Transhumanism; How Biotechnology Can Eradicate Suffering | David Pearce

1. 0:00 – 4:21

   Transhumanism in one framework: the “three supers”

   1. CWChris Williamson0:00

      (wind blowing) Hi, friends. Welcome back to the Modern Wisdom Podcast. My guest today is David Pearce. We're going to be talking all things transhumanism. That is not talking about people changing their genders, but it is exploring some very exciting topic areas which I've wanted to sink my teeth into for a while. So today, expect to learn why suffering of any kind is an artifact that might have been useful to our ancestors but is something that we need to transcend as soon as possible, how David thinks that humanity not only should but also must progress towards a more hedonic imperative, the hard problem of consciousness and why we might not be uploading our brains into computers any time soon, and a lot of interesting discussions about the implications of CRISPR and gene editing on the whole. We cover a lot of topics that I definitely should have been much more well-educated on seeing as they have massive implications and are also pretty current to society right now. But yeah, uh, loved the conversation. David is a massively prominent figure in the transhumanism movement, and I feel very privileged to have had him on teaching us the 101 of transhumanism. So without further ado, please welcome David Pearce.

   2. NANarrator1:25

      (Upbeat music playing)

   3. CWChris Williamson1:38

      Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back. I'm joined by David Pearce today. David, welcome to the show.

   4. DPDavid Pearce1:45

      Hi, Chris. It's good to be with you. (claps hands)

   5. CWChris Williamson1:47

      Fantastic to have you on today. Also nice to hear a familiar accent. Uh, so-

   6. DPDavid Pearce1:53

      (laughs)

   7. CWChris Williamson1:53

      ... we're talking about transhumanism today. This will be a, a new venture for a lot of the listeners. So let's start off with a definition. Can you, can you tell us what transhumanism is?

   8. DPDavid Pearce2:04

      (inhales deeply) Uh, well, there are no sacred texts, but, uh, very simplistically, I sometimes talk about the three supers, uh, three supers of, of transhumanism. Uh, super intelligence, this is the idea that it's going to be possible to radically amplify our intelligence, uh, and machine intelligence, and there are, uh, different ways one can go about this. There are different conceptions of post-human super intelligence, but that's one of the three supers. Then there is super longevity. This is the idea that there is no immutable law of nature that says that biological robots must grow old and die, whereas silicon ro- robots can be, uh, repaired indefinitely. And transhumanists, uh, uh, believe in radical life extension, indefinite youth with a backup, uh, of cryonics or maybe even cryoethanasia because... for any of your, uh, listeners who perhaps of a certain age think that realistically they're not going to make it.

   9. CWChris Williamson3:10

      (laughs)

   10. DPDavid Pearce3:11

       And the third, uh, uh, super, which is the super I focus on most of all, super happiness or self... or super well-being. Uh, this is the idea that it's going to be possible to replace the biology of pain and misery and suffering, uh, with life based entirely on gradients of intelligent well-being. This is, uh, uh, replacing the biology of suffering not just in humans but, in the long run, uh, the rest of the animal kingdom throughout the living world. Now, as well as those three supers, uh, there are plenty of transhumanists who would want to add a fourth, uh, super that they don't agree what that might be. Uh, for example, what about, uh, super empathy? Um, but I would argue that, uh, this is, uh, embraced by any sufficiently rich conception of super intelligence, that a full spectrum super intelligence wouldn't just have an off-the-scale IQ. Uh, it would also have a super human, uh, capacity for per- perspective-taking, empathetic understanding. So there in a nutshell.

2. 4:21 – 5:54

   Superlongevity and the emotional reality of anti-aging breakthroughs

   1. CWChris Williamson4:21

      Fantastic. It's no small task, I think, is one way to kind of summarize the, uh, the transhumanist movement then. Um, interestingly, I had, uh, Professor David Sinclair on recently, who you may know.

   2. DPDavid Pearce4:34

      Right. Yes, indeed. Yes, yes.

   3. CWChris Williamson4:35

      Yes, I had him on not long ago talking about the cutting-edge longevity research that he's doing. And during that, I asked him, "Do you think that a human could live for a thousand years?" Uh, and his, his short answer was yes. So it's, it's interesting to hear that people from multiple fields, really different fields from... coming out from genetics and, and gene editing, coming at it from this longevity research, and then m- your side as well, are all pointing in a similar direction.

   4. DPDavid Pearce5:04

      (inhales deeply) Yes. Uh, and th- this is it. I think a lot of people psychologically would switch off if one, uh, were to say, "Well, look, uh, our grandchildren won't grow old and die, but you will."

   5. CWChris Williamson5:19

      (laughs)

   6. DPDavid Pearce5:19

      I mean, there's something almost cruel about telling people that science is going to find a, a cure for aging shortly after you're dead.

   7. CWChris Williamson5:27

      Mm-hmm.

   8. DPDavid Pearce5:27

      And I know... don't know this. Uh, unlike most, uh, transhumanists, I'm not, shall we say, one of life's temperamental optimists. Um, but nonetheless, as, as, as I said, as well as, uh, supporting, uh, research into anti-aging technologies, there is one strand of the super longevity aspect of transhumanism that is focused on, uh, cryonics and even, uh, uh, cryoethanasia. So-

3. 5:54 – 8:02

   Cryonics and “cryoethanasia”: pausing death until medicine catches up

   1. CWChris Williamson5:54

      What are, what are those two terms for us, please?

