close

Discovered in

Find other sites about

Related Sites

  • Wirehead hedonism versus paradise-engineering

    This brings up an interesting point regarding my final solution. Happy people typically want to share that happiness. Creating the organism is suggest in my final solution may be as simple as creating people who are always happy no matter what.Perhaps that is what makes us special. Perhaps we... more

    Reviewed by Innomen Feb 28 2008, 03:22am ( 49 reviews ) • wireheading.com

    44K views
  • Showing 42 of 49
  • Reviews of the site
  • Join StumbleUpon or login to add a review! default avatar

  • Rated by seanmarler on Aug 03, 9:13pm

    I could spend hours just following the killer links from this page... the content rocks.

  • Reviewed by ddd1600 on Jul 25, 10:51pm

    "What do you think about this page? Within a few centuries, it will be technically if not ideologically feasible to abolish suffering of any kind." No. Namely because without suffering there is no pleasure. Without death there is no life. QED. If you were going up all the time you'd never know you were going up and would subsequently think you were not going anywhere. QED again. She's a great writer though and I intend on sticking around for a while. But still, don't overestimate the powers of the feeble scientific mind, its hit and miss the whole way and we still barely know what we are doing. I'm serious. Neuroscientists view the brain like Ptolemy viewed the universe. No shit. Peace of mind, true inner peace, is attainable---mechanical control of the brain is not. Its quite difficult to control an organic phenomena via mechanical methods, quite difficult indeed. Of course, anything is possible, I guess. "Humans don't have this problem." No. Wrong again. "God is dead." No, but you will be soon. "Natural selection has previously been "blind"." No. "...A post-aging world..." ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? NO. Read a book you damned cretin.

  • Rated by zimpf on Jul 11, 5:53pm

    This is really one of those sites that make you think, especially if you have any familiarity with the pharmacology of neuroscience. As technology advances we will always be faced with the argument of those who think that " natural," meaning unmitigated by technology, is preferable to what we can discover about how technology might "enhance" human experience or diminish suffering. I don't think it's much of a choice for the great majority of folks alive: science will advance technology despite anybody's disagreement since it is, for the most part, able to place itself far ahead of the slow pace at which ethical considerations are given validity. The question that remains unanswered is: "How much of human experience is not accessible to technology?" In psychiatry this is where criteria-based syndromes interface with the spectrum of personality variables; those characteristics of personality whose influence by technology remains equivocal.

  • Reviewed by Kirro on Jul 07, 1:27am

    The conspiracy theory tone puts me off quite a bit. I also disagree with the general message of the article, but I'm not entirely willing to write off the science as baseless. The end question, however, has a blunt, simple answer. "Is it really permissible to compel others to suffer when any form of distress becomes purely optional?" First, throw out "compel." No one is forcing suffering on anyone; it's a part of our genetic code. But the simple answer either way is still a resounding yes. Even if you could manufacture a drug that is cheap and effective, or somehow manage to alter genetics on a massive scale, I would still have people suffer. Not because I love suffering, but because the alternative is simply unacceptable and downright dangerous. A society that is always happy has no reason to produce anything. There is no reason to grow or experience more. The thing is, we're not much better than the rats, willing to push the lever over and over so long as it gives us pleasure. It's not just that pain gives us something to compare happiness to; it's that pain and suffering are required motivators.

  • Rated by Chadrew on May 10 2009, 9:20am

    Interesting article. I don't think humans will be able to react adequately to everyday problems if all kinds of mental suffering was abolished though. After all suffering is stimulate to change something, to solve your problems. This still could be a great way to help depression sufferers and other people with mental problems though.

  • Reviewed by Havvy on Apr 25 2009, 1:48am

    I must end up agreeing with Celainn. It is what I was going to say before reading the comments...

  • Reviewed by murdocsvan on Mar 31 2009, 3:53am

    Agreed with Celainn. Without pain, we would have no perception of happiness, because we'd have nothing to compare it with.