If you wanted to make hedonic enhancement(*) more likely, what are the paths(**) you would focus on?

What specific steps would you take? Let's assume your primary resource is money, not personal communication or research abilities.


(*) i.e. applied technologies that reduce suffering and increase pleasure in sentient organisms without reducing their adaptiveness
(**) e.g. awareness raising campaings to popularize the concept, political activism, investment in research programs, or something else

Maybe Global Happiness Organisation. Could also talk to David Pearce about good possibilities for chemical enhancement research. In fact, DP's probably the best person to ask this question to anyway - his email's on his website, I think.

Thanks Arepo. I asked David in the "welfare states for elephants" thread a while ago, his pointers were:

"We hope...the discoveries will unite pleasure and purpose, elevating everyday experiences to something truly satisfying, and perhaps even sublime."
http://?www.scientificamerican.com/?article.cfm?id=new-pleasure-cir?cuit-found-brain

From a technical perspective, I think deciphering the molecular signature of pure bliss in our cubic-centimetre-sized "hedonic hotspots" will be a huge breakthrough. What exactly is so special about the gene expression profile of neurons in the ventral pallidum and rostral shell of the nucleus accumbens?
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~berridge/

However, I think the greatest source of severe, chronic and readily avoidable suffering in the world today is man-made: factory farming. One implication of an antispeciesist ethic is that factory farms should be outlawed and their surviving victims rehabilitated. Although I advocate global veganism, a transition to global invitrotarianism is probably more realistic - at least if we're to get factory farms and slaughterhouses closed down within decades rather than centuries.
So the organization I'd donate money to is:
http://www.new-harvest.org/
Or possibly:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57493 ... or-dinner/

Basic research in the neuroscience and genetics of pain, mood and pleasure seem promising starters for increasing the odds of future hedonic enhancement technologies. But I am wondering how private funding could improve this research efficiently, without leading to other (e.g. government or corporate) funding being reallocated to less useful fields. (I'm also not clear about the abuse potential of these technologies.)

I have been thinking that popularizing the core idea of hedonic enhancement could be efficient. hedweb.com and related posts on h+ magazine etc. are a great start, but those are transhumanism-related sites and probably reach only relatively few unrelated thinkers and voters.

Maybe online ad campaigns leading to a well-designed introductory site, summing up the core idea and addressing the most common initial objections? Has something like this been done before? If yes, could the reach be expanded?

The GHO sounds interesting. But their focus is not on enhancement technology (even though they advocate cultured meat and scientific happiness research, which are steps in the right direction). They also don't give a good outline exactly what they would do with additional funding, and what their current room for funding is.

What I would most love to have is a reseach charity that deliberately focuses on applied hedonic enhancement, e.g. with animal models, to create proofs of concepts, research correlates of subjective well-being, measurable biological markers (genetic, neuroscientific) and behavioral adaptivity. But maybe this kind of applied research is too early and basic neuroscience/genetics should be funded instead?

Arepo wrote:Maybe Global Happiness Organisation. Could also talk to David Pearce about good possibilities for chemical enhancement research. In fact, DP's probably the best person to ask this question to anyway - his email's on his website, I think.

He's easy to reach on facebook too.

Hedonic Treader wrote:The GHO sounds interesting. But their focus is not on enhancement technology (even though they advocate cultured meat and scientific happiness research, which are steps in the right direction). They also don't give a good outline exactly what they would do with additional funding, and what their current room for funding is.

I suspect that thinking about hedonic enhancement as purely technological is a mistake, though; for eg I heard by proxy a recent lecture on cognitive enhancement that claimed that the best enhancements by far were behavioural (ie mnemonic techniques), and the best preventative treatments for most diseases still seem to be exercise. So while I don’t know much about GHO’s methodology, they might well have just decided that in the short term, low tech approaches are much more helpful than tech enhancements. For what it’s worth they’re unofficially a utilitarianism group (they used to be officially a utilitarianism charity ‘til they noticed that put off huge numbers of potential members/donors), so if they were aware of great avenues for research I daresay they’d be supporting them.

