[Paleopsych] David Pearce interviwed by RU Sirius
Premise Checker
checker at panix.com
Sat Dec 17 16:55:11 UTC 2005
David Pearce interviwed by RU Sirius
http://www.hedweb.com/hedethic/interview.html
First published in the [1]NeoFiles
Date: 16 December 2003
Feeling Groovy, Forever
David Pearce in Conversation with R.U. Sirius
This manifesto outlines a strategy to eradicate suffering in all sentient
life. So begins David Pearces Web-based manifesto [2]The Hedonistic
Imperative. Pearce believes that through such technological manipulations as
genetic engineering, better drugs, and precise stimulation of various
localities in the brain, human beings (just for starters) can live in a
sort-of paradise in which all unpleasant states of consciousness have been
banished to the old Darwinian Era. These new-found paradisical brain-states
will exist within the context of an advanced, nanotechnologized society in
which oppressive external conditions have also been eliminated.
For Pearce, the great shift into a hedonic society will come about by genetic
intervention: Gene therapy will be targeted both on somatic cells and, with
even greater forethought, the [3]germ-line. If cunningly applied, a
combination of the cellular enlargement of the meso-limbic [4]dopamine
system, selectively enhanced metabolic function of key intra-cellular
sub-types of opioidergic and serotonergic pathway, and the disablement of
several countervailing inhibitory feedback processes will put in place the
biomolecular architecture for a major transition in human evolution
His website [5]HEDWEB includes the substantial Hedonistic Imperative
treatise, as well as a [6]marvelous critique of Huxleys Brave New World,
another lengthy discussion of [7]MDMA (ecstasy), a philosophical essay that
tries to answer the question [8]Why does anything exist?, and a section
advocating Animal Liberation, or at least something akin to a global welfare
state for higher non-human lifeforms.
Pearce lives quietly in Brighton, England. He communicates masterfully
through his website and is unaccustomed to being interviewed. But I prevailed
upon him in a transatlantic phone conversation.
NEOFILES:
While initial steps towards your Hedonistic Imperative seem to involve
improved drugs and wireheading (stimulating pleasure centers in the brain),
what you are really talking about is biological manipulations that will
produce humans who experience a variety of positive states ranging from high
functioning well-being to serene bliss, and who dont experience negative
states - or at least only the functional analogs of negative states that lack
the raw feel of mental pain as we understand it today. Can you say a bit
about the technology behind this idea?
DAVID PEARCE:
Well, there are technical obstacles and ideological obstacles to the
abolitionist project. But if one deals first with the technical challenges, I
think there are essentially three options. One is wireheading. Wireheading is
(probably) a dead-end. But it is illuminating because the procedure shows
that pleasure has no physiological tolerance. That is to say, its just as
exhilarating having ones pleasure centers stimulated 24 hours after starting
a binge as it was at the beginning.
NF:
in contrast to recreational drugs where euphoriants and even the best
hallucinogens have diminishing returns
DP: Yes, the high is typically followed by the low, or at least by severely
diminished rewards as the negative feedback mechanisms of the brain kick in.
Something similar occurs with natural rewards such as food, drink and sex.
But with wireheading this doesnt happen. Pleasure, and perhaps pure pleasure
alone, shows no tolerance. Of course, our image of wireheading itself is
dreadful. People confuse it with torture or the coercive psychiatry of One
Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest. And a whole society based on wireheading wouldnt
be sustainable, in its crude forms at least. No one would want to reproduce
and raise children.
So, secondly, theres the option of designing better drugs. The prospect of
lifelong drug-induced happiness strikes many people as unappealing.
Drug-induced happiness sounds shallow, amoral and one-dimensional. But the
pleasure drugs of the future will be far richer in their effects than, say,
soma in Huxleys notorious Brave New World. At present were missing out on
some incredibly beautiful states of consciousness because of the legacy of
our brutish Darwinian past and the bioconservative ideologies that sustain
it.
Even so, I think drugs are only a stopgap. In the long run, if were morally
serious about creating a cruelty-free world, were going to use the third
option, genetic engineering. Right now, were on the brink of a reproductive
revolution, the era of designer babies if you will, where responsible parents
will choose the genetic makeup of their kids. Initially, were only going to
tinker with the genome. Eventually, I think were going to rewrite it
altogether. And to be deliberately simplistic: imagine if you could choose
the average lifetime mood level of your future offspring on a genetic dial -
with number 1 on the dial representing modest well-being and number 10
representing sublime bliss. What setting would you choose for your child?