   2. DPDavid Pearce5:56

      Essentially... Sorry. I sh- I should have said. This is the i- this is the idea that if you are, uh, uh, sus- suspended in optimal conditions, that, uh, so long as irreversible information loss doesn't occur, it will be po- possible to reanimate you at some future date when whatever... when there is a cure for whatever killed you. Um, now, uh...It is extremely difficult in a technical sense to destroy information, sh- some physicists would say impossible. But nonetheless, I would say a bi- a big imponderable is whether that people who are, uh, uh, frozen a long time, by about long time I mean hours after, uh, their nominal death, whether it wi- will be possible to reanimate them, that, uh, in practice, deterioration may be too far advanced. But, uh, in principle, at any rate, one could have something like cryoethanasia rather than waiting until you're 95 and gaga, uh, uh, have yourself, uh, suspended where you are still, shall we say, in the, in the prime of life. It hasn't been done, uh, yet, but this is, uh, this, this would be one possible option.

   3. CWChris Williamson7:13

      That sounds an awful lot like a book that I've just about finished. Have you read Children of Time by Adrian Tchaikovsky?

   4. DPDavid Pearce7:21

      I blush to say it is now many, many years since I've read a, a, a novel. Uh, that is... (laughs)

   5. CWChris Williamson7:27

      Cool. So it was the, um, it was the winner of the 2016 Arthur C. Clarke Award. Um-

   6. DPDavid Pearce7:31

      Yep.

   7. CWChris Williamson7:32

      And it was the 30th anniversary one as well. So they gave it out to a fantastic book. And in that they have people who dip in and out of suspended animation, these long sleeps for, um, going across, uh, big, vast galactic distances between different, uh, different star systems and stuff like that. And, uh, they, they jump in and out of it like you'd, like you'd get a shower. Um, but it sounds, it sounds like the, the technology for that's a, a little bit further away. So moving on to your

4. 8:02 – 9:42

   Superhappiness and the hedonic range: from “-10 to +10” to “+70 to +100”

   1. CWChris Williamson8:02

      particular domain of competence, you were talking about, uh, super happiness?

   2. DPDavid Pearce8:09

      Yes. Once again, that's, uh, that's just a, a slogan. But, um, yes, if you think of perhaps today's, uh, hedonic range as minus 10 to zero to plus 10, with, uh, minus 10 being the absolute pit of, uh, despair, unbearable a- unbearable agony, uh, hedonic zero being emotionally neutral experience, uh, and plus 10 being the most wonderful peak experience of your life-

   3. CWChris Williamson8:38

      Mm-hmm.

   4. DPDavid Pearce8:39

      ... um, imagine if it were possible to engineer a civilization that, let's say, stretched from plus 70 to plus 100.

   5. CWChris Williamson8:48

      (laughs)

   6. DPDavid Pearce8:48

      Now, if that sounds too much like, uh, science fiction, well, that may well be the, uh, uh, the case. And much more morally urgent, I think, is focusing on th- the, the subzero states that, uh, plague so many lives, uh, today, uh, that sadly, natural selection didn't optimize us for being happy, it optimized us for leaving more copies of our genes, or as evolutionary biologists like to say, to maximize our inclusive genetic fitness. Uh, and yeah, there's no real convincing scientific evidence that on average, uh, we are happier or sadder or more or less d- contented or discontented today than we were on the African savanna, which, uh, is very counter, uh, intuitive. But yeah, the hedonic treadmill-

   7. CWChris Williamson9:42

      Mm-hmm.

5. 9:42 – 13:19

   Editing the genetic “source code” of suffering: screening, selection, CRISPR

   1. DPDavid Pearce9:42

      ... uh, is designed to keep us discontented a lot of the time, um, essentially bec- because it's good, it's good for our genes. Uh, and if we are ethically serious about getting rid of pain and suffering, we're gonna have to tackle its genetic, uh, biological roots. I mean, that may sound like crude genetic determinism. I- in practice, one is going to need a twin track approach, you know, everything from basic, uh, income to decent accommodation, healthcare and so forth, all, all the kind of environmental stopgaps, yes. But if we're ever to get rid of the horrors of, uh, depression, anxiety disorders, essentially all the nasty aspects of Darwinian life, we're gonna have to edit our genetic source code. And perhaps the first thing I think we should do is, you know, prospect- prospective parents a- a- at the moment, does one have a genetic crapshoot, and recall every child born today is a unique undusted genetic experiment, or does one try to load the genetic dice in favor of one's offspring by giving them a high hedonic set point, high pain threshold, uh, and trays like that? Now, I think there are real ethical questions about whether one really wants to bring more pain and suffering into the world. But given most people, uh, do want to have kids, uh, I think the best one can do is, uh, is, is urge them, uh, to, uh, yeah, first of all consider pre-implantation genetic screening, uh, and soon, uh, CRISPR genome editing.

   2. CWChris Williamson11:30

      Yeah, I was listening to Jamie Metzl on Joe Rogan just earlier on today. Do you know Jamie? Have you heard of his work?

   3. DPDavid Pearce11:37

      Yes, yes, yeah.

   4. CWChris Williamson11:38

      So I was listening to those two go at it, and a lot of these topics came up. I think CRISPR at the moment is kind of a hot topic for the ethical questions that it's offering. But Jamie offered a really interesting point, which was he said in the future, he thinks that parents who potentially have biological, typically biological births are maybe going to be seen in, as irresponsible in the same way as parents who don't vaccinate their children now, that if you had the choice of choosing through IVF or whatever advanced version of that is, this, what was it? Embryonic selection perhaps...

