Two questions about hedonism

Sam Martinez9 said:Thanks for the post. My brain's reaction was really just a matter of habit and somewhat dogmatic thinking.

You responded from the heart... and honestly, that's what makes us human.

Harold Doyle3 said:You responded from the heart... and honestly, that's what makes us human.

That isn't really the point, though. It’s more about how building habits eventually hardens into dogma.

If you look at education, learning actually rewires the brain. Those neural pathways strengthen until they become habits, and those habits eventually solidify into dogmas.

Take, for example, when you try to learn something entirely new as an adult. At first, it's a slog—it's slow, difficult to retain, and feels completely unintuitive. You have to repeat it constantly. But after a while, once you've mastered the fundamentals of that field, new information layers on easily. Eventually, that knowledge becomes second nature; it turns into a habit where we don't even think about it anymore.

We then take all these various pieces of knowledge from different areas and stitch them together into a worldview. Once that happens, it becomes incredibly difficult to change, something we defend fiercely, and the lens through which we judge everything else.

To be clear, we’re all guilty of this, myself included.

That’s why I find myself constantly questioning how objective I’m actually being when I weigh a problem.

Children, naturally, haven't developed these entrenched views yet; they're still absorbing them from society and their parents. But it is fascinating to observe who, when, and under what specific circumstances someone manages to shift their perspective once they've reached adulthood.

Harold Doyle3 said:You responded from the heart... and honestly, that's what makes us human.

This reminds me of a passage from Hegelian logic science:

"In this day and age, we can't remind ourselves often enough that thought is what separates man from beast. Everything that enters a person's inner world—their very perception—is shaped by language. Once someone turns an experience into words, they've infused it with a category, whether it’s hidden, messy, or fully formed. To that extent, the logical is inherent to being human; or rather, it *is* our nature. Logic weaves itself into every natural human behavior—our feelings, our observations, our cravings, and our instincts—transforming them into something uniquely human..."

ruggedbadger2 said:Can you actually give me an example of a goal that doesn't lead to satisfaction? I guess I can't think of any human activity that isn't either chasing pleasure or trying to eliminate discomfort (like nirvana, euthanasia, or suicide).

Try this thought experiment on for size: imagine you know for a fact that two different choices will give you the exact same amount of pleasure. One choice is totally selfless, while the other is just morally neutral. Since you aren't getting any extra "happiness points" for being a good person, what are you picking? Personally, I’d go with the one that brings some extra good into the world along with the pleasure. If you wouldn't, I guess you might be an outlier.

Man, if I had the energy or the patience for a full-on Socratic dialogue, I’d stop there. But since I don't, here's my take: if we agree that there are other motivations besides just pleasure, then we have to talk about how much those things actually weigh. Like, is it really true that a tiny, microscopic bit of extra pleasure is enough to outweigh a massive amount of something else that motivates us? I mean, probably not. It seems pretty plausible that there are situations where a huge amount of other stuff could easily outweigh a tiny lack of pleasure. Etc.

Harold Doyle3 said:You responded from the heart... and honestly, that's what makes us human.

I think there’s been a bit of a misunderstanding here. You’re looking at my previous posts and assuming I was purely reacting emotionally.

In a way, you're right, but in another, you aren't.

I shared a specific situation based on my own life experience—and since personal experiences are pretty much all we actually have—so I find it somewhat strange when people on this forum claim they know exactly what someone else is thinking or feeling when they've never even met them.

I suppose I view things differently; I would never dream of telling you, for instance, that you have no clue what one of your own friends is thinking or wanting, or that I somehow know their mind better than you do.

I can certainly offer my assumptions about what a friend might be going through, or speculate on various possibilities, but because I lack the lived experience you possess, I will always defer to your judgment. You know the individual far better than I ever could.

As for my friend, she confided her intentions solely to me and no one else; not even her family is aware of what she was planning. This isn't someone who goes around fishing for sympathy or attention by making threats of self-harm. We have known each other for decades now—we have a very deep history—and I see absolutely no reason for her to lie to me. Given that she hasn't told anyone else... I can only conclude that her intentions were genuine. She truly would have gone through with it if her daughter hadn't called.

