Theeradication orabolition of suffering is the concept of usingbiotechnology to create a permanent absence of involuntarypain andsuffering in allsentient beings.
Thediscovery of modern anesthesia in the 19th century was an early breakthrough in the elimination of pain during surgery, but acceptance was not universal. Some medical practitioners at the time believed thatanesthesia was an artificial and harmful intervention in the body's natural response to injury.[1] Opposition to anesthesia has since dissipated; however, the prospect of eradicating pain raises similar concerns about interfering with life's natural functions.[2]
People who are naturally incapable of feeling pain or unpleasant sensations due to rare conditions likepain asymbolia orcongenital insensitivity to pain have been studied to discover the biological and genetic reasons for their pain-free lives.[3] A Scottish woman with a previously unreported genetic mutation in aFAAHpseudogene (dubbed FAAH-OUT) with resultant elevatedanandamide levels was reported in 2019 to be immune to anxiety, unable to experience fear, and insensitive to pain. The frequent burns and cuts she had due to her fullhypoalgesia healed quicker than average.[4][5][6]
In 1990,Medical Hypotheses published an article by L. S. Mancini on the "genetic engineering of a world without pain":[7]
A hypothesis is presented to the effect that everything adaptive which is achievable with a mind capable of experiencing varying degrees of both pleasure and pain (thehuman condition as we know it) could be achieved with a mind capable of experiencing only varying degrees of pleasure.
The development ofgene editing techniques likeCRISPR has raised the prospect that "scientists can identify the causes of certain unusual people's physicalsuperpowers and use gene editing to grant them to others."[8] GeneticistGeorge Church has commented on the potential future of replacing pain with a painless sensory system:[9]
I imagine what this would be like on another planet and in the future, and... given that imagined future, whether we would be willing tocome back to where we are now. Rather than saying whether we're willing to go forward... ask whether you're willing to come back.
Ethicists and philosophers in the schools ofhedonism andutilitarianism, especiallynegative utilitarianism, have debated the merits of eradicating suffering.[10]Transhumanist philosopherDavid Pearce, inThe Hedonistic Imperative (1995), argues that the abolition of suffering is both technically feasible and an issue of moral urgency,[11] stating that: "It is predicted that the world's last unpleasant experience will be a precisely dateable event."[12]
The philosopherNick Bostrom, director of theFuture of Humanity Institute, advises a more cautious approach due to pain's function in protecting individuals from harm. However, Bostrom supports the core idea of using biotechnology to get rid of "a huge amount of unnecessary and undeserved suffering."[10] It has also been argued that the eradication of suffering through biotechnology may bring about unwanted consequences, and arguments have been made that transhumanism is not the only philosophy worthy of consideration regarding the question of suffering — many people view suffering as one aspect in a dualist understanding of psychological and physical functioning, without whichpleasure could not exist.[13]
In 2009, Adam Shriver suggested replacing animals infactory farming with genetically engineered animals with a reduced or absent capacity to suffer and feel pain.[14] Shriver and McConnachie argued that people who wish to improveanimal welfare should support gene editing in addition toplant-based diets andcultured meat.[15]
Katrien Devolder and Matthias Eggel proposed gene editingresearch animals to remove pain and suffering. This would be an intermediate step towards eventually stopping all experimentation on animals and adoptingalternatives.[16]
Concerningwild-animal suffering, CRISPR-basedgene drives have been suggested as a cost-effective way of spreading benignalleles insexually reproducing species.[17][18][19] To limit gene drives spreading indefinitely (for test programmes, for example), the Sculpting Evolution group at theMIT Media Lab developed a self-exhausting form of CRISPR-based gene drive called a "daisy-chain drive."[20][21] For potential adverse effects of a gene drive, "[s]everal genetic mechanisms for limiting or eliminating gene drives have been proposed and/or developed, including synthetic resistance, reversal drives, and immunizing reversal drives."[22]
According toDavid Pearce, eradicating suffering is technically feasible by addressing its biological basis, as external changes cannot overcome the genetically constrainedhedonic treadmill. Potential solutions include wireheading (direct brain stimulation for uniform bliss), which undermines motivation and evolutionary fitness; designer drugs, offering sustainable well-being without side effects, though impractical for lifelong reliance; andgenetic engineering, the most promising approach. Genetic recalibration through hyperthymia-promoting genes could raise hedonic set-points, fostering adaptive well-being, creativity, and productivity while maintaining responsiveness to stimuli. While scientifically achievable, this transformation requires careful ethical and societal considerations to navigate its profound implications.[23]
