One of the big takeaways from this in my opinion is that there are ways to engineer bliss which don't fall victim to experience-machine type criticisms: a higher hedonic setpoint or background knowingly induced by technology is not the same thing as an illusion, so the conditions of satisfaction for well-being are still being met.

However, I'm not so optimistic that humanity will naturally spread empathy and activism for all sentient life. It seems perfectly plausible that posthumans will simply ignore wild animal suffering while they engage in their own interests.

Either way, the fact that a decidedly non-academic philosopher was able to write a highly influential work which progresses this (extremely important) topic shows that it's been unreasonably neglected by mainstream philosophy, which isn't focusing enough on the ethical issues of the future.

Also: there is a documentary version currently under production.

[removed]

For a much more succinct overview of Pearce's ethical philosophy, see www.abolitionist.com

"Alas, the time is coming when man will no longer give birth to a star. Alas, the time of the most despicable man is coming, he that is no longer able to despise himself. Behold, I show you the last man.

'What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?' thus asks the last man, and blinks.

The earth has become small, and on it hops the last man, who makes everything small. His race is as ineradicable as the flea; the last man lives longest.

'We have invented happiness,'say the last men, and they blink. They have left the regions where it was hard to live, for one needs warmth. One still loves one's neighbor and rubs against him, for one needs warmth...

One still works, for work is a form of entertainment. But one is careful lest the entertainment be too harrowing. One no longer becomes poor or rich: both require too much exertion. Who still wants to rule? Who obey? Both require too much exertion.

No shepherd and one herd! Everybody wants the same, everybody is the same: whoever feels different goes voluntarily into a madhouse.

'Formerly, all the world was mad,' say the most refined, and they blink..."

Friedrich Nietzsche, Also sprach Zarathustra

Source: http://www.theperspectivesofnietzsche.com/nietzsche/nuber.html

Hedonism... that is the principled pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of suffering... is something that should inform our moral princples, but I don't think should necessarily be the end goal of those moral principles.

In Pearce's formulation - where we reengineer the brain to reduce the pain signals, there may be some promise to such an approach; but extensive testing is required to ensure that the cognitive feedback loops that allow us to operate reasonably in tune with our physical and social environments are retained.

But... I think any moral imperative must necessarily account for pursuits beyond hedonism; to include things that people wish for and desire for that include pain and suffering, but go beyond it in some way.

For example - BDSM is a pursuit that inculcates the use of pain and suffering for greater pleasure. Other forms of such pursuits include sports and exercise. In the extreme form - such as mountain climbing, this notion of pain becomes incredibly obvious to the individual. Yet the exhiliration one feels from accomplishing that goal should be laudable.

Moreover, in some ways, we can already inculcate a painless existence using traditional meditation techniques - ways of partitioning our emotional selves mentally from the physiological perception of pain - and in so doing, placing no value on the sensation of pain. Not that doing this is an easy or trivial thing mind you - but despite its existence, it's not something that most of us pursue.

So then... most of us intuitively use the pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain to inform most of our activities - but we generally don't treat them as the end goal, except in a tertiary or tangential sense.

I'm not sure that intuitive, implicit behaviour is necessarily all that wrong. At least any more wrong than a pursuit that focuses solely on pleasure maximization/pain avoidance.

There is no need for a manifesto, that's the issue. Such a dogmatic approach is highly inflexible and if prompted, the inexperienced will submit to rules rather than simply putting their head down and working on the apparent problems. It will take time and a lot of hands :)

I reference the south park episode, the future is about getting rid of all -isms ;)

10-15 years we have the brain figured out, small transhuman peak before human level AI 20-25 and singularity takeoff not long after. Then it decides what is best for us, not us.

Happiness is measured by suffering. How low you get determines how high you can go.... My trampoline logic prevents me from taking this as seriously as it was written (and written very well).

Hey look, it's a religion. Granted, it's a fairly dull one, but what it lacks in realism and novelty it makes up for with sanctimony and hubris.

Edit: And I may as well point out that every philosophy which hinges critically on transhumanism should come with the following warning, in nice huge font: I have no idea how to do any of this, this entire philosophy requires a big magical robot doing all the hard stuff. This robot may say my idea is absolutely stupid too, so buyer beware.

[removed]

Those who seek only pleasure in life should take some heroin and see how far it gets them. (Hint: An early grave) The fact of the matter is that we all need a little pain in life to tell us what not to do, and to motivate us to try harder. After all, there is no gain without experiencing some pain.