Arepo wrote:I suspect that thinking about hedonic enhancement as purely technological is a mistake, though; for eg I heard by proxy a recent lecture on cognitive enhancement that claimed that the best enhancements by far were behavioural (ie mnemonic techniques), and the best preventative treatments for most diseases still seem to be exercise. So while I don’t know much about GHO’s methodology, they might well have just decided that in the short term, low tech approaches are much more helpful than tech enhancements.

The reason I favor high-tech enhancement research over low-tech approaches is that the low-tech solutions seem less sustainable. Behavioral changes require permanent upkeep and gains can revert to the mean. Creating new technologies could have permanent effects. E.g. the difference between giving painkillers to people vs. creating a new kind of people that no longer require painkillers.

Quoting Peter Hurford from another thread:

I think it would be great if accomplished, but I don't think we're anywhere close to even knowing what a plan would look like, let alone have the organization ready for donations.

I think we have several basic ideas of how a future plan might look like. hedweb.com is a good place to start if you are interested in learning about them.

However, "ready for donations" doesn't necessarily mean that we have a charity that has a master plan for a prototype of, say, a fit animal that never suffers. It could mean to speed up the basic research in genetics, neuroscience, brain-computer interfaces, nanotech, pharma, or whatever else you think holds the most promise of eventually getting to the feasibility threshold of functional hedonic enhancement.

The question then is, is there any research organisation, university, company, etc. with room for additional funding, without cannibalizing other investments or public funding, and is this maybe one of the best things utilitarians can do? How would we know if it is, and conversely, how would we know if it isn't?

Hedonic Treader wrote:The question then is, is there any research organisation, university, company, etc. with room for additional funding, without cannibalizing other investments or public funding, and is this maybe one of the best things utilitarians can do? How would we know if it is, and conversely, how would we know if it isn't?

We could evaluate it by asking what kind of research could be accomplished at what monetary cost, then guess how beneficial that research would be, and then penalize our estimate heavily for uncertainty. It's going to be a very difficult and rough calculation, but I think it *could* be done.

That being said, I don't think there are any current research organizations, etc. focused on this. Maybe David Pearce would know / could make a case?

Hedonic Treader, in light of the deep uncertainties that surround the issue, I'd say we can best promote hedonic enhancement by supporting research on the question of how best to promote hedonic enhancement. One possibility might be to fund an essay contest similar to the FHI Prize Competition or the Quantified Health Prize. The contest could be announced on LessWrong and other related venues, and would likely attract some valuable submissions. And, in addition to generating useful knowledge, the contest would also help spread the meme that hedonic enhancement is desirable.

I'd suggest giving to Leverage Research.

RyanCarey wrote:I'd suggest giving to Leverage Research.

I'm still in suspense for when you'll elaborate on this.

Pablo, Ryan, great ideas!

RyanCarey wrote:I'd suggest giving to Leverage Research.

I googled it and the website is interesting. I like the holistic and strategic outlook. What concerns me a bit is that they use a lot of vague phrases like "make the world a much better place" - without defining what "better" means to them. If we take it to appeal to a sense of goodness in folk morality, that certainly has an element of reducing suffering, but that's just a sub-goal and could be traded sharply against others (obeying the bible?)

I can confirm they're an explicity utilitarian organization.

I can confirm they're an explicitly utilitarian organization.

May I ask what is your source for this claim? My impression from interacting with Geoff Anders and the other resident members at Leverage House is that they aren't utilitarian at all, let alone "explicitly". They are concerned with "flourishing" rather than hedonic experience, and they seem to endorse a pluralistic conception of the good (itself based, I believe, on Connection Theory). None of the members are vegetarian, and at least some of them don't seem very concerned about non-human welfare.

Now, don't get me wrong: I have a very high opinion of what these folks are doing. They are very well organized and they have been incredibly successful so far. Mark Lee, in particular, is one of the most committed and productive effective altruist I know. He is also extremely supportive to anyone who needs help or seeks advice. I'm just claiming that, to the best of my knowledge, Leverage Research is not a utilitarian organization. Which, of course, does not disqualify it from being an organization that utiltarians might consider supporting. After all, Vegan Outreach, The Humane League, New Harvest, etc., are not utilitarian organizations either. (Though Gaverick Matheny, the founder of New Harvest, is a utilitarian, as is--I think--Matt Ball, the founder of Vegan Outreach.)