James Lee77 said:Try this thought experiment on for size: imagine you know for a fact that two different choices will give you the exact same amount of pleasure. One choice is totally selfless, while the other is just morally neutral. Since you aren't getting any extra "happiness points" for being a good person, what are you picking? Personally, I’d go with the one that brings some extra good into the world along with the pleasure. If you wouldn't, I guess you might be an outlier.

Man, if I had the energy or the patience for a full-on Socratic dialogue, I’d stop there. But since I don't, here's my take: if we agree that there are other motivations besides just pleasure, then we have to talk about how much those things actually weigh. Like, is it really true that a tiny, microscopic bit of extra pleasure is enough to outweigh a massive amount of something else that motivates us? I mean, probably not. It seems pretty plausible that there are situations where a huge amount of other stuff could easily outweigh a tiny lack of pleasure. Etc.

That’s a solid breakdown. It lines up with what I was saying earlier—pleasure is relative. Sure, it’s almost always in the mix when we're deciding what to do, but it’s rarely the only factor, let alone the deciding one.

Sam Martinez9 said:I think there’s been a bit of a misunderstanding here. You’re looking at my previous posts and assuming I was purely reacting emotionally.

In a way, you're right, but in another, you aren't.

I shared a specific situation based on my own life experience—and since personal experiences are pretty much all we actually have—so I find it somewhat strange when people on this forum claim they know exactly what someone else is thinking or feeling when they've never even met them.

I suppose I view things differently; I would never dream of telling you, for instance, that you have no clue what one of your own friends is thinking or wanting, or that I somehow know their mind better than you do.

I can certainly offer my assumptions about what a friend might be going through, or speculate on various possibilities, but because I lack the lived experience you possess, I will always defer to your judgment. You know the individual far better than I ever could.

As for my friend, she confided her intentions solely to me and no one else; not even her family is aware of what she was planning. This isn't someone who goes around fishing for sympathy or attention by making threats of self-harm. We have known each other for decades now—we have a very deep history—and I see absolutely no reason for her to lie to me. Given that she hasn't told anyone else... I can only conclude that her intentions were genuine. She truly would have gone through with it if her daughter hadn't called.

I'll get back to this later. Right now, I've got to go get ready for some New Year's hedonism. 👋

ruggedbadger2 said:Here are two thought experiments regarding hedonism. I'm curious to see how you'd handle both scenarios. 🙂

1) The "Experience Machine." This is that famous thought experiment by Robert Nozick. I’ve heard a few different versions, but here’s how I remember it: imagine there’s this high-tech pod. Once you step inside, it provides an unimaginable level of pleasure—just pure, indescribable bliss. All physical and mental suffering is wiped out the moment you enter; there's nothing but extreme gratification. However, the machine works by physically altering your body, deforming it in ways you wouldn't actually feel while you're plugged in. But, if you knew beforehand that entering the pod would turn you into something like this, would you still get in?

2) Now, let's take a variation of the classic "trolley problem." Imagine a runaway train barreling toward the person inside that pleasure pod, which happens to be sitting right on the tracks. You’re standing next to a lever. If you pull it, you divert the train onto a different track where a "normal" person is tied down. What do you think is the better outcome: ending a life filled with total bliss, or ending an ordinary life? Which life carries more value, in your opinion? Obviously, the person in the pod would die painlessly since they wouldn't even feel the impact.

That famous thought experiment almost always requires a specific clarification to make any sense at all.

Personally, I’d step into that machine—plug myself in—right up until the moment the physical toll on my health became too great to ignore. Anyone who wouldn't act with that kind of pragmatism is, fundamentally speaking, just an auto-destructive addict.

ruggedbadger2 said:Here are two thought experiments regarding hedonism. I'm curious to see how you'd handle both scenarios. 🙂

1) The "Experience Machine." This is that famous thought experiment by Robert Nozick. I’ve heard a few different versions, but here’s how I remember it: imagine there’s this high-tech pod. Once you step inside, it provides an unimaginable level of pleasure—just pure, indescribable bliss. All physical and mental suffering is wiped out the moment you enter; there's nothing but extreme gratification. However, the machine works by physically altering your body, deforming it in ways you wouldn't actually feel while you're plugged in. But, if you knew beforehand that entering the pod would turn you into something like this, would you still get in?

