Is it possible to create a postsuffering future where involuntary suffering no longer exists?
I’m in the International Suffering Abolitionists group and began the Wikipedia article eradication of suffering.
Is it possible to create a postsuffering future where involuntary suffering no longer exists?
I’m in the International Suffering Abolitionists group and began the Wikipedia article eradication of suffering.
Thank you for posting this. Appreciate reading about his life and legacy.
Are there any links to the translations of David Pearce’s works?
Thanks for the comment.
It would focus on species that have the capacity for suffering and enjoyment, so not all species.
I agree it is a hugely ambitious project. Megaprojects are within the scope of EA and its funders.
If most wild animal lives have negative wellbeing, I think this kind of intervention would be preferable to the status quo or extinction.
Thanks, I completely agree. David Pearce is the founder of this line of thought: editing and rewriting nature to reduce and eliminate involuntary suffering.
I have added a quotation to the post:
Like saving the drowning child in Singer’s thought experiment, now that gene drive technology is available, there is a choice between doing nothing and intervening to do good.
“In the post-CRISPR era, whether intelligent agents decide to preserve, reform, or phase out the biology of involuntary suffering will be an ethical choice.”
David Pearce, Compassionate Biology
Many thanks for writing this essay. The history of technological restraint is fascinating. I never knew that Edward Teller wanted to design a 10-gigaton bomb.
Something I have noticed in history is that advocates of technological restraint are often labelled luddites or luddite supporters. Here’s an example from 2016:
Artificial Intelligence Alarmists Win ITIF’s Annual Luddite Award
After a month-long public vote, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) today announced that it has given its annual Luddite Award to a loose coalition of scientists and luminaries who stirred fear and hysteria in 2015 by raising alarms that artificial intelligence (AI) could spell doom for humanity. ITIF argued that such alarmism distracts attention from the enormous benefits that AI can offer society—and, worse, that unnecessary panic could forestall progress on AI by discouraging more robust public and private investment.
“It is deeply unfortunate that luminaries such as Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking have contributed to feverish hand-wringing about a looming artificial intelligence apocalypse,” said ITIF President Robert D. Atkinson. “Do we think either of them personally are Luddites? No, of course not. They are pioneers of science and technology. But they and others have done a disservice to the public—and have unquestionably given aid and comfort to an increasingly pervasive neo-Luddite impulse in society today—by demonizing AI in the popular imagination.”
“If we want to continue increasing productivity, creating jobs, and increasing wages, then we should be accelerating AI development, not raising fears about its destructive potential,” Atkinson said. “Raising sci-fi doomsday scenarios is unhelpful, because it spooks policymakers and the public, which is likely to erode support for more research, development, and adoption. The obvious irony here is that it is hard to think of anyone who invests as much as Elon Musk himself does to advance AI research, including research to ensure that AI is safe. But when he makes inflammatory comments about ‘summoning the demon,’ it takes us two steps back.”
The list of people the ITIF wanted to call luddites included “Advocates seeking a ban on ‘killer robots’”, probably the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots.
I wonder what the ITIF’s position is on Teller’s 10-gigaton bomb.
Lack of access to the incorporated standards, since the standards often cost hundreds of dollars each to access.
Not only are many standards expensive, but they often include digital rights management that make them cumbersome to access and open.
In Australia, access to standards is controlled by private companies that can charge whatever they like. There’s currently a petition to the Australian parliament with 22,526 signatures requesting free or affordable access to Australian Standards, including standards mandated by legislation. Across the ditch, the New Zealand government has set a great example by funding free access to building standards.
It’s important for AI safety standards to be open access from the start.
Support national laws and agencies regulating advanced AI. For the US, see this bipartisan bill and this proposal to establish a federal agency.
Translation is a great idea.
It was one of the winners of the Future Fund’s Project Ideas Competition, and it’s now listed on the project ideas page.
A problem unique to Chinese content is to ensure that it doesn’t get blocked by their internet censorship policy.
Thanks for bringing up the idea of case studies.
It would also be useful to study verification, compliance and enforcement of these regulations: “Trust, but verify.”
A few suggestions for next steps:
Support investigative journalism into AI progress and safety. Something similar to this, but for AI: Bankman-Fried Family Donates $5 Million to ProPublica: Grant will support reporting on biosecurity and pandemic preparedness.
Support non-governmental organizations that campaign for international laws and treaties regulating AI. The regulation of autonomous weapons might be a good starting point. See the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots and Lethal Autonomous Weapons.
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.
No worries. I think we have different definitions of the status quo, and that is affecting our interpretation of the survey results.
Your definition of the status quo is a form of independence: functional independence (or perhaps de facto independence). In which case, since all the survey results show that “Maintain status quo” is popular, means that independence is the most popular choice.
My definition of the status quo is something in-between unification and independence, like a third way. It’s the “none of the above” choice, disapproving both unification and independence. If this definition is used, then all the survey results show that this position is the most popular choice.
It’s a shame that the survey question doesn’t actually define what the status quo is. The status quo changes over time too, so it’s hard to pin down.
But perhaps that is what makes the status quo option so popular. It’s a vague, undefined entity that can be interpreted whatever way you like.
Anyway, for completeness, here’s the full survey question from the data collection methodology:
The independence-unification (TI-UM) position is constructed from the following survey item:
“Thinking about Taiwan-mainland relations, there are several differing opinions:
unification as soon as possible;
independence as soon as possible;
maintain the status quo and move toward unification in the future;
maintain the status quo and move toward independence in the future;
maintain the status quo and decide in the future between independence or unification;
maintain the status quo indefinitely.
Which do you prefer?”
In addition to these six attitudes, the trend chart also includes non-responses for a total of seven categories.
Thanks for your post! Good to see this issue in the EA Forum.
Regarding the statement that:
At this point, most people in Taiwan don’t consider themselves Chinese anymore and simply want to be their own nation instead, indefinitely.
Survey data supports your first point. The vast majority of people in Taiwan call themselves “Taiwanese” or “Both Taiwanese and Chinese”:
Survey data doesn’t support your second point though: “[most people in Taiwan] simply want to be their own nation instead, indefinitely”. Most people in Taiwan support the status quo in various forms:
The most popular options are:
Maintain status quo, decide at later date (28.4%)
Maintain status quo indefinitely (27.3%)
Maintain status quo, move toward independence (25.1%)
The survey question doesn’t define what the status quo is, but it’s definitely not independence, and it’s definitely not unification. It’s the grey area, the middle choice, between independence and unification.
The US uses strategic ambiguity to keep Taiwan with the status quo. It will support Taiwan as long as it doesn’t declare formal independence and start a war.
Why is the status quo so popular? It means peace and prosperity, and it has been surprisingly stable over the last 70 years.
WHO published a report on malaria eradication (2020) that covers megatrends like climate change.
It is similar to other reports in recommending over $6 billion per year to meet targets.
The Lancet Commission on Malaria Eradication (2019) : “Malaria eradication is likely to cost over $6 billion per year. The world is already spending around $4.3 billion.”
If eradication is achieved by 2040, that would be about $120 billion in total.
None mentioned in the report. It refers to the Methods section of an online appendix but the appendix doesn’t appear to be on the website.
The Tech Worker Handbook website has more information about Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs). It also cautions people from reading the website on a company device:
Business Insider’s review of 36 NDAs in the tech industry: