Evaluating Brock Bastian’s Critical Review of David Pearces Abolitionism

Introduction

When David Pearce's vision for a world devoid of suffering is met with skepticism by social psychologist Brock Bastian, what insights does this critical review offer us? How do hedonic gradients and genetic engineering factor into this debate?

“I think and think and think I’ve thought myself out of happiness one million times but never once into it.” - Jonathan Safran Foer

David Pearce’s concept of abolishing suffering through genetic phasing out of biology's inherent pain and embracing life based on information-sensitive gradients of well-being is a contentious and intriguing subject. Brock Bastian’s critiques, as highlighted in The Other Side of Happiness and Pairagraph, challenge this paradigm.

Is Suffering Inevitable?

Bastian questions whether it is practically feasible or desirable to abolish suffering, a question which prompts us to consider the relativity of happiness and pain. Psychologically, humans and animals experience pain not in an absolute sense, but as part of a broader spectrum of emotions and sensations.

Hedonic Adaptation and the Treadmill

Hedonic adaptation suggests that our subjective experiences of pain and pleasure adjust over time, setting up a feedback loop that Bastian calls the 'hedonic treadmill.' Even if perfect pleasure were possible, humans and animals would still adapt to it, leading to a diminishing sense of its value.

Bioengineering Happiness

The possibility of achieving a hyperthymic civilisation, where individuals experience elevated well-being through genetic engineering and designer drugs, challenges the status quo. Studies on current genetic outliers and temperament extremes provide empirical evidence of the feasibility of altering the fundamental mechanisms of emotional experience.

“If it were possible to abolish suffering, should we do it?” - A key question presented by Bastian.

Empirical Studies and Genetic Innovation

Despite the speculative nature of future genetic innovations, empirical studies on current genetic outliers offer valuable insights. High-functioning individuals with hyperthymia, for example, demonstrate that it is possible to have a genetically constrained hedonic set-point that is elevated and stable. This supports the idea that genetic engineering could be used to enhance well-being.

Implications of a Hyperthymic Civilization

The idea of a world where everyone is constitutionally happy raises significant sociopolitical and ethical questions. While such a world might seem utopian, it could also lead to an underestimation of existential risks, as demonstrated in animal models and neurological studies. It is crucial to consider the balance between genetic enhancement and potential systemic risks.

“Should ‘ridiculously high hedonic set-points’ become the norm, how would we even know they are ridiculously high?” - Bastian's intriguing query highlights the subjective nature of these set-points and the need for empirical validation.

Gratitude and Rationalization

Gratitude exercises, often recommended as a way to rationalize suffering, may not be as effective in clinical settings, especially for those with chronic depression. This discrepancy underscores the differences in experience between individuals and the subjective nature of well-being.

The neurogenetic basis of mood and motivation suggests that future inhabitants of our posthuman world may view the current set-points of transhumans as alarmingly low. This recursive cycle of self-improvement highlights the dynamic and evolving nature of well-being.

Conclusion

The debate around genetic engineering and the abolition of suffering is complex and multifaceted. While Brock Bastian's skepticism is justified, it is also crucial to consider the empirical evidence and the potential benefits of genetic innovation. The future of life may very well depend on our willingness to embrace genetic engineering and a more fearless approach to living, while also recognizing the inherent risks.

Beyond the immediate philosophizing, the question of whether a world without suffering is achievable and desirable challenges us to reconsider the very foundations of human experience.