2) Now, let's take a variation of the classic "trolley problem." Imagine a runaway train barreling toward the person inside that pleasure pod, which happens to be sitting right on the tracks. You’re standing next to a lever. If you pull it, you divert the train onto a different track where a "normal" person is tied down. What do you think is the better outcome: ending a life filled with total bliss, or ending an ordinary life? Which life carries more value, in your opinion? Obviously, the person in the pod would die painlessly since they wouldn't even feel the impact.

I wouldn't do a single thing.

It is frankly absurd to even frame the question as if one were obligated to act, rather than simply trying to sabotage the entire train system to ensure nobody dies in the first place.

Sam Martinez9 said:I think there’s been a bit of a misunderstanding here. You’re looking at my previous posts and assuming I was purely reacting emotionally.

In a way, you're right, but in another, you aren't.

I shared a specific situation based on my own life experience—and since personal experiences are pretty much all we actually have—so I find it somewhat strange when people on this forum claim they know exactly what someone else is thinking or feeling when they've never even met them.

I suppose I view things differently; I would never dream of telling you, for instance, that you have no clue what one of your own friends is thinking or wanting, or that I somehow know their mind better than you do.

I can certainly offer my assumptions about what a friend might be going through, or speculate on various possibilities, but because I lack the lived experience you possess, I will always defer to your judgment. You know the individual far better than I ever could.

As for my friend, she confided her intentions solely to me and no one else; not even her family is aware of what she was planning. This isn't someone who goes around fishing for sympathy or attention by making threats of self-harm. We have known each other for decades now—we have a very deep history—and I see absolutely no reason for her to lie to me. Given that she hasn't told anyone else... I can only conclude that her intentions were genuine. She truly would have gone through with it if her daughter hadn't called.

The people on this forum just have a different perspective than yours, and looking at things from multiple angles isn't a bad thing. I don't think anyone here is claiming to know the person better than you do.

You mentioned she only confided in you, yet somehow her daughter knew enough to call and stop it... how? Was it an intuition? Does she just know her mother that well? Did you tell her? Or maybe... are you the daughter?

Look, if you know this person as well as you say:

Would anyone actually want someone to die because of them (whether during their life or after)?
If they would, what does that say about that kind of person?
Your friend lost her son... should her daughter have lost both her brother and her mother? From a mother's perspective, what was she supposed to do?
What does your friend think about mothers who wouldn't do what she wanted to do? Maybe they didn't love their sons enough?
Would she try to prevent or encourage other mothers from doing what she intended to do (if they were considering it)?

She has a "reason to live" now... but anyone who has a reason to live also has a reason to die.

If you're emotionally attached to something, don't bring it up here. Don't cast pearls before swine.
Right now, I'm just the "swine" trampling over your feelings, and you basically handed me the opportunity.

electricrider16 said:That famous thought experiment almost always requires a specific clarification to make any sense at all.

Personally, I’d step into that machine—plug myself in—right up until the moment the physical toll on my health became too great to ignore. Anyone who wouldn't act with that kind of pragmatism is, fundamentally speaking, just an auto-destructive addict.

I wouldn't do a single thing.

It is frankly absurd to even frame the question as if one were obligated to act, rather than simply trying to sabotage the entire train system to ensure nobody dies in the first place.

The second you decided to walk through that door, you already branded yourself a self-destructive addict.

Harold Doyle3 said:The people on this forum just have a different perspective than yours, and looking at things from multiple angles isn't a bad thing. I don't think anyone here is claiming to know the person better than you do.

You mentioned she only confided in you, yet somehow her daughter knew enough to call and stop it... how? Was it an intuition? Does she just know her mother that well? Did you tell her? Or maybe... are you the daughter?

Look, if you know this person as well as you say:

Would anyone actually want someone to die because of them (whether during their life or after)?
If they would, what does that say about that kind of person?
Your friend lost her son... should her daughter have lost both her brother and her mother? From a mother's perspective, what was she supposed to do?
What does your friend think about mothers who wouldn't do what she wanted to do? Maybe they didn't love their sons enough?
Would she try to prevent or encourage other mothers from doing what she intended to do (if they were considering it)?

She has a "reason to live" now... but anyone who has a reason to live also has a reason to die.

