Eradication of suffering explained

The eradication or abolition of suffering is the concept of using biotechnology to create a permanent absence of involuntary pain and suffering in all sentient beings.

Biology and medicine

The discovery of modern anesthesia in the 19th century was an early breakthrough in the elimination of pain during surgery, but acceptance was not universal. Some medical practitioners at the time believed that anesthesia was an artificial and harmful intervention in the body's natural response to injury.^[1] Opposition to anesthesia has since dissipated; however, the prospect of eradicating pain raises similar concerns about interfering with life's natural functions.^[2]

People who are naturally incapable of feeling pain or unpleasant sensations due to rare conditions like pain asymbolia or congenital insensitivity to pain have been studied to discover the biological and genetic reasons for their pain-free lives.^[3] A Scottish woman with a previously unreported genetic mutation in a FAAH pseudogene (dubbed FAAH-OUT) with resultant elevated anandamide levels was reported in 2019 to be immune to anxiety, unable to experience fear, and insensitive to pain. The frequent burns and cuts she had due to her full hypoalgesia healed quicker than average.^{[4] [5] [6]}

In 1990, Medical Hypotheses published an article by L. S. Mancini on the "genetic engineering of a world without pain":^[7]

The development of gene editing techniques like CRISPR has raised the prospect that "scientists can identify the causes of certain unusual people's physical superpowers and use gene editing to grant them to others."^[8] Geneticist George Church has commented on the potential future of replacing pain with a painless sensory system:^[9]

Ethics and philosophy

Ethicists and philosophers in the schools of hedonism and utilitarianism, especially negative utilitarianism, have debated the merits of eradicating suffering.^[10] Transhumanist philosopher David Pearce, in The Hedonistic Imperative (1995), argues that the abolition of suffering is both technically feasible and an issue of moral urgency,^[11] stating that: "It is predicted that the world's last unpleasant experience will be a precisely dateable event."^[12]

The philosopher Nick Bostrom, director of the Future of Humanity Institute, advises a more cautious approach due to pain's function in protecting individuals from harm. However, Bostrom supports the core idea of using biotechnology to get rid of "a huge amount of unnecessary and undeserved suffering." It has also been argued that the eradication of suffering through biotechnology may bring about unwanted consequences, and arguments have been made that transhumanism is not the only philosophy worthy of consideration regarding the question of suffering — many people view suffering as one aspect in a dualist understanding of psychological and physical functioning, without which pleasure could not exist.^[13]

Animal welfare

In 2009, Adam Shriver suggested replacing animals in factory farming with genetically engineered animals with a reduced or absent capacity to suffer and feel pain.^[14] Shriver and McConnachie argued that people who wish to improve animal welfare should support gene editing in addition to plant-based diets and cultured meat.^[15]

Katrien Devolder and Matthias Eggel proposed gene editing research animals to remove pain and suffering. This would be an intermediate step towards eventually stopping all experimentation on animals and adopting alternatives.^[16]

Concerning wild-animal suffering, CRISPR-based gene drives have been suggested as a cost-effective way of spreading benign alleles in sexually reproducing species.^{[17] [18] [19]} To limit gene drives spreading indefinitely (for test programmes, for example), the Sculpting Evolution group at the MIT Media Lab developed a self-exhausting form of CRISPR-based gene drive called a "daisy-chain drive."^{[20] [21]} For potential adverse effects of a gene drive, "[s]everal genetic mechanisms for limiting or eliminating gene drives have been proposed and/or developed, including synthetic resistance, reversal drives, and immunizing reversal drives."^[22]

See also

• Antinaturalism
• Appeal to nature
• Biohappiness
• Effective altruism
• Pain in animals
• Prioritarianism
• Suffering-focused ethics
• Suffering risks
• Transhumanism
• Wild animal suffering

Further reading

• Kianpour. Connor. Paez. Eze. 2021-02-16. Red in Tooth and Claw No More: Animal Rights and the Permissibility to Redesign Nature. White Horse Press. 31 . 2 . 211–231 . 10.3197/096327121X16081160834777. 234109685 .
• Paez. Eze. 2020-04-01. A Kantian ethics of paradise engineering. Analysis. en. 80. 2. 283–293. 10.1093/analys/anz077. 0003-2638.
• Levy . Ariel . A World Without Pain . The New Yorker . 2020-01-13 .
• Book: Waxman . Stephen G. . Chasing Men on Fire: The Story of the Search for a Pain Gene . The MIT Press . Cambridge, MA . 9780262037402. 2018.
• Book: Pearce . David . Can Biotechnology Abolish Suffering? . 2017 . The Neuroethics Foundation . North Carolina . 9781386842149.
• Specter . Michael . Rewriting the Code of Life . The New Yorker . 2016-12-26 . en.

