On David Pearce and the Abolitionist Project

Pearce’s Main Project

David Pearce is the main proponent of The Abolitionist Project which aims to alleviate suffering from all sentient beings. The notions look interesting, the ideas grand. Pearce’s position entails that it is not just desirable to remove all wordly suffering. It will one day be a certainty.

So far so good. Pearce advocates that when the technology becomes available, we start transforming our offspring. These will become better versions of their potential selves. He suggests that the eventual result will be people and animals which exist in gradients of intelligent bliss. This still sounds ok. If a little far-fetched, and overly optimistic.

Leaving the vegan dimension for another day, I’ll respond to some points about the Abolitionist Project he makes in this talk. The talk is primarily concerned with why all of the above can feasibly happen, and why it should happen.

An unusual Eugenics

Pearce holds that we practice a ‘crude and incompetent’ form of eugenics every time we choose a birth partner. Eugenics itself is something of a loaded term, to say the least. Without getting political I’ll consider what philosophical or practical point he is attempting to posit here.

I guess it is true that, as Pearce says, we are ‘throwing the genetic dice’ when we reproduce. But isn’t that part of the fun of creation? It takes time and effort bringing Human life into the world. Furthermore, children are not carbon copies or edited near-replicas. They are distinct and original beings who profoundly represent continuity and change at the same time.

Pregnancy, birth and childraising are already heavily structured. They are constantly intervened with by the medical and social professions. I would suggest there is a need for less medicalisation and scientific interference. Not more. Pearce believes that designer babies are an inevitability. This is questionable. Even with the technological possibility of allowing complete control over genetic reproduction, the ethical minefield is going to be a fretful place.

Mistaking current global trends as given

The utilitarian philosopher delights in space-time compression and sales acceleration. Pearce compares radio dispersion to mobile phone market penetration. He suggests that reproductive tech will spread around the world just as quickly as our indispensable handsets have.

Is Pearce honestly suggesting that any new reproductive technology will just be instantly and uncontroversially distributed around the globe? Presumably with no regard to culture or religion? I am recalling the struggle (not altogether vanished) to get birth control to take off in certain world regions.

Further to this, it is no secret that certain economies are preparing for long term disconnection from the perceived influence of the West. The convergence of globalisation is not a linear. Nor is it a necessarily granted phenomena. It is just an observable peculiarity of this stage of capitalism. I would say a globally unified civilisation, or at least one that could regulate universal reproduction effectively, is a pipe dream.

Pearce takes a Warlord’s word for it

Perhaps Pearce’s most bizarre tactic in laying out his case is when he takes a quote from Genghis Kahn to explain the problem with human happiness. This is another indication of how far out this way of thinking is. Why quote an ancient Asian warlord as if he is some sort of mistaken sage for contemporary times?

Perhaps because Pearce is obsessed with peak experiences. There is no mention of satiation and satisfaction with less than optimal circumstance. The reason this is harmful is that it warps the conversation so that the discourse only considers the extremes.

Most people are not, and never will be, great conquerors. Bandit generals who make thousands of widows and sire thousands of offspring. I doubt that every person is genetically predisposed to enjoy such a level of mayhem and violent activity anyway. The reality is that we do not tend to live our day-to-day lives in extremes. The bulk of people who make up any population are not outliers.

Biohacking

There is mention of changing our own ‘corrupt code’. Literally editing out the stuff that makes us imperfect. That often fills us with the desire to change ourselves, to improve. Our imperfections are arguably the essence of our humanity. The very differences between, and failings in, our own natures are often what gives us necessity, drive and aim.

Pearce finishes this section of the talk by saying he doesn’t know of any other viable options to global happiness than wire-heading, designer drugs and gene editing. I would suggest that there is a lack of grace here. Something which religions often convey through various teachings, rituals and practices.

Touching upon the world religions, Pearce (perhaps arrogantly) assumes Buddhists would be more inclined to his world view than practitioners of Islam, Judaism or Christianity. It seems he wishes to replace the noble eight-fold path with some kind of push-button Nirvana. That a life of struggle to achieve eternal bliss is less desirable in Pearce’s mind than instant gratification via futuristic technology.

Perhaps to end the struggle is to cease being Human

The Abolitionist Project throws into relief some fascinating ideas which challenge current ways of thinking. We have no choice in being continuously pulled into the future. I suggest that David Pearce has set out an exciting, if controversial, stall. This body of ideas contains intriguing concepts. However, their achievement would signify a loss of something deeper than suffering.

We each as people must consider ourselves to have a good handle on what it is to feel human. We can reflect on struggles that we have overcome. We can draw inspiration from faith in other people, and believe that we inhabit a reality that is much more than ourselves.

Without suffering we would need each other less and our life stories would become ever more trivial. It is conceited to think we would become Gods. Who could know now how the new powers would corrupt us. Finally, if the challenge of living a full life is taken away by the technology, then we may cease to be Human Beings at all.