Happy Birthday David Pearce! Thursday, Apr 3 2008
philosophy 2:07 pm

Today is the birthday of David Pearce, a utilitarian philosopher and a co-founder of the World Transhumanist Association along with Nick Bostrom. The above image is from an interview with David in the German edition of Vanity Fair.
David Pearce is the primary founder of the modern philosophy of abolitionism, the idea that all involuntary suffering is unacceptable and must be eliminated. To me, David, and a few others like Nick Bostrom and Pablo Stafforini, this is common sense, but to most of the public, it’s an unfamiliar idea. David’s notion of abolitionism includes completely remaking the ecosystem so that predators do not cause the suffering of prey. You might say, “but that’s not natural!”, but the fact of the matter is that “natural” can be cruel and evil. If you were being consumed by wolves in the forest, I’d doubt you’d say “I accept and support this natural outcome, lol”. Most animals do not have the benefit of human technology for them to protect themselves from suffering, disease, and profound discomfort.
I was reading the Pearce interview in Vanity Fair, and wanted to pick out a few choice tidbits:
VF What about the suffering of animals?
D.P. When it is possible to produce genetically engineered “vat food” that is both tastier and cheaper than food from intact animals, you are likely to see a switch to global veganism. It’s likely that this technological development is going to happen in the next 50 years.
I totally agree with this one — everyone will be a vegan soon, if for nothing else, that in vitro meat will be better and cheaper. When we’re no longer compelled to mass murder animals in factory farms, many people will stand up and say, “well, we knew it was wrong all along”. Amazing how morally sophisticated people can get when practical alternatives to the immoral behavior emerge! (I’m guilty of this just as much as anyone.)
One more:
VF And do you want all animals to become vegans, too?
D.P. Fanciful as it sounds, yes – though this switch would require massive genetic rewrites and ecosystem redesign. In terms of Nature, I’m not a great one for romanticizing wildlife – which is often pretty brutal. We’re inconsistent. People think cats are beautiful and forgive them for tormenting mice. But to someone who, say, romanticizes blond Aryan supermen in their occasional savagery we would be less forgiving. If I pass a butcher-shop, to be honest, I think of Auschwitz. Yes, the non-human animals that we raise in factory farms and kill are not particularly intelligent; but they suffer horribly, just like human babies and toddlers. We tend to associate intensity of consciousness with intelligence. In fact the most distinctively intelligent human traits like our language capacity or mathematics – their accessibility to introspection is very subtle at best. Whereas the most intense emotions like pain, thirst and hunger tend to be extremely primitive. It’s doubtful whether a pig, for instance, suffers any less than a human infant.
Well… let’s do it! A task this huge seems to be a job for benevolent superintelligence.
Again, happy birthday to David Pearce. Today’s a perfect day to look over all his stuff and get (re)familiarized with his ideas.




As long as everyone realizes that there will be massive slaughterings of food animals and sterilizations of remaining populations when all this kicks in; “Bessie the milk-cow” can’t survive in the wild.
The people that irritate me in the vegan movement are the ones who seem to think that the farm animal suffering at the hands of human is the only source of potential suffering for the farm animal. This is //not// an aspersion I cast upon you, Michael. You’re far too rational for that sort of magical thinking.
But there are those I have encountered who seem to think that farm animals don’t get anything out of this little arrangement we have — and that right there is why I only eat farm-raised animals. I try to make sure it’s more ‘humane’ living conditions (as my temporal and economic budgets will allow), but I certainly don’t have remorse over the fact that I support a system that stores up pretty much all of an animal’s suffering right to the end of its existence in an almost painless manner, as compared to what it could do without human intervention.
I am fully aware, mind you, that the transhuman & AGI implications for this mindset are atrocious. Which is why I would not suggest using //me// as the model for Seed AI.
//”Well… let’s do it! A task this huge seems to be a job for benevolent superintelligence.”//
And another brilliant moral cause is swept under the AGI rug!
We can’t be bothered to save the world; only to invent someone who will. In seems a bit paradoxical to say “let’s” do it when what you really mean is “let them do it.”
I sympathize with the abolitionist cause, but I find supporting such a cause long before we know anything about how to do it, and can understand and sustain the consequences as meaningless as it is easy.
Happy Birthday!
“Amazing how morally sophisticated people can get when practical alternatives to the immoral behavior emerge!”
On The Moral Principle and the Material Interest, by Ambrose Bierce
A MORAL Principle met a Material Interest on a bridge wide enough for but one.
“Down, you base thing!” thundered the Moral Principle, “and let me pass over you!”
The Material Interest merely looked in the other’s eyes without saying anything.
“Ah,” said the Moral Principle, hesitatingly, “let us draw lots to see which shall retire till the other has crossed.”
The Material Interest maintained an unbroken silence and an unwavering stare.
“In order to avoid a conflict,” the Moral Principle resumed, somewhat uneasily, “I shall myself lie down and let you walk over me.”
Then the Material Interest found a tongue, and by a strange coincidence it was its own tongue. “I don’t think you are very good walking,” it said. “I am a little particular about what I have underfoot. Suppose you get off into the water.”