Most prospective parents, I think, will choose settings at the higher end of
the scale not sublime bliss perhaps, but certainly genotypes encoding a
predisposition to lifelong happiness. We may perhaps want many different
things for our kids (high intelligence, good looks, success), but their
happiness is at least one of these criteria; and ultimately, I think, its the
most important. The good news here is that in future, such (un)happiness
neednt be left to a cruel Darwinian genetic lottery or Fate. So its worth
stressing that progress towards the abolition of suffering doesnt entail the
global adoption of an ideology of paradise engineering - or anything so
grandiose and utopian as the abolitionist project I advocate. Initially at
least, progress to a kinder world merely entails parents taking genetic
decisions about whats best for their kids...
Of course, this revolution in the technology of reproductive medicine is
still some way off. Today, even early adopters arent doing anything much more
ambitious than choosing their childs gender. But in maybe three or four
decades or so, and possibly substantially sooner, well be choosing such
traits as the average hedonic set point of our children. Over time, I think
allelic combinations [suites of variant copies of mission-critical genes]
that leave their bearers pre-disposed to unpleasant states of consciousness
unpleasant states that were genetically adaptive in our ancestral environment
- will be weeded out of the gene pool. For a very different kind of selection
pressure is at work when evolution is no longer blind and random i.e. when
rational agents pre-design the genetic make up of their future offspring in
anticipation of its likely effects on their kids. In that sense, were heading
for a Post-Darwinian transition ultimately I believe to some form of
paradise-engineering, but perhaps to something else altogether.
NF:
In very rough terms, what were talking about is juicing up the dopaminergic
and serotonergic systems, among a bunch of other neurochemical tweaks, in
very precise ways, at the level of the genes, once we fully understand how
genes control these things.
DP: Yes. The neural basis of our so-called basic moods and emotions is
simpler than so-called higher cognitive functions. But undeniably, this
neural basis is still fiendishly complicated, the simplicity of wireheading
notwithstanding. For instance, the mesolimbic dopamine system may not be, as
weve sometimes supposed, the final common pathway of pleasure in the brain:
dopamine apparently mediates wanting (i.e. incentive-motivation) as much as
liking, which is signaled by activation of the mu opioid receptors. But if we
focus here on the simple monoamines, an obvious target for intervention is
indeed the mesolimbic dopamine system. One of the most common objections to
the idea of abolishing suffering ignoring here the prospect of full-blown
paradise-engineering is that without the spur of discontent wed soon become
idle and even bored. If we were all happy, what would we do all day? But
enhanced dopamine function is associated, not just with euphoria, but with
heightened motivation; a deeper sense of meaningfulness, significance and
purpose; and an increased sensitivity to a greater range of rewards. So one
possible option for paradise engineering is to focus on enriching the
dopaminergic system to promote (a genetic predisposition to) lifestyles of
high achievement and intellectual productivity.
Thats one option at least. Another sort of predisposition is to pursue a
lifetime of introspection, meditation and blissful tranquility. If I seem to
dwell unduly on ways of enriching dopamine function, thats because exploring
its amplification is a useful corrective to a widespread misconception i.e.
that happiness inevitably leads to stagnation. The critical point, I think,
is that to be blissful isnt the same as being blissed out.
NF:
What about the possibility that madness could come from these amplified
states?
DP:
Well, you cant just unselectively pump up the dopaminergic system and hope to
induce states of high-functioning well-being. You might just induce chronic
psychosis instead. Genetically enriching our mental health demands a deeper
understanding of the workings of the brain than we have today. The era of
mature genomic medicine is still decades away. But consider even something as
simple and monogenetic as the association between one variant of [9]dopamine
DRD4 receptor allele and an unusually optimistic, novelty-seeking
temperament. Other things being equal, this trait may be seen as positive.
Most prospective parents, if given the choice, would probably opt for an
allele predisposing to such a trait in preference to, say, any genotype
predisposing to a depressive, anxiety-ridden temperament for their kids. To
take another example: prospective parents in future will probably opt for two
copies of the longer version of the allele of serotonin transporter gene
(5-HTTLPR) whose shorter version is associated with anxiety disorders and
neuroticism. I stress that these are just toy examples. More sophisticated
versions of genetic choices such as the above are likely to be commonly
available later this century and beyond. Such choices will presumably be
assisted by computational software with an ultra-friendly user interface so
we dont all have to become molecular psychiatrists and can concentrate on
making high-level choices of trait instead.
One objection springs to mind here. Mood and personality are influenced by a
multitude of different genes, not to mention the vagaries of the environment.