If you're emotionally attached to something, don't bring it up here. Don't cast pearls before swine.
Right now, I'm just the "swine" trampling over your feelings, and you basically handed me the opportunity.

The daughter picked up on it through conversation. Her mother was saying things along the lines of: *if something happens to me, rent out the apartment, sell the house...* and the daughter replied: *I don't need an apartment, I need my mother alive.*

As for your questions, I don't sit around discussing suicide with my friend, so I have no idea what her stance is on the matter.

I can tell you what I think, though. It’s roughly this:

Every person is unique, shaped by singular life circumstances, and they react to those circumstances in their own way. Some people will take their own lives under certain pressures, and others won't. That doesn't make one person "better" or "worse" than the other; it just means we are all fundamentally different. I prefer to try to understand people rather than slapping labels on them or judging them for their actions—or their lack of action.

Life is messy and unpredictable. Many people endure massive tragedies, far greater than what my friend is facing. Yet, they move forward; they find a reason to keep going. That doesn't mean they are cold or less grieving than my friend; it just means their paths were different. I suspect that for those with larger support systems, finding a reason to carry on might be slightly easier. But the truth is, everyone hit by personal tragedy suffers, and that suffering lasts for years, even decades.

A significant number of people take their own lives in America and across the globe. Almost all of them leave family behind, many leaving children. How do they justify it to themselves? It's simple, in a dark way. They believe their loved ones won't need them anyway, or that things will actually be better without them. *They won't miss me; they'll be better off once I'm gone...*

Regarding the pearls: I can trample over the swine as much as I want, but real pearls remain pearls, and swine remain swine.

Sam Martinez9 said:The daughter picked up on it through conversation. Her mother was saying things along the lines of: *if something happens to me, rent out the apartment, sell the house...* and the daughter replied: *I don't need an apartment, I need my mother alive.*

As for your questions, I don't sit around discussing suicide with my friend, so I have no idea what her stance is on the matter.

I can tell you what I think, though. It’s roughly this:

Every person is unique, shaped by singular life circumstances, and they react to those circumstances in their own way. Some people will take their own lives under certain pressures, and others won't. That doesn't make one person "better" or "worse" than the other; it just means we are all fundamentally different. I prefer to try to understand people rather than slapping labels on them or judging them for their actions—or their lack of action.

Life is messy and unpredictable. Many people endure massive tragedies, far greater than what my friend is facing. Yet, they move forward; they find a reason to keep going. That doesn't mean they are cold or less grieving than my friend; it just means their paths were different. I suspect that for those with larger support systems, finding a reason to carry on might be slightly easier. But the truth is, everyone hit by personal tragedy suffers, and that suffering lasts for years, even decades.

A significant number of people take their own lives in America and across the globe. Almost all of them leave family behind, many leaving children. How do they justify it to themselves? It's simple, in a dark way. They believe their loved ones won't need them anyway, or that things will actually be better without them. *They won't miss me; they'll be better off once I'm gone...*

Regarding the pearls: I can trample over the swine as much as I want, but real pearls remain pearls, and swine remain swine.

Didn't she tell you she was planning on taking her own life? And after that, you guys just... what, kept on chatting about cookie recipes?

Sam Martinez9 said:The daughter picked up on it through conversation. Her mother was saying things along the lines of: *if something happens to me, rent out the apartment, sell the house...* and the daughter replied: *I don't need an apartment, I need my mother alive.*

As for your questions, I don't sit around discussing suicide with my friend, so I have no idea what her stance is on the matter.

I can tell you what I think, though. It’s roughly this:

Every person is unique, shaped by singular life circumstances, and they react to those circumstances in their own way. Some people will take their own lives under certain pressures, and others won't. That doesn't make one person "better" or "worse" than the other; it just means we are all fundamentally different. I prefer to try to understand people rather than slapping labels on them or judging them for their actions—or their lack of action.

Life is messy and unpredictable. Many people endure massive tragedies, far greater than what my friend is facing. Yet, they move forward; they find a reason to keep going. That doesn't mean they are cold or less grieving than my friend; it just means their paths were different. I suspect that for those with larger support systems, finding a reason to carry on might be slightly easier. But the truth is, everyone hit by personal tragedy suffers, and that suffering lasts for years, even decades.