It occurred that way.
Well said, Michael! Happy birthday, Dave!
Nato,
The term “superintelligence” is inclusive of human intelligence enhanced through brain-computer interfaces, via smart drugs, neurotherapies, using Google and YouTube, or whatever. Any safe AGI will be heavily dependent on human will anyway, so it’s incorrect to adversarially classify it as an “Other”.
As long as everyone realizes that there will be massive slaughterings of food animals and sterilizations of remaining populations when all this kicks in; “Bessie the milk-cow” can’t survive in the wild.
Fine. Better never to live than to live on a factory farm.
We can’t be bothered to save the world; only to invent someone who will. In seems a bit paradoxical to say “let’s” do it when what you really mean is “let them do it.”
So long as the world is saved, what’s it matter who does it?
Happy birthday, David!
Happy birthday David!
@Michael
Fair enough. Sarcasm aside, I would hope you see my point, though. We should be careful to avoid the temptation to saddle future generations (of whatever species!) with problems we should tackle as soon as possible. That’s an attitude that has exacerbated our environmental problems, of late.
@Nick T
//”So long as the world is saved, what’s it matter who does it?”//
Not much. The important thing is trying to gauge the best way to do whatever it is. Leaving it to others has a bad record compared to doing it yourself.
I can’t wait for in vitro meat, so I can see what human tastes like.
“Better never to live than to live on a factory farm.”
Agreed. But is it better never to live than to live on a free range organic farm? I’d take the latter.
Nato,
Your point is that you condescend my ambitions because you think they’re too ambitious, unworkable, and cultish. But guess what — I’m just a guy who wants to make the world a slightly better place and I’m taking the path that *I* see as most appropriate. If you think I’m a smart guy, *just accept it*. I thought long and hard about my beliefs and hold them because they’re what my imperfect brain says is a good idea. Alright?
There is a NEED to fix the suffering and to bring it down to zero.
But some much more radical changes will be needed than only in vitro meat.
The complete redesign of this world, of course.
Happy birthday dave. It was fun having you around at SL-transhumanists :)
Michael,
I don’t think by “just accept it”, you don’t mean “be quiet”. That said, I find it hard to believe that you think my points, however sarcastic, are ever to condescend. Ironically, I find //that// condescending.
I hope you understand that I don’t “just accept it” for the same reasons you just described for holding your own beliefs.
And you can always have your goat back. I’ve seen how receptive you are to criticism, and that’s why I keep commenting. I think that //you// will, with prompting, bear in mind that there is a tendency for many to want to ignore present problems in favor of future solutions, and respond with a little more moderation. My use of sarcasm is simply intended as a way to make that prompting a little more memorable.
Which do you think is more unlikely – a hard takeoff, or supeintelligence being harder than, say, Kurzweil expects? If they’re about even odds, wouldn’t it be just as prudent to prepare for both scenarios in a non-exclusive fashion?
Nato,
I don’t mean “be quiet”, but if I think that human effort towards SI outweighs most human efforts alone, in terms of generating solutions (a very unpopular position), then I’m not going to be sympathetic to statements like “another brilliant moral cause is swept under the AGI rug!” If, according to your estimation, AGI is exceedingly difficult, or when it created, is magically prevented from attaining smarter-than-Einstein intelligence, then nothing I say will ever convince you that pursuing AGI in lieu of something else is a good idea. It’s one of those dead horse debates that never gets resolved.
Maybe I’m just frustrated because I’ve heard it a million times. Sure, there is the danger of irrationally delegating today’s challenges to tomorrow’s people. But I’ve thought through this one deeper than practically any other issue, and especially when it comes to completely eliminating suffering in nature, normal human spitshine won’t suffice. If you jump on me for suggesting that SI is necessary for this huge problem, it basically means you don’t believe we should try to build SI as an indirect way of solving many other problems either.
I’m not sure which is more likely, but even if it took 1,000 years to build superintelligence, it might make sense if it looked like it would take humanity over 1,000 years to solve that problem alone.
Besides, millions upon millions are devoted to solving the world’s problems using human-only strategies. I and a few others are arguing for a *novel alternative* — that’s our signature characteristic. I’m willing to debate about it, but after a certain point, I adopt a “take it or leave it” attitude.
Many people are also exceedingly prejudiced about AI. It’s like, if there was a button they could press that would generate an AI capable of vastly improving the world in some way, they wouldn’t press it, because that would create this Foreign Entity whose help isn’t wanted.
I’m pretty much utterly uninterested in attempting to rewrite the order of the natural world. That represents resources that are better spent elsewhere. And the attempt to do so is imposing a human aesthetic choice (which, when you get down to it, is all ethics is) on a domain utterly unsuited to that kind of sentimentality.
Joshua,
Have you heard of Hufu?
We don’t need to wait for AI to further the Abolitionist project. Genetic engineering, world government, meat alternatives, longevity medicine for all, etc..
optimizing lifelong individual happiness through the protection of human rights in order to eliminate involuntary suffering can start right now