So it might seem that all but the simplest interventions, involving only a
handful of alleles, will lead to an impossible combinatorial explosion of
possibilities - and unanticipated consequences to match. This may indeed be
the case. The very expression designer babies conjures up a dystopian
nightmare, not paradise-engineering. However, mature quantum computing will
allow us (in a few decades??) to perform super-sophisticated modeling and
fabulously complex simulations which are (many) orders of magnitude more
powerful than anything feasible today. I think the pessimists will be
confounded. I could be wrong. We shall see.
NF:
Returning to the intermediary stage drug development, you seem to find the
greatest promise in the development of anti-depressants and in MDMA. Care to
explain this?
DP:
Yes. MDMA (Ecstasy) is interesting not least because of the way its use
challenges our notion that drug-taking must be inherently selfish i.e.
hedonistic in the baser sense on the term. At its best, the MDMA experience
shows that drug-induced well-being can be profoundly loving, insightful and
empathetic. Unfortunately, MDMA itself is potentially neurotoxic to the
serotonergic axons - even at non-heroic dosages. Although the claims of the
drug warriors about its dangers are clearly overblown, theres no denying that
MDMA isnt the sort of agent you can use regularly on a long-term basis in the
way you would take a so-called anti-depressant or other psychoactive
prescription drug. Yet here I think lies the crux. The mainstream medical
conclusion drawn from MDMAs (probable) human toxicity is that MDMA - and
other insight-and empathy drugs used by the scientific counterculture -
should be banned, or at least their use discouraged. But theres a better
option: we should be systematically researching ways to design safe and
sustainable entactogen/empathogens. Critically, their neurotoxicity can be
dissociated from their therapeutic effect. And once the neurological
signature and precise molecular mechanisms underlying both the magic and the
ugly post-E serotonin dip are worked out, theres no reason why states of
blissful empathy cant be sustained indefinitely. If we consider the goal
worthwhile, then this task is just a technical challenge with a technical
solution. Something akin to Naranjo's brief fleeting moment of sanity
[induced by taking MDMA] can become our default condition of mental health.
Perhaps. Alas the rather ill-assorted class of drugs today marketed as
antidepressants dont do much to enrich our capacity for empathy or
self-insight. But they are a good example of agents that dont have a fast,
up-down effect. Rather, they induce a steady improvement of mood, reduced
anxiety levels, and enhanced emotional resilience - for at least some of the
people who take them. The mood uplift they offer is quite modest: only a
small percentage of people ever feel better than well on Prozac; and some
people even feel worse. Also, the reward is often delayed by as much as
several weeks, possibly to allow nerve cell growth in the hippocampus. Right
now the drug companies are working on faster-acting antidepressants - with
only limited success it has to be said, owing to the taboo on targeting the
dopaminergic and opioid systems. But delayed drug-induced reward is actually
a long-term therapeutic advantage for any good psychoactive agent because it
minimizes the likelihood of uncontrolled dosage-escalation posed by the use
of fast acting euphoriants. Of course, conventional wisdom is that
anti-depressants exist only to help people who are diagnosed as clinically
depressed; and such drugs arent of benefit to anyone else. That may be true
with most of the older tricyclics at least; and most of their current
successors. But theres no reason, in principle, why everyone cant have their
moods enriched and uplifted in a controllable way, whether by drugs or gene
therapy. Although I cant prove it, I think our descendants will be animated
by gradients of well-being beyond the bounds of normal human experience. I
stress the controllability here because we dont want genetically susceptible
people switching to uncontrolled manic exuberance though mildly hypomanic
states can sometimes be extraordinarily productive.
In short, we need a vastly enriched conception of mental health. At present,
if a drug company came up with the ideal pleasure drug - a real blockbuster
wonderdrug designed to enrich the lives of everyone who took it - then it
simply wouldnt get a product license. Absurdly, theres no way it could be
legally marketed. [Nor could, say, an authentic intelligence-booster or smart
drug be marketed either] This is because to get a product license for an
investigational drug you have to indicate some officially recognized disease
or disorder that the drug potentially alleviates or cures. Just helping the
dull-witted and malaise-ridden (as we all are, by the lights of posterity)
doesnt count. Crazy.
NF:
You mention nanotechnology as part of the paradise engineered future but dont
say much about its role. How do you see this?