   5. DPDavid Pearce12:15

      ... pre-implantation genetic screen. This isn't the same as, uh, as actual genome editing, which a lot of people regard as more, more radical. It's simply, uh, choosing what Mother Nature has, has, has thrown up. But, uh, ultimately, it's, it's, it's a false distinction and, yes, it, I think, i- i- it's a good parallel that, uh, uh, yes, see most of, uh, history, yes, one just has to- had to trust Mother Nature, God, fate, providence or whatnot. But, uh, increasingly, it's going to be a matter responsible parents are going to be choosing the genetic makeup, the traits of their future offspring and the very nature of selection pressure, uh, is going to change too. I mean, natural selection, sexual selection, it's- it's- it's blind and based on random genetic variations. Whereas increasingly, as the reproductive revolution unfolds, I think there's going to be selection pressure in favor of life based on gradients of well-being, but that's obviously speculative.

6. 13:19 – 18:56

   Why the idea feels unsettling: eugenics echoes, sci‑fi memories, and risk analysis

   1. CWChris Williamson13:19

      Yeah. It's, it's interesting. I'm sure a lot of people who are listening will be thinking the same as me, which is, there's a very odd visceral reaction that I have about, um, this selective, uh, uh, birth, to... I- i- it ma- creates these feelings of unease and I can't work out why and I'm fairly forward-thinking with regards to this. I find technological progress exciting probably above everything else. Exciting ahead of scary, probably (laughs) . Um, so, and even for me, uh, there's something about that and yet you can draw parallels that had you have told people a thousand years ago that you'd be able to fly across oceans or had you have told people 5,000 years ago that you'd be able to get an injection that would stop them from dying from all of the things that are constantly killing them and their family, or you could take a pill and it would stop you from feeling sick, all of these things at that point would have been felt or would have been considered unnatural. Is this just another frontier or is, is there actually something different about wha- the, the movement that we're going towards here?

   2. DPDavid Pearce14:28

      Uh, well, this time it's different, but then i- i- it always is.

   3. CWChris Williamson14:31

      (laughs)

   4. DPDavid Pearce14:31

      And any of your, uh, listeners who are thinking of all of the kind of the possible things that can go wrong, I think it's, it's a, it's, it's a healthy suspicion that, yeah, there needs to be exhaustive, uh, risk, uh, reward analysis, you know, the thinking of all the conceivable things that can, uh, that can go wro- can go wrong. I mean, inevitably there are a lot of people, this kind of reflects, uh, eugenics, the Third Reich, uh, race hygiene. Uh, other people will say brave new world.

   5. CWChris Williamson15:05

      (laughs) Yeah, yeah.

   6. DPDavid Pearce15:07

      Uh, another reason is that when we, uh, try to imagine the future, there is a lot of neurological evidence that what we're doing is drawing upon memory and the memory which we're drawing on is essentially sci-fi, often sci-fi read when we were, uh, uh, uh, kids and sure, uh, half-digested memories of everything from, uh, you know, kind of Gattaca or in the case of superintelligence, uh, Skynet. So yeah, I mean, uh, uh, as I said, I, I very much sympathize with anyone who is suspicious and who is pessimistic. Nonetheless, if we are to get rid of the horrific burden of suffering in the world, we're going to have to, uh, tackle it at its genetic source. Essentially, uh, our genes designed us to be unhappy and discontented, uh, a, a lot of the time, uh, and unless we actually do edit our genetic source code, there is going to be obscene, uh, misery and suffering in the world, uh, indefinitely.

   7. CWChris Williamson16:14

      Are you sometimes surprised that we manage to have lives of the degree of happiness that we do given our genetic predisposition?

   8. DPDavid Pearce16:25

      Yes, at times. I mean, this is it, nature, uh, seems to just sort of play around with the dials and that those, sadly, there are a very significant minority of people who endure kind of chronic misery, pain, depression. Equally, there are life's temperamental optimists and even extreme genetic outliers who spend most of their, uh, lives, uh, yes, extremely happy, uh, wh- which is kind of e- existence proof. Essentially being temperamentally very happy, it's a kind of high risk, uh, high reward. One is more likely to go out, do things, explore the world, take risks and so on if one is a happy, extroverted go-getter. Whereas if you have low m- low mood, you're more likely to keep your head down. It's a kind of low risk, low reward. I mean, that's a very crude dichotomy.

   9. CWChris Williamson17:26

      Yeah.

   10. DPDavid Pearce17:26

       Um, but, uh, uh, yeah, most people, uh, on balance, uh, love life. I mean, I might, given my rather gloomy and depressive temperament-

   11. CWChris Williamson17:39

       Mm-hmm.

   12. DPDavid Pearce17:39

       ... think of Darwinian life as, as sort of sentient malware-

   13. CWChris Williamson17:42

       (laughs) .

   14. DPDavid Pearce17:42

       ... but this is very much the minority, uh, posi- uh, position. Uh, and, and yeah, one needn't be a, a Buddhist or a negative utilitarian to believe that we should aim to prevent and mini- minimize unnecessary suffering. Uh, and what seems quite counterintuitive is the idea that all suffering, all experience below hedonic zero is going to become technically-... optional, uh, that sure, suffering in one's life, uh, sometimes, but only sometimes, sometimes it can be instructive and valuable. But the critical question to ask is, is it functionally indispensable? And as, uh, silicon robots-

   15. CWChris Williamson18:29

       Mm-hmm.

   16. DPDavid Pearce18:29

       ... machine intelligence, AI, uh, progressively eclipses humans in ever more cognitive domains without the nasty raw feels of, of, of pain and suffering. I think we just have to face up to the fact that, uh, yeah, that, that suffering is just a ghastly implementation detail of Darwinian life, and we ought to be switching to a more civilized signaling system instead.

