/lit/ - Literature

>>23237668
>>23237686
Not an argument

>>22797329
>genetically engineering people to always be happy is LE MANMADE HORROR because IT JUST IS OKAY?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsEt7zDxRzY

>>22779738
>Its is flat out counter evolutionary.
It's obvious that you don't have a good understanding of Pearce's philosophy. Pearce's proposal of gradients of bliss is intended to take evolutionary factors into account when trying to redesign human biology to not suffer. The idea is that you could create an alternate signalling mechanism that performs the same functions as pain, but without the pain. This is vastly different from congenital analgesia, where there is no such alternate signalling mechanism.

Information on how gradients of bliss as a hypothetical pain replacement could work:
https://www.hedweb.com/object33.htm
https://qualiacomputing.com/2016/08/03/information-sensitive-gradients-of-bliss/

TL;DR:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xYuJcjbWZQ

>>22779811
Are you seriously trying to argue that anesthesia has not advanced at all for thousands of years? The fact that opium existed thousands of years ago doesn't imply that it was just as accessible and just as effective as modern surgical anesthesia.

>>22710063
>If suffering didn't exist people would have to endure extreme boredom.
Refute this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE90-AocqFI

>That's just the nature of consciousness, so I don't think it's possible to ultimately overcome this "problem".
How do you know this? The reason you feel boredom because your brain was designed by evolution. Boredom is a product of neurons firing and chemical reactions in your brain, just like every other emotion. If you're going to claim that not feeling boredom or other forms of suffering is literally physically impossible, and that suffering isn't just a byproduct of evolutionary happenstance, you're going to need to provide some evidence.

>>22664537
>and refutations of it, if they exist
All of the "refutations" people have been able to come up for it are trivial to refute. Andrés Gómez Emilsson made a series of shorts where be debunks all of the common counterarguments people make against THI.

https://www.youtube.com/@AndresGomezEmilsson/shorts

>>22554879
>Even if that technology existed (it doesnt)
Yet

>what makes you think human nature would immediately commodify it so only the ultra rich and privileged get access?
And no one having access to it at all is somehow better?

>Ever seen the movie elysium? It would be like that.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jsEt7zDxRzY

>>22535386
I never said anything about genetic equality. You can still have genetic diversity while having everyone be genetically predisposed to having a much higher hedonic set point. So what's your actual argument for why it wouldn't be utopian?

>>22518727
>And guess what the fent addicted niggers in the street already follow this hedonic imperative shit and look how far they get? Dying in a pool of drool and diahreah
Except that's not what David Pearce advocates. His whole idea of gradients of bliss is to create a system where superhappiness is possible in such a way that DOESN'T cause you to become the equivalent of a heroin addict.

https://www.hedweb.com/object33.htm
https://qualiacomputing.com/2016/08/03/information-sensitive-gradients-of-bliss/
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3xYuJcjbWZQ

>>22507483
How is it obviously nightmarish?

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jsEt7zDxRzY

>>22440814
>muh feelings
Not an argument

>>22401637
>they argue teleologically; neurotech has already overcome the contradictions of capitalism
What exactly is the counterargument to this? Regardless of what economic system you live under, unless the technology is banned, there's no reason why you couldn't genetically engineer people for maximum bliss. How exactly do the "contradictions of capitalism" refute Emilsson's and Pearce's philosophies?

>>22314532

>>21974927
>>21974931
Do you have any actual arguments for why this is a bad thing?

>>21955604
>Suffering is LE GOOD because of Reason X

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GpmAZnGo2Gc
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3xYuJcjbWZQ
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1NwCXFlhJz0

>>21732399
>Utilitarianism and NWO ideas related to it are LE BAD because, THEY JUST ARE, OKAY?!