DP:
The role of nanotechnology in keeping us all physically healthy and wealthy
is covered in admirable depth elsewhere. So I just focus on one particular
application of nanotechnology, albeit (I think) a morally important
application. If the abolitionist project is ever to be completed, then it
must extend not just to humans but to the rest of the living world. Its easy
to dismiss nonhuman suffering as comparatively trivial in its intensity
compared to our own. I hope the skeptics are right; but all the indications
are this isnt the case. The more primitive the feeling or emotion, the more
intense it typically feels. The biological substrates of suffering are
disturbingly constant throughout the vertebrate line. I think a lot of the
animals we abuse and kill are functionally and morally akin to human infants
and toddlers. Anyhow, in this context, if one believes that it is ethically
desirable to eliminate suffering from the world, then nanotechnology will be
necessary to penetrate the recesses of the oceans and the furthest reaches of
the reaches of the animal kingdom. If we do ever want to redesign the global
eco-system and rewrite the vertebrate genome, then this is the kind of
mega-project that could only be done with nanotech. At any rate, it will be
within our computational resources to do so. I hope well take our godlike
powers seriously and use them ethically.
NF:
Lots of people will think this is a bad idea, even if it can be achieved. You
seem to cover every conceivable objection in the manifesto and in your
critique of Brave New World but can you speak briefly to the likely main
objection; that personalities that are not forged out of difficulty will be
lacking and somehow de-humanized?
DP:
I think the opposite is true. Other things being equal, enhancing our
enjoyment of life is character-building. This sounds a bit odd, even
paradoxical, but one of the nastier aspects of melancholic depression and its
common sub-clinical variants today is the syndrome of so-called learned
helplessness and behavioral despair. Milder forms of this syndrome are
endemic to the population at large. People prone to depression give up too
easily. Theyve only a limited capacity to anticipate reward or experience
happiness. They arent easily motivated. By contrast, the new mood-enriching
technologies will cure weakness of will. They are potentially empowering,
even liberating. For the more one loves life, the more motivated one is to
carry out ones goals and life projects. When feeling happy and energized, one
takes on challenges that would daunt frailer spirits. Ideally, one will be
able to use biotech to transform oneself into the sort of person one wants to
be rather than passively accepting I cant help it, I was born like that. Its
suffering that dehumanizes and demoralizes us, not well-being. Suffering is
not ennobling or character-building; its ultimately just nasty - and
potentially functionally redundant. Rationalizing its existence makes
suffering (sometimes) more bearable; but that's all. That which does not
crush me makes me stronger, said Nietzsche; yes, but thats the trouble: all
too many people today do have their spirits crushed by the cruelties of
Darwinian life. But not for much longer, I think.
A final point. Uniform bliss isnt any more motivating than uniform despair.
To enjoy a high functioning and intellectually discerning bliss, well need to
explore gradients of well-being. In the language of the information-theoretic
paradigm, what matters to the way we function is not our absolute location on
the pleasure-pain axis, but that we are informationally sensitive to
fitness-relevant changes in our internal and external environment. Thus
whereas today many people are driven by gradients of discontent, in the
future I think well be animated by gradients of bliss. Some days will be
sublime. Others will be merely wonderful. But critically, there will be one
particular texture (what it feels like) of consciousness that will be missing
from our lives; and that will be the texture of nastiness. I think the
absence of Darwinian suffering will be the foundation of any future
civilization.
* * *
[10]The Hedonistic Imperative
[11]HOME
[12]Future Opioids
[13]Utopian Surgery?
[14]Wirehead Hedonism
[15]The Good Drug Guide
[16]Paradise Engineering
[17]Nanotechnology Hotlinks
[18]MDMA: Utopian Pharmacology
[19]Critique of Huxley's Brave New World
[20]David Pearce interviwed by Jon Despres
[21]Sintiéndose maravillosamente, por siempre
E-mail Dave
[22]dave at hedweb.com
References
1. http://www.life-enhancement.com/neofiles/
2. http://www.hedweb.com/hedethic/hedonist.htm
3. http://www.scienceblog.com/community/article588.html
4. http://www.columbia.edu/~jh299/DA.html
5. http://www.hedweb.com/welcome.htm
6. http://www.hedweb.com/huxley/bnw.htm
7. http://www.hedweb.com/ecstasy/index.html
8. http://www.hedweb.com/nihilism/nihilfil.htm
9. http://rae.tnir.org/cryonics/breakthrough/2.html
10. http://www.hedweb.com/hedab.htm
11. http://www.hedweb.com/index.html
12. http://opioids.com/
13. http://www.general-anaesthesia.com/
14. http://www.wireheading.com/
15. http://www.biopsychiatry.com/
16. http://paradise-engineering.com/
17. http://www.nanotechnologist.com/
18. http://www.mdma.net/index.html
19. http://www.huxley.net/
20. http://www.hedweb.com/hedethic/interview.htm
21. http://www.hedweb.com/hedethic/es.html
22. mailto:dave at hedweb.com
More information about the paleopsych
mailing list