7. 18:56 – 20:59

   The Hedonistic Imperative & Abolitionist Project: a moral mission to end suffering

   1. CWChris Williamson18:56

      Yeah, it's this odd artifact that's come along for the ride, hasn't it? So the, uh, I wanna talk about The Hedonistic Imperative and The Abolitionist Project, both of which you're a, you're a big proponent of. Would you be able to explain to the listeners what those are, please?

   2. DPDavid Pearce19:12

      Yes. I mean, The Hedonistic Imperative was the name of an online manifesto I wrote back in 1995. Why The Hedonistic Imperative? Well, I would really have liked to, uh, call it, you know, The Moral Imperative To Use Biotechnology To-

   3. CWChris Williamson19:29

      (laughs)

   4. DPDavid Pearce19:29

      ... Face All Suffering Throughout The Living World. But, of course, no, one needs something snappy and catchy, so-

   5. CWChris Williamson19:36

      I, I think your marketing is better on this one, David. I think-

   6. DPDavid Pearce19:39

      Yeah. (laughs)

   7. CWChris Williamson19:39

      I think The Hedonistic Imperative works better, yeah.

   8. DPDavid Pearce19:42

      I mean, it's not ideal because hedonism connotes something vaguely shallow and a- and amoral. Uh-

   9. CWChris Williamson19:50

      You think Woodstock, don't you?

   10. DPDavid Pearce19:52

       Yeah. Uh, whereas I do see there is a desperate moral urgency to get- getting rid of suffering. But, uh, in a nutshell, yeah, it- it- it gives the, uh, it- it gives the gist. Um, The Abolitionist Project really, uh, just, uh, alludes to, yeah, getting rid of suffering in both human and non-human animals via biotechnology. Um, how far one goes beyond this, uh, yeah, though personally I'm, uh, a negative utilitarian, I think that a- a overriding obligation is to get rid of suffering and then everything else is a bonus, icing on the cake. Nonetheless, uh, yes, I do foresee a civilization where, uh, their, their darkest lows are richer than today's peak experiences. Um, but that probably strikes most people as, uh, science fiction. Uh, and if they're anyone with a more down-to-earth temperament, uh, I would, yes, stress more the, uh, uh, the issue of, of, of suffering. Yeah.

8. 20:59 – 27:55

   Practical pathway: pain thresholds, hedonic set points, and conservative advice today

   1. CWChris Williamson20:59

      I understand. So getting towards the, the rubber meeting the road, so to speak, how, how are we beginning to go about that? How, what's the beginning of the proposed strategy, the next steps from now and then where does that lead us to in the, the longer term, like the real far future?

   2. DPDavid Pearce21:17

      Hmm. Well, a lot of, uh, futurology consists, uh, of extrapolation, which is dangerous. Uh, uh, and sadly, uh, though we are just begin- you know, the first CRISPR ba- babies, if you think of the scandal of these Chinese, uh, researcher who did it tw- allegedly without authorization.

   3. CWChris Williamson21:41

      From the parents, yeah.

   4. DPDavid Pearce21:42

      Uh, yeah, yeah, well, he may have got... Well, I was thinking more of the, the, the state. Uh, w- we now know that not merely did, uh, uh, yes, uh, not merely did the researcher a- uh, aim to make the kids protected against HIV, that, uh, purely inadvertently, it seems memory and intelligence may have been enhanced.

   5. CWChris Williamson22:04

      (laughs)

   6. DPDavid Pearce22:05

      Genes involved in, uh, uh, in cognitive augmentation. I'm personally rather skeptical that this was a mere, uh, oversight.

   7. CWChris Williamson22:13

      Accident, yeah.

   8. DPDavid Pearce22:14

      But, yeah, but, uh, yeah, so, uh, so, um, that said, uh, uh, yes, we are starting to pinpoint specific genes and allelic combinations involved in low mood, pain sensitivity. And even today, if, if, if we are ethically serious, it is possible to, uh, choose via preimplantation genetic screening, uh, or CRISPR genome editing ensuring that your kid has, let's say, okay, start, an extremely high pain threshold. Uh, why not abolish pain altogether? Well, maybe one day it's going to be possible to do so with, uh, smart prostheses or literally gradients of bliss. But just for now, le- leaving the sci-fi aside, uh, if you give your kid, let's say, a benign version of the SCN9A gene, uh, SCN9A is a pain modulating, uh, uh, gene that has dozens of different alleles, different variations, nonsense mutations, no capacity to experience pain at all, but other mutations, high or low pain sensitivity. Uh, and sh- by doing this, essentially you can, uh, ensure that, you know, if you've ever met the kind of person, today's outliers, who you ... you know, the kind of person who says that pain is just a, a useful signaling mechanism-

   9. CWChris Williamson23:43

      (laughs)

