To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Eradication of suffering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The eradication or abolition of suffering is the concept of using biotechnology to create a permanent absence of involuntary pain and suffering in all sentient beings.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    444 996
    2 774 154
    1 047
    75 541 847
    12 185
  • Learning from smallpox: How to eradicate a disease - Julie Garon and Walter A. Orenstein
  • Why is it so hard to escape poverty? - Ann-Helén Bay
  • Alan J. Magill Malaria Eradication Symposium
  • The Story of Ebola
  • International Day For The Eradication Of Poverty 2022 : Daily Current News | Drishti IAS

Transcription

For most of human history, medical workers sought to treat diseases or cure them. The rise of vaccination in the 19th century enhanced the potential to prevent people from contracting illnesses in the first place. But only in recent decades did it become possible to ensure that a particular disease never threatens humanity again. The story of smallpox, the first and, so far, the only disease to be permanently eradicated from the world, shows how disease eradication can happen and why it is so difficult to achieve. Smallpox emerged in human populations thousands of years ago as a contagious virus that spread rapidly, primarily through close, face to face contact, causing fever, aches and rashes. It killed up to 30% of its victims and often left survivors with life-long disfiguring scars. The devastating impact of smallpox was so great that several cultures had religious deities specifically dedicated to it. In the 20th century alone, it is estimated to have killed more than 300 million people worldwide. With the effective deployment of vaccination, the number of cases began to decrease. By seeking out infected individuals, isolating them, and vaccinating their contacts to prevent further transmission, scientists realized that the spread of the disease could be haulted. In fact, because smallpox could only survive in human hosts, vaccinating all of an infected persons' potential contacts would stop the virus dead in its tracks and eliminate it from that region. Once this strategy had succeeded in ridding most industrialized countries from disease, health officials realized that eradicating it worldwide was within reach. But this was not an easy process, proving especially difficult in places suffering from poor infrastructure or civil wars. The eradication effort took decades and involved millions of people working together, from world leaders and international organizations to rural doctors and community workers. In India, one of the last strongholds of the disease, health workers visited every one of the country's 100 million households to search for cases. Through this unprecedented worldwide effort, in which even rival superpowers cooperated, smallpox was finally declared eradicated in 1980, saving approximately 40 million lives over the following two decades. There were several factors that made smallpox an ideal candidate for eradication. First, humans are essential to the smallpox lifecycle, so breaking the chain of human to human transmission causes the virus to die out. In contrast, many other pathogens, like ebola or the bubonic plague, can survive in animal carriers, while the bacteria that cause tetanus can even live in the soil. Secondly, individuals infected with smallpox displayed a characteristic rash, making them easy to identify, even without a lab test. The lack of such practical diagnostic tools for diseases with non-specific symptoms, or that have long incubation periods, such as AIDS, makes their eradication more difficult. Third, the availability of a smallpox vaccine that provided immunity for five to ten years in a single dose meant that there was an effective intervention to stop the virus from spreading. And finally, the initial success of several countries in eliminating the disease within their borders served as a proof of principle for its eradication worldwide. Today, the same criteria are applied to determine whether other diseases can be similarly eliminated. And even though smallpox remains the only success story thus far, several other pathogens may be next in line. Great progress has been made towards eradicating guinea worm disease simply by use of water filters. And vaccination for polio, which previously disabled hundreds of thousands of people each year is estimated to have prevented 13 million cases of paralysis, and 650,000 deaths since 1988. With a 99% drop in infections since the eradication effort began, one final push is all that is needed to ensure that polio will never paralyze another child. Disease eradication is one public health effort that benefits all of humanity and challenges us to work together as a global community. Beyond eliminating specific diseases, eradication programs benefit local populations by improving health infrastructure. For example, Nigeria recently used facilities and personnel from their polio eradication program to effectively control an ebola outbreak. Further more, globalization and international travel means that even a single infection anywhere in the world can potentially spread to other regions. By helping to protect others, we help to protect ourselves. Disease eradication is the ultimate gift we can give to everyone alive today, as well as all future generations of humanity.

Biology and medicine

The discovery 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 that anesthesia 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 like pain asymbolia or congenital 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 a FAAH pseudogene (dubbed FAAH-OUT) with resultant elevated anandamide 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 full hypoalgesia 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 (the human condition as we know it) could be achieved with a mind capable of experiencing only varying degrees of pleasure.

The development of gene editing techniques like CRISPR has raised the prospect that "scientists can identify the causes of certain unusual people's physical superpowers and use gene editing to grant them to others."[8] Geneticist George 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 to come back to where we are now. Rather than saying whether we're willing to go forward... ask whether you're willing to come back.