A significant number of people take their own lives in America and across the globe. Almost all of them leave family behind, many leaving children. How do they justify it to themselves? It's simple, in a dark way. They believe their loved ones won't need them anyway, or that things will actually be better without them. *They won't miss me; they'll be better off once I'm gone...*

Regarding the pearls: I can trample over the swine as much as I want, but real pearls remain pearls, and swine remain swine.

So, you think you went a little overboard with that enrollment? Maybe. It’s easy to get carried away when you're looking at the big picture, but I suppose hindsight is always twenty-twenty. Now I'm just sitting here wondering if I jumped the gun.

Sam Martinez9 says:
Of course you didn't. But honestly, that whole post of yours directed at Wanda just makes it look even more pathetic.

Look, suicides definitely happen. But my friend? She didn't pull the trigger because she's some kind of saint who loves life or herself. And it wasn't even about her other child. It just wasn't.

So you just went ahead and lashed out at this complete stranger, labeling her nothing more than a common liar who’s actively masking her true motives—not just from everyone else on this planet, but from herself, too.

Isn't "bolding" just a way of pointing fingers?

Sam Martinez9 said:The daughter picked up on it through conversation. Her mother was saying things along the lines of: *if something happens to me, rent out the apartment, sell the house...* and the daughter replied: *I don't need an apartment, I need my mother alive.*

As for your questions, I don't sit around discussing suicide with my friend, so I have no idea what her stance is on the matter.

I can tell you what I think, though. It’s roughly this:

Every person is unique, shaped by singular life circumstances, and they react to those circumstances in their own way. Some people will take their own lives under certain pressures, and others won't. That doesn't make one person "better" or "worse" than the other; it just means we are all fundamentally different. I prefer to try to understand people rather than slapping labels on them or judging them for their actions—or their lack of action.

Life is messy and unpredictable. Many people endure massive tragedies, far greater than what my friend is facing. Yet, they move forward; they find a reason to keep going. That doesn't mean they are cold or less grieving than my friend; it just means their paths were different. I suspect that for those with larger support systems, finding a reason to carry on might be slightly easier. But the truth is, everyone hit by personal tragedy suffers, and that suffering lasts for years, even decades.

A significant number of people take their own lives in America and across the globe. Almost all of them leave family behind, many leaving children. How do they justify it to themselves? It's simple, in a dark way. They believe their loved ones won't need them anyway, or that things will actually be better without them. *They won't miss me; they'll be better off once I'm gone...*

Regarding the pearls: I can trample over the swine as much as I want, but real pearls remain pearls, and swine remain swine.

So, did her daughter only suddenly become a priority once she lost her son?

Sam Martinez9 said:The daughter picked up on it through conversation. Her mother was saying things along the lines of: *if something happens to me, rent out the apartment, sell the house...* and the daughter replied: *I don't need an apartment, I need my mother alive.*

As for your questions, I don't sit around discussing suicide with my friend, so I have no idea what her stance is on the matter.

I can tell you what I think, though. It’s roughly this:

Every person is unique, shaped by singular life circumstances, and they react to those circumstances in their own way. Some people will take their own lives under certain pressures, and others won't. That doesn't make one person "better" or "worse" than the other; it just means we are all fundamentally different. I prefer to try to understand people rather than slapping labels on them or judging them for their actions—or their lack of action.

Life is messy and unpredictable. Many people endure massive tragedies, far greater than what my friend is facing. Yet, they move forward; they find a reason to keep going. That doesn't mean they are cold or less grieving than my friend; it just means their paths were different. I suspect that for those with larger support systems, finding a reason to carry on might be slightly easier. But the truth is, everyone hit by personal tragedy suffers, and that suffering lasts for years, even decades.

A significant number of people take their own lives in America and across the globe. Almost all of them leave family behind, many leaving children. How do they justify it to themselves? It's simple, in a dark way. They believe their loved ones won't need them anyway, or that things will actually be better without them. *They won't miss me; they'll be better off once I'm gone...*

Regarding the pearls: I can trample over the swine as much as I want, but real pearls remain pearls, and swine remain swine.

