|
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neil asked:
|
|
In an article in a recent issue of Timemagazine, Dr Sanjay Gupta discussed what would be the
outcome "If Everyone Were on Prozac", in which he noted that some people/ psychiatrists "fear that a
nation on Prozac would miss the inherent value of struggle and strife".
|
|
Do we have any logical grounds for believing that such a positive value is indeed inherent in struggle
and strife? Would an idyllic Eden be an inappropriate goal to seek?
|
|
============
|
|
An interesting question: does pure pleasure have inherent value? Here are a couple of scenarios to
consider: 1) We develop the ability to put an electrode into one's pleasure center (we can do this),
and indefinitely support them (we're close) with IV drip, etc., while they do nothing, think nothing, and
feel nothing but intense pleasure; 2) we turn the planet into a garden, with more than enough food
growing everywhere, and no need to do anything to satisfy basic needs beyond picking it off the
nearest bush... and the food is loaded with tranquilizers and euphoric drugs (well, possible in some
future). Ok? You like these? Do you think one or the other of these is what humanity should aim for?
If you leave the ability to think, you're going to have striving, at least by some... so you've got to turn it
off, one way or another. But hey, why think, if you've got food, shelter, sex, and (minimal, since we
don't think) entertainment? Bread and circuses, like the Romans, right?
|
|
You could ask what the difference is between humanity like that and no humanity at all, just blades of
grass... I don't see one. I'm not going to present an ethical system with some other basis, although I
easily could. You think of one. I could say that in order to make the scenarios above, or something
like them, work, you'd have to change the basic nature of humanity... and then the question becomes:
to what do youthink it should be changed, and why?
|
|
But to give you two direct answers: yes, and yes. Here's one simple reason: we can't predict the
future. If we have a world of contented cattle, they'll need keepers, right? Because somethingis
bound to happen to the system, eventually. Well, who will be the keepers? Robots? Could you trust
them a) to do a good job, in the long run... be flexible enough to cope with the unexpected, to not rust
away, etc., and b) to not just abandon humanity?
|
|
Steven Ravett Brown
|
|