Ethics and philosophy

Ethicists and philosophers in the schools of hedonism and utilitarianism, especially negative utilitarianism, have debated the merits of eradicating suffering.[10] Transhumanist philosopher David Pearce, in The 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 philosopher Nick Bostrom, director of the Future 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 which pleasure could not exist.[13]

Animal welfare

In 2009, Adam Shriver suggested replacing animals in factory 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 improve animal welfare should support gene editing in addition to plant-based diets and cultured meat.[15]

Katrien Devolder and Matthias Eggel proposed gene editing research animals to remove pain and suffering. This would be an intermediate step towards eventually stopping all experimentation on animals and adopting alternatives.[16]

Concerning wild-animal suffering, CRISPR-based gene drives have been suggested as a cost-effective way of spreading benign alleles in sexually reproducing species.[17][18][19] To limit gene drives spreading indefinitely (for test programmes, for example), the Sculpting Evolution group at the MIT 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]

See also

References

  1. ^ Meyer, Rachel; Desai, Sukumar P. (October 2015). "Accepting pain over comfort: resistance to the use of anesthesia in the mid-19th century". Journal of Anesthesia History. 1 (4): 115–121. doi:10.1016/j.janh.2015.07.027. PMID 26828088.
  2. ^ Hildebrandt, Eleanor (2020-05-19). "Scientists may soon be able to turn off pain with gene editing: should they?". leapsmag. Leaps by Bayer.
  3. ^ Shaer, Matthew (May 2019). "The Family That Feels Almost No Pain". Smithsonian Magazine.
  4. ^ Murphy, Heather (2019-03-28). "At 71, She's Never Felt Pain or Anxiety. Now Scientists Know Why". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-05-27.
  5. ^ Habib, Abdella M.; Okorokov, Andrei L.; Hill, Matthew N.; Bras, Jose T.; Lee, Man-Cheung; Li, Shengnan; Gossage, Samuel J.; van Drimmelen, Marie; Morena, Maria; Houlden, Henry; Ramirez, Juan D. (August 2019). "Microdeletion in a FAAH pseudogene identified in a patient with high anandamide concentrations and pain insensitivity". British Journal of Anaesthesia. 123 (2): e249–e253. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2019.02.019. PMC 6676009. PMID 30929760.
  6. ^ Sample, Ian (2019-03-28). "Scientists find genetic mutation that makes woman feel no pain". The Guardian. Retrieved 2020-05-30.
  7. ^ Mancini, L. S. (1990). "Riley-Day Syndrome, brain stimulation and the genetic engineering of a world without pain". Medical Hypotheses. 31 (3): 201–207. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.628.3624. doi:10.1016/0306-9877(90)90093-t. PMID 2189064.
  8. ^ Regalado, Antonio (2019-08-22). "The next trick for CRISPR is gene-editing pain away". MIT Technology Review.
  9. ^ Church, George; Perry, Lucas (2020-05-15). "FLI Podcast: On the Future of Computation, Synthetic Biology, and Life with George Church". Future of Life Institute.
  10. ^ a b Power, Katherine (July–August 2006). "The End of Suffering". Philosophy Now (56).
  11. ^ Dvorsky, George (2012-09-27). "Should we eliminate the human ability to feel pain?". Gizmodo.
  12. ^ Pearce, David (1995). "The Hedonistic Imperative". HEDWEB.
  13. ^ Renstrom, Joelle (2018). "It's the End of the World as We Know It and We Feel Fantastic: Examining the End of Suffering". NANO: New American Notes Online. 13. Retrieved 3 January 2022.
  14. ^ Shriver, Adam (2009). "Knocking Out Pain in Livestock: Can Technology Succeed Where Morality has Stalled?". Neuroethics. 2 (3): 115–124. doi:10.1007/s12152-009-9048-6. S2CID 10504334.
  15. ^ Shriver, Adam; McConnachie, Emilie (2018). "Genetically Modifying Livestock for Improved Welfare: A Path Forward". Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 31 (2): 161–180. doi:10.1007/s10806-018-9719-6. S2CID 158274840.
  16. ^ Devolder, Katrien; Eggel, Matthias (2019). "No Pain, No Gain? In Defence of Genetically Disenhancing (Most) Research Animals". Animals. 9 (4): 154. doi:10.3390/ani9040154. PMC 6523187. PMID 30970545.
  17. ^ Johannsen, Kyle (2017-04-01). "Animal Rights and the Problem of r-Strategists". Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. 20 (2): 333–345. doi:10.1007/s10677-016-9774-x. ISSN 1572-8447. S2CID 151950095.
  18. ^ Pearce, David (2016–2020). "Compassionate Biology: How CRISPR-based 'gene drives' could cheaply, rapidly and sustainably reduce suffering throughout the living world". Hedweb. Retrieved 2020-06-02.
  19. ^ Esvelt, Kevin (2019-08-30). "When Are We Obligated To Edit Wild Creatures?". leapsmag. Retrieved 2020-06-02.
  20. ^ Noble, Charleston; Min, John; Olejarz, Jason; Buchthal, Joanna; Chavez, Alejandro; Smidler, Andrea L.; DeBenedictis, Erika A.; Church, George M.; Nowak, Martin A.; Esvelt, Kevin M. (2019-04-23). "Daisy-chain gene drives for the alteration of local populations". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 116 (17): 8275–8282. Bibcode:2019PNAS..116.8275N. doi:10.1073/pnas.1716358116. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 6486765. PMID 30940750.
  21. ^ Esvelt, Kevin. "Daisy Drive Systems". Sculpting Evolution Group. MIT Media Lab. Retrieved 2020-06-02.
  22. ^ Vella, Michael R.; Gunning, Christian E.; Lloyd, Alun L.; Gould, Fred (2017-09-08). "Evaluating strategies for reversing CRISPR-Cas9 gene drives". Scientific Reports. 7 (1): 11038. Bibcode:2017NatSR...711038V. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-10633-2. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC 5591286. PMID 28887462.

Further reading

This page was last edited on 20 January 2024, at 16:25
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.