Pablo, I'm a hedonistic utilitarian and I think that human flourishing is as good as any other term for what I want to do.

The point of Leverage seems to be to stack as many multipliers [see 80k hours) in front of our positive impact as possible. So that one person can have the impact of many. People who come to Geoff thinking clearly about how to greatly improve the world will be met favourably.

As a vegetarian-vegan, I do not think that it is clear that being vegetarian is an important part of how to improve the world, in light of the strength of arguments as strong as Bostrom's on existential risk, astronomical waste and such.

RyanCarey wrote:Pablo, I'm a hedonistic utilitarian and I think that human flourishing is as good as any other term for what I want to do.

The point of Leverage seems to be to stack as many multipliers [see 80k hours) in front of our positive impact as possible. So that one person can have the impact of many. People who come to Geoff thinking clearly about how to greatly improve the world will be met favourably.

As a vegetarian-vegan, I do not think that it is clear that being vegetarian is an important part of how to improve the world, in light of the strength of arguments as strong as Bostrom's on existential risk, astronomical waste and such.

Flourishing only for humans?

RyanCarey wrote:Pablo, I'm a hedonistic utilitarian and I think that human flourishing is as good as any other term for what I want to do.

I don't know exactly what you want to do, but if you are a hedonistic utilitarian, the best term for what you want to do is "hedonistic utilitarianism" (and that doesn't even define hedon numbers for trade-off dilemmas). There is a false sense of political correctness in using language vaguely. Politicians can do this in order to conceal how their interests differ from those of their voters. "Flourishing" and "make the world a better place" are such phrases. If a charity uses them, there's a good chance they won't do with your money what you want them to do.

The point of Leverage seems to be to stack as many multipliers [see 80k hours) in front of our positive impact as possible. So that one person can have the impact of many. People who come to Geoff thinking clearly about how to greatly improve the world will be met favourably.

The multiplier idea is fine enough (if it works and isn't just hot air). "thinking clearly about how to greatly improve the world", however, is yet another empty phrase.

As a vegetarian-vegan, I do not think that it is clear that being vegetarian is an important part of how to improve the world, in light of the strength of arguments as strong as Bostrom's on existential risk, astronomical waste and such.

Agreed, even though I'd say our culinary experience is even less important. As for existential risk and astronomical waste, maybe we can agree that colonizing the universe with life that suffers less than other potential life is of considerable importance for hedonistic utilitarianism, hence the importance of putting hedonic enhancement (and maybe moral enhancement) on the agenda?

Hi Ryan,

RyanCarey wrote:Pablo, I'm a hedonistic utilitarian and I think that human flourishing is as good as any other term for what I want to do.

Then we do not agree. I think the term 'flourishing', in its standard sense, includes properties that hedonistic utilitarians do not value (e.g., the property of being successful in accomplishing one's goals, even if accomplishment is not accompanied by pleasure), and it also excludes properties that hedonistic utilitarians do value (e.g., the pleasure of insects, if they are sentient). More generally, I think we should say what we mean (as Hedonic Treader correctly points out). So if LR embraces hedonistic utilitarianism, they should use the term 'pleasure' and its cognates to express their moral views.

RyanCarey wrote:The point of Leverage seems to be to stack as many multipliers [see 80k hours) in front of our positive impact as possible. So that one person can have the impact of many. People who come to Geoff thinking clearly about how to greatly improve the world will be met favourably.

I think the idea of "stack[ing] as many multipliers in front of our positive impact" is great, but only if combined with a correct account of what 'positive impact' consists of. Effectiveness is not valuable in itself; its value (including its sign value) will vary depending on that which we are trying to optimize. Optimizing for human welfare might have catastrophic results if more human welfare leads to even less animal welfare (cf. the poor meat-eater problem, or more speculative scenarios involving terraforming or directed panspermia).