   10. DPDavid Pearce23:43

       ... before we get rid of pain altogether, it would be possible to kind of ratchet up pain thresholds. We need to be done with care. For example, you know, d- d- would, uh, do people with extremely high pain thresholds not show perhaps, uh, sufficient empathy for the plight of, uh, plight of others? That's the kind of thing to consider. But nonetheless, other things being equal, one wants to give, uh, uh, kids high pain threshold. Uh, the other, uh, uh-... tray I think one wo- would, would wish to focus on is, uh, hedonic set point. Uh, hedonic set point, this is this approximate level of well-being or ill being that most people tend to fluctuate around in the course of a lifetime. And some people have really high hedonic set points, other people low hedonic set point. Uh, and though one can't point to, uh, a single gene that, uh, is decisive here, nonetheless there are a handful, uh, of genes, uh, associated with ha- with, uh, or rather particular alleles associated with having a high hedonic set point, uh, and do we want to ensure that our future, uh, uh, our children do have this, uh, hedonic, high hedonic set point or, or today's genetic crapshoot? And I think the genetic crapshoot is, uh, i- is unethical. Of course, as well as, uh, as well as our kids, uh, understandably most of us want to feel, uh, better ourselves. And, uh, yes, of course, uh, des- designer drugs, mood brighteners, nu- nootropics, uh, there are a number of possible interventions there. But at the risk of sounding very boring and conservative, uh, given, uh, our re- given the degree of our ignorance still, uh, believe it or not if anyone emails me to what, "What pills do you recommend?"

   11. CWChris Williamson25:50

       (laughs)

   12. DPDavid Pearce25:50

       Yeah, probably far, far better to initially at least focus on this trinity of good sleep discipline, optimal, uh, uh, aerobic exercise, uh, uh, and, and, and diet, good nutrition. Um, that sounds rather boring, but, uh, so few people really get, uh, these opt- uh, optimal. But obviously there are, uh, pharmacological interventions, uh, uh, too.

   13. CWChris Williamson26:19

       Yeah. Uh, uh, a couple of points there. Firstly the, the last thing that you touched on about people seeming to think that there needs to be a very fancy, uh, solution to a, a very complicated problem. Uh, we often talk about the use of people to do, uh, to jump on the back of nootropics or, uh, caffeine abuse in an effort to become more productive when they're unable to do deep work or stay focused on one task for 10 minutes, or they don't understand how to task manage, they don't understand how to capture or process or review their, their, um, to-do list, for instance. And it's the equivalent of taking steroids having never been to the gym for us, that you're, you're going a lot faster in the wrong direction.

   14. DPDavid Pearce27:02

       Yes, and, uh, all too many of today's drugs rather than cheating the hedonic, uh, treadmill actually kick it into gear with a, with a vengeance. Uh, so yes, I'm actually, though I write about and discuss, discuss different, uh, mood brighteners, uh, drugs have well-known pitfalls. I mean one of the biggest pitfalls unfortunately is that the neurotransmitter system most involved, directly involved in hedonic tone, whether one feels good or bad, is the opioid system, the mu opioid receptor, uh, and opioids obviously have, uh, very well-known pitfalls. So it would be much better if we were designed genetically to have high hedonic set points rather than needing to, uh, uh, repair nature's deficiencies.

9. 27:55 – 33:53

   Do we need pain? Hedonic gradients vs. “blissed out” dysfunction

   1. CWChris Williamson27:55

      Yes, I understand. Uh, moving to the point that you made about pain, one of the first things that comes to mind is surely do we not need pain? I, I need to know if I put my hand in some hot water, I need to know if a car's run over my foot, et cetera, et cetera. If people are just walking around in this numb state of not knowing what's going on, is that not, are there not some downstream, uh, negatives?

   2. DPDavid Pearce28:17

      Oh indeed, I mean this is, uh, yeah, people born with a congenital insensitivity to pain need, need to lead a cotton wool existence.

   3. CWChris Williamson28:27

      (laughs)

   4. DPDavid Pearce28:27

      I mean in the wild they would just have died and they're more likely to take risks. However, uh, there are other people who just simply have an extremely high pain threshold, so as the case of Jo Cameron, this, this Scottish lady responsible, retired schoolteacher, vegan, uh, came to the interest of medical professionals because she waved away, uh, painkillers and the like because she just didn't feel she needed them after what ought to be an extremely painful, uh, medical procedure. She described, uh, uh, childbirth as a mere tickle.

   5. CWChris Williamson29:09

      (laughs)

   6. DPDavid Pearce29:10

      Um, rather th- rather than someone with complete insensitivity, it seems as though she just naturally has an extremely high pain threshold, and genetic, uh, and, and research suggested that she had mutations in two genes in particular, the far and what's been chris- christened the far out (laughs) uh, gene which are responsible, uh, for anandamide, the breakdown of anandamide. Anandamide is literally etymologically bliss molecule, and she has naturally high levels of, uh, anandamide, and she appears to have gone through life in a state of, of, of mild eu- euphoria.

   7. CWChris Williamson29:59

      (laughs) .

   8. DPDavid Pearce29:59

      But not, uh, but, uh, but as I said, I said responsible pillar of the local community, vegan, respi- uh, uh, a school, a school teacher, um, one obviously needs to be extremely wary of placing too much faith in individual case, case studies. But I mean another example I give is of, uh, yeah my transhumanist colleague Anders Sandberg who, uh, just, yeah, will acknowledge, "Yeah I do have a ridiculously high-"... hedonic set point. What is gives this back to your, uh, u- u- original question, what is critical, uh, to intelligent behavior, to responding adaptively, to- to noxious stimuli, uh, isn't one's absolute place on the pain or pa- or pleasure scale. It's some kind of hedonic gradient. Uh, and, uh, yeah, one might imagine that people who are just exceptionally happy would be less motivated-

   9. CWChris Williamson31:05

      Mm-hmm.

