Thanks for your questions. Here are some thoughts:
[signalling or alarm system] would be a functional replacement, performing the same function as pain, but replacing suffering with information.
Is this something like rationality? Some individuals can learn by rational rather than emotional understanding. How can an individual’s reasoning potential be known?
I think rationality would apply to both cases. Let’s say you feel pain in your arm, you or your doctor would use rational methods to figure out what’s wrong. The same thing would happen if a diagnostic tool or a gene-edited system notified you, without the pain signal, that there’s something wrong with your arm. You would still use rationality to diagnose and fix the problem.
This would mean that suffering-reducing measures should be universal or could cause unintended suffering to non-participants.
I agree with you that suffering reduction should be universal. Effective altruism has really pushed the idea of overcoming bias in location, time and species.
It is implied that developing competence and survival is enjoyable, and more enjoyable than (painfully) dying very young. Is there any evidence for either of those claims?
The second chapter of the book focuses on r-strategists, but also states that “r-strategist infants aren’t the only wild animals who experience a low level of welfare. Most (sentient) K-strategist animals and r-strategist adults endure a considerable amount of suffering from a variety of sources...”
completely eliminating suffering would decrease an animal’s capacity for positive experiences
What suggests that this is the case? A counter-example is that taking an analgesic does not eliminate one’s ability to feel pleasure.
I agree. Joanne Cameron is also a good example of someone who doesn’t feel pain and appears to have a normal capacity for positive experiences and happiness. The effects of eliminating pain or suffering on happiness is worth further study.
Yes, this should be the same. The question is whether the individual can feel pain but perceive it, by their rationality, equivalently to a e. g. a diagnostic tool signal. It seems to me that this is possible for educated humans: maybe there is a splinter which needs to be surgically removed—the human, in this example, understands the solution and does not subjectively suffer from the pain.
Assume that an animal feels pain in its arm due to a splinter. The pain functions as a signal to deprioritize other tasks and focus on trying to resolve the pain or decrease activity in the arm to allow healing. The animal, in this scenario, should be reminded of this by pain otherwise it will not perform the tasks or rest. In this example, the animal does not have the rational capacity to follow recommendations without feeling pain.
I am uncertain whether being compelled to action or rest by pain can be perceived by an animal without extensive rational capacity as subjectively non-negative. I can imagine that if the subjective perception of problem solving is valuable, such as showing how to rest an arm with a splinter to children, then it can be perceived well. Negative subjective perception can be associated with disvalue, such as being unable to play.
I would argue that universal suffering reduction in one’s immediate vicinity is more important than such across geographies (or times), if that can only include specific individuals. For example, if it is cost-effective (only considering individual health impact) to spray a vaccine that makes 10% of individuals healthy while 90% suffer a disease, then this could have negative wellbeing impact (while providing a 99% vaccination rate at one place and 0% at (larger) another can have a positive impact).
Ok, so the suffering of r-strategists seems to be assumed without e. g. hormonal analysis (such as cortisol levels testing). Adult k- and r- strategists’ suffering is also assumed. I am wondering about the definition of suffering: for example, it makes intuitive sense that if one is sometimes cold, hungry, and hunted, their wellbeing is low. But, animals who are warm, live in abundance, and prepare for hunting by play can be happy?
Just glancing at the article, I am uncertain if the person actually perceives the emotions or just exhibits them since that can attract attention/present a specific persona. Of course, the article is written for an online medium that can aim for engagement, but it seems to me, with an exaggeration, almost like a list of behaviors one should be jealous about in order to pay further attention, be angry while perceiving one’s disadvantage and no solution, so pay for a subscription to read further stories to possibly find a solution or read something that would confirm their privilege. But this is somewhat rambling.
Also, these are my first thoughts. There may be answers or better questions somewhere.
Thanks for your questions. Here are some thoughts:
I think rationality would apply to both cases. Let’s say you feel pain in your arm, you or your doctor would use rational methods to figure out what’s wrong. The same thing would happen if a diagnostic tool or a gene-edited system notified you, without the pain signal, that there’s something wrong with your arm. You would still use rationality to diagnose and fix the problem.
I agree with you that suffering reduction should be universal. Effective altruism has really pushed the idea of overcoming bias in location, time and species.
The second chapter of the book focuses on r-strategists, but also states that “r-strategist infants aren’t the only wild animals who experience a low level of welfare. Most (sentient) K-strategist animals and r-strategist adults endure a considerable amount of suffering from a variety of sources...”
I agree. Joanne Cameron is also a good example of someone who doesn’t feel pain and appears to have a normal capacity for positive experiences and happiness. The effects of eliminating pain or suffering on happiness is worth further study.
Yes, this should be the same. The question is whether the individual can feel pain but perceive it, by their rationality, equivalently to a e. g. a diagnostic tool signal. It seems to me that this is possible for educated humans: maybe there is a splinter which needs to be surgically removed—the human, in this example, understands the solution and does not subjectively suffer from the pain.
Assume that an animal feels pain in its arm due to a splinter. The pain functions as a signal to deprioritize other tasks and focus on trying to resolve the pain or decrease activity in the arm to allow healing. The animal, in this scenario, should be reminded of this by pain otherwise it will not perform the tasks or rest. In this example, the animal does not have the rational capacity to follow recommendations without feeling pain.
I am uncertain whether being compelled to action or rest by pain can be perceived by an animal without extensive rational capacity as subjectively non-negative. I can imagine that if the subjective perception of problem solving is valuable, such as showing how to rest an arm with a splinter to children, then it can be perceived well. Negative subjective perception can be associated with disvalue, such as being unable to play.
I would argue that universal suffering reduction in one’s immediate vicinity is more important than such across geographies (or times), if that can only include specific individuals. For example, if it is cost-effective (only considering individual health impact) to spray a vaccine that makes 10% of individuals healthy while 90% suffer a disease, then this could have negative wellbeing impact (while providing a 99% vaccination rate at one place and 0% at (larger) another can have a positive impact).
Ok, so the suffering of r-strategists seems to be assumed without e. g. hormonal analysis (such as cortisol levels testing). Adult k- and r- strategists’ suffering is also assumed. I am wondering about the definition of suffering: for example, it makes intuitive sense that if one is sometimes cold, hungry, and hunted, their wellbeing is low. But, animals who are warm, live in abundance, and prepare for hunting by play can be happy?
Just glancing at the article, I am uncertain if the person actually perceives the emotions or just exhibits them since that can attract attention/present a specific persona. Of course, the article is written for an online medium that can aim for engagement, but it seems to me, with an exaggeration, almost like a list of behaviors one should be jealous about in order to pay further attention, be angry while perceiving one’s disadvantage and no solution, so pay for a subscription to read further stories to possibly find a solution or read something that would confirm their privilege. But this is somewhat rambling.
Also, these are my first thoughts. There may be answers or better questions somewhere.