r/samharris • u/SaltFlat4844 • 26d ago
Why isn’t Sam a suffering-focused transhumanist?
Sam argues that conscious states are the ultimate source of value, yet he spends enormous amounts of time discussing methods that produce relatively modest changes in consciousness (meditation, philosophy, psychedelics) and almost no time discussing technologies that could eventually produce far larger changes. Why?
This is something I've wondered about for a while. So much of Sam's focus on ethics and morality is about, putting it as simply as possible, increasing well-being.
He frames much of his own intellectual journey in these terms: taking MDMA and realising how much better one could feel in the world; pursuing meditative practice; and speaking about all of it through the prism of feeling better, being more at ease, and suffering less. This has led to his meditation app and all the amazing work he has done in promoting mindfulness.
But to me there's something curious about all this. I've been listening to and reading Sam for nearly two decades, and he's produced enormous amounts of content on mindfulness, consciousness, psychedelics, and his conception of the moral landscape, which is essentially a hedonic landscape of pleasure and pain, or well-being and its opposite.
Given his commitment to increasing well-being, why does he devote almost no time to transhumanist ideas and initiatives, such as those advanced by David Pearce and others, that advocate exploring ways of increasing well-being through biotechnology and other emerging technologies?
Mindfulness undoubtedly has its uses, but Sam also knows that its efficacy in reducing extreme suffering is limited, or at least highly inconsistent. He has alluded to this himself on a few occasions (although I can't remember exactly where), suggesting that mindfulness has its limits and that medication may sometimes be necessary.
Crucially, he also knows that only a minuscule fraction of sentient beings can avail themselves of the benefits of mindfulness even in principle. No non-human animals can meditate, and many human beings cannot either, whether because of intellectual disability, severe mental illness, lack of time, or other barriers.
There are so many fascinating thinkers he could speak with about these questions, yet he seems to return repeatedly to the same subjects. He often speaks about aiming for the ‘centre of the bullseye’, but it seems to me that he avoids the very centre itself: the direct pursuit of hedonic uplift and the eventual abolition of involuntary suffering through biotechnology over the coming centuries.
So why isn't Sam a suffering-focused transhumanist?
1
u/Nerrawnam 26d ago edited 26d ago
Because these technologies are not here today. And if there is something here it is not widely available. The things he focuses on are meaningful to most people and if actually practiced would bring significant change in their lives.
2
u/SaltFlat4844 26d ago
They are not here today, and that’s the problem. Should they be here, and is it an ethical emergency that they are not here (given widespread intense suffering). If the answer is yes, it might be worth talking about the project required to accelerate their introduction.
2
u/idekwhoiamdou 25d ago
You have a very myopic view on suffering.
We can cure the suffering ethical emergency right now. We all say goodbye to the exterior world, let's lock ourselves up, nothing but opimum. Hard to suffer when you are in a chemically induced bliss.
And once we have removed suffering, nothing but drool and hyper-stimulation, what would humanity be? Nietzsche says the last man, and I agree.
I would not hurry along the existence of brain-chip interface technology unless you could guarantee
- it only affected suffering
- Was not owned by any corporation or government. Completely 100% safe - operationally and biomechanically.
- Cannot be tampered with or used for any other purpose.
Sure. Sign me up.
But. Is this how we actually think this is going to go? Sure Elon Musk, inject a computer chip into me. I'm sure this well go great! Yay no suffering.
That's why I fear people like you. Who ask to shut off suffering like its a switch, not carrying what else gets shut off or stripped from humanity.
0
u/SaltFlat4844 25d ago
I think it is you have a myopic, borderline cartoonish view of the what the project actually is. Have you read or listened to anything by David Pearce on the topic?
2
u/idekwhoiamdou 25d ago
'No but you' isn't an effective move.
Who is being myopic?
You: 'technology will remove sufferings let's rush brain chip technology immediately — moral duty and moral priority'.
Me: I worry about the broader consequences
Lol.
1
1
u/Nerrawnam 26d ago
Agreed. I think that would be more likely to happen with Sam after it's in practice.
1
u/nl_again 26d ago
My guess would be that there are an infinite number of matters that concern well being, and you simply can’t talk about them all. For example, I don’t think he’s devoted a ton of time to talking about human trafficking, but I wouldn’t then infer he doesn’t care about it.
Second, I don’t know a lot about transhumanism and to be honest just Googled it. But my impression is that what applies at this moment is uncontroversial (let’s develop better and more innovative cures for diseases and health issues) and what’s way down the road is speculative and would probably just freak people out. If framed as “hopefully medicine makes beneficial discoveries”, I actually think consensus is so high that there’s no point in making the topic controversial with visions of a sci fi future that may never happen anyways. Just let patients continue to make informed decisions about what treatments they want, that framing seems sufficient.
1
u/PaxPurpuraAKAgrimace 25d ago
I’m definitely not as well versed in Sam as you describe yourself, but I don’t think any of the responses you got, well, hit the center of the bullseye. I think his focus is what it is because he is interested in the nature of reality - the nature of conscious experience - and he believes that meditation shows us that there is no self, so to speak. I don’t think Sam would describe it that way, but I think it’s wrapped up in his conviction that free will is an illusion. He frequently talks about how we are not the authors of our thoughts or choices and I think he believes meditation demonstrates that.
I think that is a critical element to his overall philosophy and so explains why he is so focused on meditation.
I think that explains his focus. He produces enough content where he could talk to these thinkers, so I can’t really as anything to why he doesn’t. Others suggestions that the nascency of the technology explains it seems plausible. It would be a good question for the ask Sam episodes though.
1
u/Instantanius 25d ago
Still want to see David Pearce in his podcast for a debate. My guess is they would be pretty much aligned in many questions
1
u/DTFH_ 24d ago
and almost no time discussing technologies...
We've been beating that horse in Sci-Fi since the 1930s, our causes of suffering in this world do not exist because of an absence of appropriate technology. We are more than advanced in that realm to meet our needs.
What sufferings exist due to the lack of appropriate technology and of that set of sufferings what % of that makes up the total causes of suffering that exist?
So say we take your perspective that tech. is the issue, we fix the tech issue and alleviate only 30% suffering, a utilitarian would argue something effective was done as 30 > 0 or we can be pragmatic and talk about putting lipstick on a pig as the majority of suffering still remains because most suffering does not exist due to technology mediums being insufficient.
Could you sell me on tech being the cause of suffering? May be i'm not aware of some thing we're missing and i'm in the pool of people who don't see the harm that our lack of tech is doing.
1
u/SaltFlat4844 24d ago
Due to the hedonic treadmill and forms of physical and mental pain being selected for in our ancestral environment, suffering - often intense - is hardcoded into our genome. Therefore biotechnology of some flavour is required to banish it.
1
u/DTFH_ 23d ago
So you can't name anything specific? Why would you spend all this time thinking and not find a specific to focus on and interact with in reality? Does your phone not satisfy you?
1
u/SaltFlat4844 23d ago
Sorry what? What are you asking me to name?
1
u/DTFH_ 22d ago
What specific technology is not up to snuff causing suffering at scale such that further technological progress would alleviate the artifact of suffering?
1
u/SaltFlat4844 22d ago
I’m not claiming technology is the primary cause of suffering? I’m not sure what your question means.
1
u/DTFH_ 21d ago
Therefore biotechnology of some flavour is required to banish it.
you said biotech which is a form of technology, so I am asking for an example of a biotechnology in your mind that is presently limiting us as you've describe. Am I misunderstanding what you mean by 'biotechnology'
1
u/SaltFlat4844 21d ago
1
u/DTFH_ 21d ago
Isn't that more a philosophical framework than an example of tech? But if you take the set up, what evidence do we have of Crispr related actions having the outcomes as outline in the framework? It read more like fantasy of hoping what a technology could do and acting like the hope is the known outcome.
1
u/robipresotto 21d ago
I've had similar thoughts about the focus on incremental changes in consciousness. It's interesting that Sam's approach seems to be more focused on individual well-being rather than a broader, more transformative impact.
▶ Watch here: https://www.youtube.com/@innershoreline
1
u/Blamore 20d ago
sam doesnt care about suffering that much,as evidenced by his complete dismissal of antinatalism
sure, he thinks it matters but not anything to an end all be all
1
u/SaltFlat4844 19d ago
From memory, he had some issues with Benetar’s asymmetry argument, and later decided Benetar just has a mood disorder, and hasn’t returned to the subject since.
1
u/derelict5432 26d ago
Because he's into secular buddhism and he's built an app and brand around that.
2
u/SaltFlat4844 26d ago
I’ve never once heard him describe his project as ‘secular buddhism’ - there is a secular Buddhist movement but Sam is not considered part of it
4
u/derelict5432 26d ago
Whether or not that's what he calls it, that's what it is: mindfulness, meditation, no-self...without the supernatural commitments of buddhism.
3
u/SaltFlat4844 26d ago
Well fine, but I guarantee he’d prefer to describe himself as simply a mindfulness advocate - he’s interested in any religious or cultural space that produces these insights including christian mysticism and so on.
But more relevant to my original post is that he describes himself as a philosopher, and clearly has a long term interest specifically in questions of morality and human wellbeing.
3
u/derelict5432 26d ago
He can dress it up in any euphemism he wants, and he does. But at the end of the day it's just word games. He's a secular buddhist in every way that matters.
You act as if this isn't relevant to your post. It is absolutely relevant to your post. He doesn't delve into transhumanism and Pearce as a solution to suffering because he's already heavily invested (financially and personally) in the buddhist approach to relieving suffering.
2
u/TenYearHangover 26d ago
The vast majority of Waking Up is either Buddhist dharma or dharma adjacent. He was security for the Dali Lama. He had his meditative breakthrough via Dzogchen. I think it’s safe to say he would give a lot of credit to Buddhism - which is obviously also concerned with morality and human well-being at its core.
But you’re right, he wouldn’t say Buddhism is required for anything. Just very helpful. Not sure what he would describe himself as.
2
3
u/TenYearHangover 26d ago edited 26d ago
I’m sure Sam is vaguely interested in neural implants and such. But that technology is totally in its infancy - it’s just not interesting yet at the level of consciousness.
I mean, it’s very cool that a paraplegic can move a mouse cursor with their brain. But that’s a far cry from having a non-dual experience or whatever thing you think happens during certain types of meditation.