Notes and References

1. Meyer . Rachel . Desai . Sukumar P. . Accepting pain over comfort: resistance to the use of anesthesia in the mid-19th century . Journal of Anesthesia History . October 2015 . 1 . 4 . 115–121 . 10.1016/j.janh.2015.07.027 . 26828088.
2. Web site: Scientists may soon be able to turn off pain with gene editing: should they?. Hildebrandt. Eleanor. 2020-05-19. leapsmag. Leaps by Bayer.
3. Shaer . Matthew . The Family That Feels Almost No Pain . Smithsonian Magazine . May 2019 . en.
4. News: Murphy. Heather. 2019-03-28. At 71, She's Never Felt Pain or Anxiety. Now Scientists Know Why.. en-US. The New York Times. 2020-05-27. 0362-4331.
5. Habib. Abdella M.. Okorokov. Andrei L.. Hill. Matthew N.. Bras. Jose T.. Lee. Man-Cheung. Li. Shengnan. Gossage. Samuel J.. van Drimmelen. Marie. Morena. Maria. Houlden. Henry. Ramirez. Juan D.. August 2019. Microdeletion in a FAAH pseudogene identified in a patient with high anandamide concentrations and pain insensitivity. British Journal of Anaesthesia. en. 123. 2. e249–e253. 10.1016/j.bja.2019.02.019. 6676009. 30929760.
6. News: Sample. Ian. 2019-03-28. Scientists find genetic mutation that makes woman feel no pain. The Guardian. 2020-05-30.
7. Mancini . L. S. . Riley-Day Syndrome, brain stimulation and the genetic engineering of a world without pain . Medical Hypotheses . 1990 . 31 . 3 . 201–207 . 10.1016/0306-9877(90)90093-t . 2189064 . 10.1.1.628.3624 .
8. News: Regalado . Antonio . The next trick for CRISPR is gene-editing pain away . MIT Technology Review . 2019-08-22.
9. Web site: Church . George . Perry . Lucas . FLI Podcast: On the Future of Computation, Synthetic Biology, and Life with George Church . Future of Life Institute . 2020-05-15.
10. Power. Katherine. July–August 2006. The End of Suffering. Philosophy Now. 56.
11. Web site: Dvorsky . George . 2012-09-27 . Should we eliminate the human ability to feel pain? . Gizmodo.
12. Web site: Pearce . David . 1995 . The Hedonistic Imperative . HEDWEB.
13. Renstrom. Joelle. 2018. It's the End of the World as We Know It and We Feel Fantastic: Examining the End of Suffering. NANO: New American Notes Online. 13. 3 January 2022.
14. Shriver . Adam . Knocking Out Pain in Livestock: Can Technology Succeed Where Morality has Stalled? . Neuroethics . 2009 . 2 . 3 . 115–124 . 10.1007/s12152-009-9048-6 . 10504334 .
15. Shriver . Adam . McConnachie . Emilie . Genetically Modifying Livestock for Improved Welfare: A Path Forward . Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics . 2018 . 31 . 2 . 161–180 . 10.1007/s10806-018-9719-6 . 158274840 .
16. Devolder . Katrien . Eggel . Matthias . No Pain, No Gain? In Defence of Genetically Disenhancing (Most) Research Animals . Animals . 2019 . 9 . 4 . 154 . 10.3390/ani9040154 . 6523187 . 30970545 . free .
17. Johannsen. Kyle. 2017-04-01. Animal Rights and the Problem of r-Strategists. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. en. 20. 2. 333–345. 10.1007/s10677-016-9774-x. 151950095. 1572-8447.
18. Web site: Pearce. David. 2016–2020. Compassionate Biology: How CRISPR-based 'gene drives' could cheaply, rapidly and sustainably reduce suffering throughout the living world. 2020-06-02. Hedweb.
19. Web site: Esvelt. Kevin. 2019-08-30. When Are We Obligated To Edit Wild Creatures?. 2020-06-02. leapsmag. en-US.
20. Noble. Charleston. Min. John. Olejarz. Jason. Buchthal. Joanna. Chavez. Alejandro. Smidler. Andrea L.. DeBenedictis. Erika A.. Church. George M.. Nowak. Martin A.. Esvelt. Kevin M.. 2019-04-23. Daisy-chain gene drives for the alteration of local populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. en. 116. 17. 8275–8282. 10.1073/pnas.1716358116. 0027-8424. 30940750. 6486765. 2019PNAS..116.8275N . free.
21. Web site: Esvelt. Kevin. Daisy Drive Systems. 2020-06-02. Sculpting Evolution Group. MIT Media Lab.
22. Vella. Michael R.. Gunning. Christian E.. Lloyd. Alun L.. Gould. Fred. 2017-09-08. Evaluating strategies for reversing CRISPR-Cas9 gene drives. Scientific Reports. en. 7. 1. 11038. 10.1038/s41598-017-10633-2. 28887462. 5591286. 2017NatSR...711038V. 2045-2322. free.