RyanCarey wrote:As a vegetarian-vegan, I do not think that it is clear that being vegetarian is an important part of how to improve the world, in light of the strength of arguments as strong as Bostrom's on existential risk, astronomical waste and such.

I agree that being a vegetarian is not an important part of how to improve the world (though promoting vegetarianism might have incalculable value). However, whether someone is a vegetarian has considerable epistemic value, in the sense it very reliably tells you how much this person cares about the welfare of non-human animals. You could argue that an enlightened altruist, after realizing that being a vegetarian doesn't make much of a difference, will have no qualms about following an omnivorous diet, and that for such a person my approach will yield the wrong conclusions: this person, if anything, takes altruism more seriously than vegetarian altruists. However, I think the number of such enlightened altruists is extremely small, even relative to the general population of altruists (which is itself tiny). The vast majority of those who claim that eating meat is justified on consequentialist grounds have never themselves been vegetarian in the past. This makes me suspect that these justifications are just rationalizations for doing what they would have done anyway. If these people had gone through a period of vegetarianism and then had switched to an omnivorous diet, I'd take their arguments much more seriously. (A rare example of someone who fits this description is Jesper Östman, who was a vegetarian for some time and then became a meat-eater after being persuaded that he could reduce existential risk more effectively by relaxing his dietary standards. I don't doubt his sincerity.)

Pablo Stafforini wrote:May I ask what is your source for this claim [that Leverage is a utilitarian organization]?

When I had a Skype chat with Geoff Anders, he referred to himself as a utilitarian and I took him at that word without further question or clarification. You clearly have a stronger insight into their organization than I do currently, so I'll take back what I said and not endorse them as "utilitarian" with the same caveats (of that not being a reason to necessarily withhold support) that you mentioned.

That being said, I already have a "not so hot" opinion of the organization. So far, everything Leverage has done that is impressive has been done either in secret or under a different banner. There is nothing publicly available and immediately connectable to their Leverage name to make them impressive. Connection Theory, in so far as it is publicly presented, is terrible.

THINK is a good invention of Leverage Research.

I'd add that Mark Lee has said much the same to me in conversation (he doesn't normally use the label utilitarian since he's a metaethical sceptic, but when I described my views he said they were basically the same as his)

Pablo Stafforini wrote:May I ask what is your source for this claim [that Leverage is a utilitarian organization]?

I haven't yet read this whole thread but just on this particular point I think Geoff Anders is speciesist isn't he?

A future WAS charity could also focus on hedonic enhancement, e.g.:

- identify correlates of peak pain intensity and genetic markers
- use cheap genetic sequencing on wild animal populations
- intervene into the populations by ordinary breeding with the aim to reduce average peak pain intensity
- release the selectively bred animals into the population to intermix

Not sure how solid the genetics of this are, but the chance that this could be done with moderate cost-effectiveness doesn't seem too low.

Advantages:

1) You don't have to convince people that nature is bad, just that downshifting WAS is good
2) It doesn't carry the stigma of transgenics, just ordinary breeding
3) You don't have to change the ecosystems in other ways
4) It is self-perpetuating (unless there's too much selection pressure reverting it)
5) It contributes to the scientific foundation for potential human hedonic enhancement

If you're willing to pay to raise and release large numbers of animals into the wild, you can definitely shift genetics temporarily. They are already used in species-selective elimination of insects:

http://www.oxitec.com/

"4) It is self-perpetuating (unless there's too much selection pressure reverting it)"

Things revert fast in the wild without a continual flow, especially organisms with short generation times.

CarlShulman wrote:Things revert fast in the wild without a continual flow, especially organisms with short generation times.

Maybe, but this requires negative selection pressure for the hedonistically favorable trait. Do wild animals really need quite as much suffering for fitness as they have? If fitness is reduced only slightly by much less suffering, we would find the same nature but expect no strong selection pressure against our interventions.

Otherwise: A continuation of mild artificial selection pressure might not be too expensive. As long as there is not too much political/legal opposition of nature lovers.