suffering|journal=Philosophy Now|issue=56}} Transhumanist philosopher David Pearce, in The Hedonistic Imperative (1995), argues that the abolition of suffering is both technically feasible and an issue of moral urgency,{{cite web |last1=Dvorsky |first1=George |date=2012-09-27 |title=Should we eliminate the human ability to feel pain? |url=https://io9.gizmodo.com/should-we-eliminate-the-human-ability-to-feel-pain-5946914 |website=Gizmodo}} stating that: "It is predicted that the world's last unpleasant experience will be a precisely dateable event."{{cite web |last1=Pearce |first1=David |date=1995 |title=The Hedonistic Imperative |url=https://www.hedweb.com |website=HEDWEB}}

The philosopher Nick Bostrom, director of the Future of Humanity Institute, advises a more cautious approach due to pain's function in protecting individuals from harm. However, Bostrom supports the core idea of using biotechnology to get rid of "a huge amount of unnecessary and undeserved suffering." It has also been argued that the eradication of suffering through biotechnology may bring about unwanted consequences, and arguments have been made that transhumanism is not the only philosophy worthy of consideration regarding the question of suffering — many people view suffering as one aspect in a dualist understanding of psychological and physical functioning, without which pleasure could not exist.{{cite journal|last1=Renstrom|first1=Joelle|date=2018|title=It's the End of the World as We Know It and We Feel Fantastic: Examining the End of Suffering|url=https://nanocrit.com/issues/issue13/It-s-the-End-of-the-World-as-We-Know-It-and-We-Feel-Fantastic-Examining-the-End-of-Suffering|journal=NANO: New American Notes Online|volume=13|access-date=3 January 2022}}

Animal welfare

In 2009, Adam Shriver suggested replacing animals in factory farming with genetically engineered animals with a reduced or absent capacity to suffer and feel pain.{{cite journal |last1=Shriver |first1=Adam |title=Knocking Out Pain in Livestock: Can Technology Succeed Where Morality has Stalled? |journal=Neuroethics |date=2009 |volume=2 |issue=3 |pages=115–124 |doi=10.1007/s12152-009-9048-6 |s2cid=10504334 |url=https://philarchive.org/archive/SHRKOP}} Shriver and McConnachie argued that people who wish to improve animal welfare should support gene editing in addition to plant-based diets and cultured meat.{{cite journal |last1=Shriver |first1=Adam |last2=McConnachie |first2=Emilie |title=Genetically Modifying Livestock for Improved Welfare: A Path Forward |journal=Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics |date=2018 |volume=31 |issue=2 |pages=161–180 |doi=10.1007/s10806-018-9719-6 |bibcode=2018JAEE...31..161S |s2cid=158274840 |url=https://philpapers.org/archive/SHRGML}}

Katrien Devolder and Matthias Eggel proposed gene editing research animals to remove pain and suffering. This would be an intermediate step towards eventually stopping all experimentation on animals and adopting alternatives.{{cite journal |last1=Devolder |first1=Katrien |last2=Eggel |first2=Matthias |title=No Pain, No Gain? In Defence of Genetically Disenhancing (Most) Research Animals |journal=Animals |date=2019 |volume=9 |issue=4 |page=154 |doi=10.3390/ani9040154 |pmc=6523187 |pmid=30970545 |doi-access=free }}

Concerning wild-animal suffering, CRISPR-based gene drives have been suggested as a cost-effective way of spreading benign alleles in sexually reproducing species.{{Cite journal|last=Johannsen|first=Kyle|date=2017-04-01|title=Animal Rights and the Problem of r-Strategists|journal=Ethical Theory and Moral Practice|language=en|volume=20|issue=2|pages=333–345|doi=10.1007/s10677-016-9774-x|s2cid=151950095|issn=1572-8447|url=https://philarchive.org/rec/JOHARA-7 }}{{Cite web|last=Pearce|first=David|date=2016–2020|title=Compassionate Biology: How CRISPR-based 'gene drives' could cheaply, rapidly and sustainably reduce suffering throughout the living world|url=https://www.hedweb.com/gene-drives/index.html|access-date=2020-06-02|website=Hedweb}}{{Cite web|last1=Esvelt|first1=Kevin|date=2019-08-30|title=When Are We Obligated To Edit Wild Creatures?|url=https://leapsmag.com/when-are-we-obligated-to-edit-wild-creatures/|access-date=2020-06-02|website=leapsmag|language=en-US}} To limit gene drives spreading indefinitely (for test programmes, for example), the Sculpting Evolution group at the MIT Media Lab developed a self-exhausting form of CRISPR-based gene drive called a "daisy-chain drive."{{Cite journal|last1=Noble|first1=Charleston|last2=Min|first2=John|last3=Olejarz|first3=Jason|last4=Buchthal|first4=Joanna|last5=Chavez|first5=Alejandro|last6=Smidler|first6=Andrea L.|last7=DeBenedictis|first7=Erika A.|last8=Church|first8=George M.|last9=Nowak|first9=Martin A.|last10=Esvelt|first10=Kevin M.|date=2019-04-23|title=Daisy-chain gene drives for the alteration of local populations|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|language=en|volume=116|issue=17|pages=8275–8282|doi=10.1073/pnas.1716358116|issn=0027-8424|pmid=30940750|pmc=6486765|bibcode=2019PNAS..116.8275N |doi-access=free}}{{Cite web|last1=Esvelt|first1=Kevin|title=Daisy Drive Systems|url=http://www.sculptingevolution.org/daisydrives|access-date=2020-06-02|website=Sculpting Evolution Group|publisher=MIT Media Lab}} For potential adverse effects of a gene drive, "[s]everal genetic mechanisms for limiting or eliminating gene drives have been proposed and/or developed, including synthetic resistance, reversal drives, and immunizing reversal drives."{{Cite journal|last1=Vella|first1=Michael R.|last2=Gunning|first2=Christian E.|last3=Lloyd|first3=Alun L.|last4=Gould|first4=Fred|date=2017-09-08|title=Evaluating strategies for reversing CRISPR-Cas9 gene drives|journal=Scientific Reports|language=en|volume=7|issue=1|page=11038|doi=10.1038/s41598-017-10633-2|pmid=28887462|pmc=5591286|bibcode=2017NatSR...711038V|issn=2045-2322|doi-access=free}}

Feasibility

According to David Pearce, eradicating suffering is technically feasible by addressing its biological basis, as external changes cannot overcome the genetically constrained hedonic treadmill. Potential solutions include wireheading (direct brain stimulation for uniform bliss), which undermines motivation and evolutionary fitness; designer drugs, offering sustainable well-being without side effects, though impractical for lifelong reliance; and genetic engineering, the most promising approach. Genetic recalibration through hyperthymia-promoting genes could raise hedonic set-points, fostering adaptive well-being, creativity, and productivity while maintaining responsiveness to stimuli. While scientifically achievable, this transformation requires careful ethical and societal considerations to navigate its profound implications.{{cite web |title=The Abolitionist Project |url=https://www.hedweb.com/abolitionist-project/index.html |website=Hedweb |accessdate=22 January 2025}}

Eradication of suffering

Biology and medicine

Ethics and philosophy

Animal welfare

Feasibility

See also

References

Further reading