   10. DPDavid Pearce31:05

       ... to behave adaptively, but counterintuitively, this doesn't seem to be the case, that other things being equal, uh, the more- the more you love life, the more you're motivated to protect and, uh, and pre- preserve it. Whereas, it's depressives, uh, who get stuck in a rut. They experience learned helplessness, behavioral despair, sometimes, uh, self- self-destructive behavior. But preserving in- yeah, uh, information sensitivity, uh, uh, the dis- distinction between being blissful and- and blissed out, and-

   11. CWChris Williamson31:43

       Yeah, yeah. I think that's- that's something that was in the back of my mind, that if it's a world where essentially everyone's walking around on MDMA, like 100X MDMA sensations, but a little bit more sober and able to remember what's going on, I- I- I wonder, um, how useful that society would be. I think there's some parallels that can probably be drawn between that as a- a genetic or pharmacological solution, uh, and some of the concerns people have with universal basic income, that when you take away people, what is considered to be people's current reason for living, that they'll be left in this kind of wallowy state where everyone's just lying around eating Skittles on beanbags and stuff like that (laughs) .

   12. DPDavid Pearce32:27

       Yes, yes. Uh, it's a ... I mean, in the case of universal ba- uh, basic, uh, income, I think it's just a matter of any decent society will have something like universal basic income and get rid of this, uh, this appalling sprawling, uh, welfare bureaucracy. But nonetheless, uh, I mean, the- the basic, uh, uh, yeah, can be relatively, uh, basic that I- I- I don't think ... Well, I won't go off on a long, uh, uh, uh, spiel there. It's very easy-

   13. CWChris Williamson32:59

       (laughs)

   14. DPDavid Pearce32:59

       This is it. It's very easy to, uh, you know, to sound off, setting the world, uh, uh, uh, to rights, but, uh, uh, yeah, I- on the whole, I don't tackle the- the social issues to the same degree. I mean, I do have views on everything from Donald Trump to climate change, to you name it. But the point is other people have said it better, so ... (laughs)

   15. CWChris Williamson33:22

       Yeah, I understand.

   16. DPDavid Pearce33:23

       Yeah.

   17. CWChris Williamson33:23

       I think you've got- you've got some s- some fairly niched down stuff that you need to be working on as well. I think you can- you can leave the politics to, uh, to some other people. Um, so one of the things that I'm thinking about straight off the bat, having read Superintelligence by Nick Bostrom. Listeners of the show will know that I found the book both testing and very, very fascinating. Um, rather than being selective with our genes or- or using, um,

10. 33:53 – 39:07

    Mind uploading, the hard problem, and the binding problem: why computers may be “zombies”

    1. CWChris Williamson33:53

       particular drugs or whatever it might be to edit the way that we exist in the real world, why not just do whole brain emulation or upload ourselves to the internet?

    2. DPDavid Pearce34:05

       Ooh, difficult question because this brings us to the nature of consciousness and the binding problem.

    3. CWChris Williamson34:14

       Let's jump into it, David. Come on. Let's go-

    4. DPDavid Pearce34:16

       (laughs)

    5. CWChris Williamson34:16

       ... feet first into the binding problem, my friend. We're in at the deep end now.

    6. DPDavid Pearce34:20

       Okay. Um, the hard problem and the binding problem, uh, are worth distinguishing, though they're, uh, interrelated. The hard problem is why, uh, does consciousness exist at all? Why aren't we P zombies? Uh, nothing in the laws of physics is understood today if one assumes that, uh, basic understanding of the world's quantum field theory describes fields of insentience rather than sentience. If one makes that very modest assumption, nothing, uh, in today's physics and chemistry forbids, uh, you and I from being- talking to- to each other now, and we- we're both being P zombies. So that's the question.

    7. CWChris Williamson35:03

       What's a P- what's a P zombie?

    8. DPDavid Pearce35:04

       Oh, sorry. A philosophical zombies-

    9. CWChris Williamson35:05

       Oh, okay. Yes.

    10. DPDavid Pearce35:06

        ... who acts, uh, in exactly the same way as you or me, uh, but isn't conscious, isn't sentient. And I think the interesting question isn't the- the skeptical question, how do I know that you're not a P zombie?

    11. CWChris Williamson35:21

        Mm-hmm.

    12. DPDavid Pearce35:21

        The interesting question is why aren't we P zombies? Uh, how is it possible for consciousness, uh, to have the causal capacity to allow us to pose questions about its existence, for instance? So yeah, that's, in a nutshell, the hard problem. The binding problem, which probably fewer people are familiar with, is that even if you think that consciousness is absolutely fundamental to the world, why aren't we so-called micro-experiential zombies? And the population ... I mean, as an example, I mean here is, you know, the population of United States, let's say, three ... Uh, uh, uh, so, uh, yeah. What's the population of the United States? Uh-

    13. CWChris Williamson36:09

        I'm not too sure. Give me one second and I will tell you.

    14. DPDavid Pearce36:12

        Yeah, it's, uh ...

    15. CWChris Williamson36:13

        Let me say population. It is 327.2 million.

    16. DPDavid Pearce36:18

        Three hundred and twenty... Yeah. Now, simply the fact that one has, uh, 327 million skull-bound, uh, minds, however they intercommunicate, nonetheless-... a, we've no reason to think that the population of the United States is, uh, a mind, a unitary bound mind. Uh, or one can't be sure that the population of the USA isn't a unitary subject to experience, but that kind of strong emer- emergence would be some kind of spooky, it's, uh, difficult to reconcile with monistic physicalism. Um, now the question is why are our brains any different? After all, you and me, we are, uh, uh, yeah, uh, 86 billion membrane bound nerve cells. Even if you think that individual nerve cells, uh, uh, uh, may be, kind of support rudimentary consciousness, rudimentary experience, why aren't we just micro experiential zombies, just patterns of mind dust? Uh, and so yeah, that is the, uh, the binding problem. Uh, and yeah, here I'm very much out on a limb. I don't think phenomenal binding is, uh, uh, is a classical phenomenon, quantum mind. There are powerful arguments against this. But, uh, less controversially, uh, today's classical digital computers are not subjects of experience. And, uh, uh, and simply increasing speed of execution, uh, their complexity or even making them massively parallel, uh, there's no reason to think that sentience is somehow going to s- switch on. So-

    17. CWChris Williamson38:11

        So it's-

    18. DPDavid Pearce38:12

        ... exactly-

    19. CWChris Williamson38:12

        ... it's, it's not a case of, I think Sam Harris talks about it being that with processing power, consciousness comes along for the ride.