It's pretty obvious that if someone feels that way, their family won't miss them either, because if they truly mattered, they would have stayed by their side longer.

Sam Martinez9 said:The daughter picked up on it through conversation. Her mother was saying things along the lines of: *if something happens to me, rent out the apartment, sell the house...* and the daughter replied: *I don't need an apartment, I need my mother alive.*

As for your questions, I don't sit around discussing suicide with my friend, so I have no idea what her stance is on the matter.

I can tell you what I think, though. It’s roughly this:

Every person is unique, shaped by singular life circumstances, and they react to those circumstances in their own way. Some people will take their own lives under certain pressures, and others won't. That doesn't make one person "better" or "worse" than the other; it just means we are all fundamentally different. I prefer to try to understand people rather than slapping labels on them or judging them for their actions—or their lack of action.

Life is messy and unpredictable. Many people endure massive tragedies, far greater than what my friend is facing. Yet, they move forward; they find a reason to keep going. That doesn't mean they are cold or less grieving than my friend; it just means their paths were different. I suspect that for those with larger support systems, finding a reason to carry on might be slightly easier. But the truth is, everyone hit by personal tragedy suffers, and that suffering lasts for years, even decades.

A significant number of people take their own lives in America and across the globe. Almost all of them leave family behind, many leaving children. How do they justify it to themselves? It's simple, in a dark way. They believe their loved ones won't need them anyway, or that things will actually be better without them. *They won't miss me; they'll be better off once I'm gone...*

Regarding the pearls: I can trample over the swine as much as I want, but real pearls remain pearls, and swine remain swine.

Your friend opened up to you... shouldn't you have told her daughter?

So, you didn't want to step on any "gems"?

Harold Doyle3 said:Didn't she tell you she was planning on taking her own life? And after that, you guys just... what, kept on chatting about cookie recipes?

So, you think you went a little overboard with that enrollment? Maybe. It’s easy to get carried away when you're looking at the big picture, but I suppose hindsight is always twenty-twenty. Now I'm just sitting here wondering if I jumped the gun.

Sam Martinez9 says:
Of course you didn't. But honestly, that whole post of yours directed at Wanda just makes it look even more pathetic.

Look, suicides definitely happen. But my friend? She didn't pull the trigger because she's some kind of saint who loves life or herself. And it wasn't even about her other child. It just wasn't.

So you just went ahead and lashed out at this complete stranger, labeling her nothing more than a common liar who’s actively masking her true motives—not just from everyone else on this planet, but from herself, too.

Isn't "bolding" just a way of pointing fingers?

So, did her daughter only suddenly become a priority once she lost her son?

It's pretty obvious that if someone feels that way, their family won't miss them either, because if they truly mattered, they would have stayed by their side longer.

Your friend opened up to you... shouldn't you have told her daughter?

So, you didn't want to step on any "gems"?

☕
Why on earth does the Ent-like forest rise up to save the fellowship in Lord of the Rings?
And how can they claim anyone worth their salt can fly, while anyone who can't is basically worthless?

hiddeneagle98 said:I’m going to drop the link to this absolutely brilliant website once again.

I finally sat down and read the entire manifesto. It’s nothing more than a sci-fi tech utopia. 🤣
The sheer number of flawed assumptions is staggering. I gave up on even trying to draft some bullet points after the first chapter...

The critique covers the main points from a philosophical standpoint. It's fascinating how Pierce just assumes everlasting happiness is actually achievable. He suggests we could solve the issue of tolerance by simply knocking out the genes that encode monoamine oxidase.
But binding serotonin to its receptors essentially destroys them; tolerance is the inevitable result. There is no way for those receptors to return to their previous state without internal self-regulating processes—which leads to a feedback loop where serotonin supply drops, resulting in depression. There isn't even a theoretical possibility of reversing that up-regulation process without suffering... and plenty of time. Pleasure can only exist as a contrast to pain. Without the capacity for pain, there is certainly no pleasure, and no intervention could ever make that state possible.

Are you claiming you read the entire website or just the manifesto? Because there’s actually a massive amount of material to dig through in there.

I'm not going to weigh in on the rest of your post since I don't have enough background to determine what's technically possible and what isn't, but generally speaking, I agree with the analysis by Quincy that you linked.

ruggedbadger2 said:Are you claiming you read the entire website or just the manifesto? Because there’s actually a massive amount of material to dig through in there.