    20. DPDavid Pearce38:21

        Um, well, I mean, uh, yeah, I suppose a lot of researchers, lot of AI researchers do assume that at some time in future our machines will become conscious. But personally, I think the idea that consciousness arises at some, s- some kind of computational level of abstraction is, uh, is, is, is a, is, is a mistake, uh, and that I don't think classical digital computers, uh, are ever going to be more than zombies. Uh, so therefore, I don't think, uh, you or I are ever going to be, uh, uploading ourselves, uh, uh, yes, into- to- to- to digital computers. But I stress, this is obviously a, a, a controversial topic.

    21. CWChris Williamson39:05

        Mm-hmm. Yeah.

11. 39:07 – 52:20

    Three models of superintelligence and the ethical urgency around animal suffering

    1. DPDavid Pearce39:07

       Um, uh, y- you mentioned, uh, uh, yeah, Nick's, uh, b- book on superintelligence, very, very crudely, there are, amongst, uh, transhumanists, there are, there are three quite different conceptions of, of superintelligence. Uh-

    2. CWChris Williamson39:21

       Uh, fa- fascinating. Tell us about them.

    3. DPDavid Pearce39:23

       Okay. There, there is one conception of superintelligence, and this is one I personally subscribe to that essentially post-human superintelligence will be us, that recursively self-improving biological robots are going to edit their own s- source code and bootstrap our way to full spectrum superintelligence critic- and critically with the aid of narrow AI that essentially all the, all the kind of clever machine, you know, all, all, all, all the stuff one reads about essentially we're go- are going to be incorporating it within ourselves, neurochips, smart prostheses, uh, and just as you know, I could, you know, beat Kasparov today with a neurochip, okay, that's cheating, but nonetheless- (laughs)

    4. CWChris Williamson40:14

       Still one.

    5. DPDavid Pearce40:15

       ... I s- I still likewise, uh, either is, so this kind of intimate neuro phase, but I mean, yeah, yeah, I don't think, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh digital computers ever going to become conscious per se. Okay, that's one very, that's one conception of, uh, superintelligence, superintelligence as our ultimately our biological descendants, transhumans and post-humans.

    6. CWChris Williamson40:39

       Mm-hmm.

    7. DPDavid Pearce40:40

       Then there is another conception of superintelligence associated with Ray Kurzweil that essentially, yeah, sees us as completely merging with our, uh, uh, machines possibly involving yes too mind uploading, that any distinction between humans and our machines will become completely meaningless. That's the second conception. But there is a, a third conception of post-human superintelligence, uh, originally, uh, came up with by IJ, uh, Good, mathematician in the 1960s, developed, uh, by Eliezer Yudkowsky and his colleagues at MIRI, uh, and, uh, and put in its most, uh, magisterial form by Nick in his book Superintelligence, uh, which is essentially, uh, sees a combination, and it's just a combination of Moore's Law, i.e., exponential increase in computer processing power-

    8. CWChris Williamson41:42

       Mm-hmm.

    9. DPDavid Pearce41:42

       ... together with recursively self-improving software-based AI, that is, uh, software, uh, that improves itself in this escalating cycle. And on this conception of post-human superintelligence, there's no particular reason to expect that AI, artificial general, uh, intelligence will be, uh, will be sentient, uh, friendly, uh, human friendly. May... Its, its values may be perhaps completely, uh, orthogonal. Um, so I- I'm glossing over all manner of, of, of complications here, but if someone does, uh, start talking about superintelligence, it's, it's worth probing what they mean. I mean, I, I, for instance, think that full spectrum superintelligence will involve such things as exploring radically altered state spaces of consciousness. And it's-

    10. CWChris Williamson42:42

        Mm.

    11. DPDavid Pearce42:42

        ... it's, it's, uh, it's unclear what it would mean for a digital zombie to start exploring altered state spaces. Uh, so-

    12. CWChris Williamson42:51

        (laughs)

    13. DPDavid Pearce42:51

        ... uh, I-... uh, yeah. (laughs)

    14. CWChris Williamson42:53

        Yeah, I-I-I understand. That, um, it's interesting to hear different, uh, stances or different viewpoints on the, the future super intelligence movement, so to speak. Um, certainly Naval, uh, who is a big, uh, uh, uh, a big hero of mine when it comes to the podcasting space, he talks about the fact that recently there hasn't really been an awful lot of movement towards artificial general intelligence. I think people look at stuff like, uh, AlphaGo Zero, um, and these sort of programs which are simulacrums of human intelligence, but in an incredibly narrow domain. And the domain is getting increasingly complex, but not actually wider. And he talks about the fact that any progress in general artificial intelligence kind of hasn't, uh, there hasn't really been very many developments. And that kind of lends credence towards what you were saying, which is that you will have the head of the mothership still being reliant on the biological system that we are, and then you're augmenting with the narrow AI within its capabilities to, to add on the functions that we need.

    15. DPDavid Pearce44:10

        Yes. I mean, there's, there's always a risk. When one- well, essentially when one is talking about super intelligence, in practice one ends up just, uh, obliquely expressing one's own, uh, limitations.

    16. CWChris Williamson44:23

        (laughs)

    17. DPDavid Pearce44:23

        Uh, so, uh, (laughs) uh, I can't step outside myself and really obviously tell you what will be the nature of full spectrum super intelligence. Um, I would just urge, uh, uh, shall we say, a degree of caution before assuming that, uh, AI is somehow going to, uh, to wake up. (laughs)

    18. CWChris Williamson44:42

        I understand. So, uh, one of the questions that, uh, Joe Rogan asked Jamie Metzl the other day was why we have this insatiable desire to try and improve ourselves. Do you think that that's the way that we're wired? And, and if that's the case, isn't that a quite a, um, poetically beautiful way for us to transcend our own genetics?

    19. DPDavid Pearce45:07

        Uh, yes. So this is back to, you know, kind of natural selection designed us to be discontented, uh, uh, a lot of the time. Um, I wouldn't say all of us, or at least even most of us necessarily spend our time trying to improve ourselves, but certainly not many people f- think, "Well, I've had enough. Uh, I've got enough money, or I've had enough reproductive opportunities, and so on." The others- other things being equal, wanting more is fitness enhancing. Uh, so, uh, so yes. Yes.

    20. CWChris Williamson45:47

        I understand completely. So m- moving on, one question that I really wanted to ask was, if you had the opportunity to create a, a wish list of advisors to help the government understand the future and where they should be directing research and funds, would you be able to put together a little dream team of advisors for them? And would you be able to tell us why you'd choose those people?

    21. DPDavid Pearce46:10

        Um, I probably could, but just, uh, not, uh, off my head like that.

    22. CWChris Williamson46:15

        (laughs)

    23. DPDavid Pearce46:15

        And I would probably... Uh, it would also be invidious too, and so- (laughs)

    24. CWChris Williamson46:20

        (laughs)

    25. DPDavid Pearce46:20

        But, uh, uh, yes, obviously I would, I would love to be able to do so. I mean, as, as yet, uh, no, uh, shall we say, b- billionaire or corporate, uh, uh, uh, colossus has, uh, has approached, uh, me with, uh, uh, uh, uh, funding. But yes, it's, uh, it's- (laughs)

    26. CWChris Williamson46:41

        It's in the post, David. I promise you it's in the post, mate.

    27. DPDavid Pearce46:45

        (laughs)

    28. CWChris Williamson46:46

        I think it will be. So in terms of risks, are there, um, things that are at the forefront of your, of your thinking, um, that you're concerned about as we move forward with this? Are there risks to the way that the project can go, the way that the public perceives it or, uh, um, more kind of nitty-gritty, um, concerns to do with the actual way in which we proceed towards the, the hedonistic imperative?

    29. DPDavid Pearce47:17

        Uh, yeah. By risks, uh... And there are some people, including some transhumanists, who think of life as fundamentally good and we don't want to put it all at risk. Whereas my conception of life today, frankly, is much, uh, bleaker, uh, that's, uh, the non-human animals in our factory farms and slaughterhouses are as sentient as, uh, pre-linguistic toddlers. Uh, and-

    30. CWChris Williamson47:47

        Is that the c- is that correct?
12. 52:20 – 54:21

    Where to learn more: HedWeb and transhumanist resources

    1. CWChris Williamson52:20

       Fantastic. So David, before we wrap up, I wanted to ask for a suggestion of a book or a resource or a blog which you would recommend if people think, "This was a, an interesting discussion and I'd, I'd quite like to find out some more about transhumanism and the transhumanist movement."

    2. DPDavid Pearce52:39

       Ooh, heavens. Uh, well, I have-

    3. CWChris Williamson52:42

       You're put on the spot again, David.

    4. DPDavid Pearce52:44

       (laughs)

    5. CWChris Williamson52:44

       You're gonna have to, you're gonna have to put your money where your mouth is. I'm not letting you slide- sidle out of this one like the, the government advisors thing that you got out of.

    6. DPDavid Pearce52:51

       Well, in spite of, in spite of my low, uh, testosterone, I'm going to say back in 1995, uh, oof, uh, when the web was young, uh ... In fact, it was 1996-

    7. CWChris Williamson53:02

       (laughs)

    8. DPDavid Pearce53:02

       ... I set up a, a motherload website, hedweb.com, H-E-D-W-E-B.com, and though a lot of the material there is dated, certainly the style, nonetheless everything from, uh, Quora answers about transhumanism to, yeah, the core of, uh, the manifesto together with links to other transhumanist resources. Uh, and yeah, if, if what, uh, if what I've been, uh, talking to you about does strike a chord, yeah, there are plenty of, of, of hot links, uh, there. But, uh, Chris, uh, yeah, very much appreciated. Uh, it's (laughs) it's been great chatting.

    9. CWChris Williamson53:43

       It's been fantastic. Hedweb.com will be linked in the show notes below as long- as well as some of the resources which we've been going through today. David, I, I really found today fascinating. Hopefully within the next, uh, the next few years, we might be re- coming back on to discuss some exciting new developments in the, in the world of transhumanism. But, uh, for now, we will catch you later on. Thank you so much for your time.

    10. DPDavid Pearce54:07

        Fantastic, Chris.

    11. CWChris Williamson54:08

        (singing) (?) .

Episode duration: 54:22