I'm not going to weigh in on the rest of your post since I don't have enough background to determine what's technically possible and what isn't, but generally speaking, I agree with the analysis by Quincy that you linked.

I read the manifesto and skimmed the rest. It was a waste of time even thinking permanent pleasure was an option, which is why I checked out his claims. At any rate, I'm glad I shifted my perspective regarding the importance of pain and suffering. It isn't just about genetics, as Pierce argues. It feels like the author just threw out a bone to see if anyone would bite. He offers no concrete method for how this works, simply assuming modern tech makes it possible. He mentions MAOIs and those "wirehead" rats, claiming their pleasure is lasting and consequence-free without providing a shred of evidence—even though those same models starved themselves to death in the actual experiments. That isn't the only case; much broader studies on monkeys looking at drug-seeking behavior show that animals lose all control in their addiction, ignoring everything else until they die from dopamine stimulation. Every such experiment ends in death. Even the "critic" conceded it might be possible, focusing mostly on morality and consequences.

He concludes by saying, '''The details are too messy and complicated.''
Give me a break... 🤣
Then he talks about stimulating behaviors we normally avoid to escape pain, as if rewiring the brain is as trivial as a common cold. We may know a lot about the brain, but implementing this kind of genetic engineering is highly unlikely, even if we understood everything. Otherwise, the whole thing is pure science fiction.

Not to mention how he claims this could happen in the near future, only to backtrack and say, ''In centuries to follow, however, they will be possible...'' Then, just moments later, he suggests we might see it realized around the fourth millennium. My god. 😁

Who cares what happens in a few hundred years? What does that have to do with me right now? Honestly, it’s completely irrational—that's my main critique from an existentialist-nihilistic standpoint. Once we're gone, we're gone. Nothing matters anymore. When we die, it's as if we never existed. Instead of wasting time trying to build something "good" for some far-off futuristic "humanity," I'd much rather spend my time on basic Darwinian rewards: enjoying good food, accumulating resources, and sleeping with women. I'm not interested in planting sequoias just so some mindless future generation can enjoy the shade. That kind of idealism is naive. I'd rather embrace the absurdity and find peace in life's paradoxes and dark art.

The whole idea of colonizing space is just as naive. It's nothing more than a fantasy for unserious Star Wars fans. It's fine for an audience aged 8 to 19, but I don't consider adult fans particularly bright. No offense intended; I'm not here to please anyone, and I won't hold back on the criticism.

Pierce’s vegan activism was already wearing thin on me, but his attitude toward animal carnivores—specifically cats—was the ultimate dealbreaker. He actually advocated for thinning their numbers just to prevent them from causing pain to other species. 🙄

While we're on the subject, our pathetic, human, ego-driven feelings of pity exist primarily to serve our genes, not our own actual well-being. It’s simply the result of positive selection favoring cooperation with other species so we could more effectively exploit them. Cats don't have that burden; it would be a disadvantage for them. (Imagine a cat having a moral crisis over hunting a mouse.) In fact, it’s quite the opposite. When they kill, they likely experience what we would call empathy, and they enjoy it. For them, it's the peak sensation, usually preceded by playing with the prey to prolong the process. (Which aligns perfectly with evolutionary theory, as maximum cruelty serves their interests.)

If cats experience this Darwinian reward as intensely as we feel compassion, why should our subjective emotions hold any special status? Wouldn't it be more efficient to feel no suffering at all while securing food? This little pang of conscience during our food selection is nothing but an inconvenience... it offers us almost no utility.

Does anyone ever wonder why we don't shed crocodile tears when we step on ants or cockroaches?

I’ll give you a more detailed answer once I’ve had a chance to dig through the website. In the meantime, where on earth did you find that stuff about the cats? I'm asking because Google isn't giving me anything useful when I search for "david Quincy cats." 😁

Sarah Martinez46 said:☕
Why on earth does the Ent-like forest rise up to save the fellowship in Lord of the Rings?
And how can they claim anyone worth their salt can fly, while anyone who can't is basically worthless?

"Those who flee the battlefield live to fight another day."

Griffin