[FutureBuddha] The Coming Upaya

[Jundo]

Were modern technologies, including medicine, pharmaceuticals, neurological interventions, genetics and the like, to be proven reasonably safe and effective in realizing Buddhist ideals and our Bodhisattva Vows to rescue sentient beings, reduce violence, increase empathy and kindness, to save children from harm, to reduce hate, to reduce harmful addictions and excess desires and over-consumption, to make sure that fewer if any are hungry and homeless by increasing empathy for their plight among the population, as well as to bring insights into the Emptiness of separate existence and the Wholeness of all ...

... then any Buddhist who opposed use of such modern technologies for such purposes would be violating those Bodhisattva Vows, would be contributing through their inaction to the violence, harm, hunger and homelessness, the ignorance which remains in part due to their refusal to use what Upaya were available to remedy the suffering. As a Soto Zen priest, it is my Vow to use what means become available to lessen or end suffering, even if such means did not exist 1000 years ago, or even 10 years or a minute.

Even if such means were not available to Buddha in the Iron Age, to Dogen of Ancient Japan, would they have refused a way to lessen violence, to prevent killings, prevent children from abuse, to balance human desires, to allow people to realize the dropping of little self ... just because it is a "new way"? The Buddha in the traditional stories used all the power and magic available to him. Medicine and science are faces of our new magic.

Such is the most basic and traditional of callings in Mahayana Buddhism, in Soto Zen. Anyone refusing such Upaya, expedient means, if shown safe and effective, to lesson the suffering and to bring insight whatever the means, is simply abetting the harm and ignorance.
Please show me that I am wrong in this assertion.

Don't just put a sad face, an ambiguous comment, a "go sit" or "go drink some tea," or tsk tsk. Don't just scroll past.

Please show that that the assertion is wrong.

Gassho, Jundo

SatTodayLAH

[Mokuso]

I can both like and dislike your statement. I try to strive to prevent suffering and death. But there will always be suffering of various kinds, including death. It is part of reality and life. My point is that one should not cause suffering or death. But not all people think that way. As the father of a seriously ill child, I often wish there was something that could cure him. that would be good. But at the same time the thought strikes me and I ponder. at what cost would this be produced? Is it proven that it was produced without creating suffering or causing negative consequences for the world. Then I think it should be used. But at the same time it must not be abused because I believe that certain suffering and negative things should exist. it means that we simultaneously develop and grow strong as individuals.
A very difficult question, Jundo, which arouses pondering and to which it is not possible to give a concrete answer. But which is important and worth thinking about.

Gassho. Sattoday.
Mokuso

[Kokuu]

Were modern technologies, including medicine, pharmaceuticals, neurological interventions, genetics and the like, to be proven reasonably safe and effective in realizing Buddhist ideals and our Bodhisattva Vows to rescue sentient beings, reduce violence, increase empathy and kindness, to save children from harm, to reduce hate, to reduce harmful addictions and excess desires and over-consumption, to make sure that fewer if any are hungry and homeless by increasing empathy for their plight among the population, as well as to bring insights into the Emptiness of separate existence and the Wholeness of all ...

... then any Buddhist who opposed use of such modern technologies for such purposes would be violating those Bodhisattva Vows, would be contributing through their inaction to the violence, harm, hunger and homelessness, the ignorance which remains in part due to their refusal to use what Upaya were available to remedy the suffering.

The devil, as they say, is in the detail.

Until we have details of what these proposals involve, I think it is very hard to make such a pronouncement as, just as we can interpret the precepts in different ways, so do people have a different view of what will help and not help society.

Issues include:

1. What does 'reasonably safe' mean? We know that almost zero medical interventions are 100% safe. Who is most at risk? What are those risks? Do treatments fade with time? Are there long-term consequences?

2. What are the societal and geopolitical consequences of the intervention? Will the interventions be available in all countries? If not what are the consequences? Since I think you have said that interventions will be entirely based on consent for law-abiding people, how will the refuseniks be considered by society? Will people who refuse 'compassion pills' for example be able to exploit those who take them?

3. How many studies will be carried out at population level? What size will they be, with what kind of predictive power for larger roll-outs?


The outcome of any large-scale intervention is often unpredictable so some people will be more risk-averse and take a precautionary principle as opposed to be who are willing to take risks for the potential benefits. Should Buddhists who are more cautious of risk be maligned vs those who are more gung-ho?

Predicting the effects of interventions such as this is incredibly hard to judge, and there are often outcomes which are unpredictable. We have to remember that, however much we tweak it, this is still samsara.

That is not to say that scientific progress should not be welcomed and accepted, but I think that judging people based on the decisions they make as to the potential risks and benefits of a particular intervention is incredibly harsh and, I might say, pretty un-Buddhist.

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday-

[Sekishi]

any Buddhist who opposed use of such modern technologies for such purposes would be violating those Bodhisattva Vows

...

Anyone refusing such Upaya, expedient means, if shown safe and effective, to lesson the suffering and to bring insight whatever the means, is simply abetting the harm and ignorance. Please show me that I am wrong in this assertion.

I see no answer to these queries in the abstract.

I cannot now know any specifics about the properties of "this thing" (this pharmaceutical / neurological / genetic intervention). Show me how it works. Show me what the side effects are on actual living human beings. Show me how it was tested. Tell me the cost. More importantly, show experts (such as scientists and regulators) those things. When there are specific measurable properties that can be independently evaluated, I may feel comfortable responding.

But until "this thing" exists here in consensus reality; It is a thought. It is an imagining. Maybe it really is coming as you assert (I'm even willing to grant you that point for the purpose of discussion). But until such time as it actually exists with specific properties, we are arguing about a thought / concept whose properties you control.

I take medication for this brain now. I might take some lovely Future-Buddha meds one day if they exist, but I also might not - it will depend on side effects, cost, etc. But to be judged as in violation of the precepts for it either way, well that bums me out.

Gassho,
Sekishi

[Shinshi]

Thank your for your though provoking post Jundo. Really interesting.

With all due respect, I don't personally find the argument convincing. I think my points have already been made by Mokuso's and Kokuu's excellent posts. But I'll re-frame it a bit. As a start I feel your first premise to be insufficient.

Were modern technologies, including medicine, pharmaceuticals, neurological interventions, genetics and the like, to be proven reasonably safe and effective in realizing Buddhist ideals

Reasonably. Which means reason was applied to the pros and cons. But not everyone reasons/thinks in the same way. So for some, like your self, it would be reasonable to use such techniques. Others might reason that the costs are too high. Others might see cons such as this techniques being unethical, or too costly, or that the safety is not sufficient to be acceptable. Since we don't live in a world where there is a global dictator that decides for us, people will reach their own conclusions which they believe are consistent with the Bodhisattva Vows.

The other aspect of the argument that seems incomplete is that it doesn't consider alternatives. These techniques, if/when realized, will prove to have various pros and cons/costs and benefits. But there will also be other alternatives that have their own pros and cons. Each individual will weigh the approaches and their respective pros and cons and decide which of the approaches is right for them - and which one they feel is consistent with the Bodhisattva Vows. I think we all believe in, and respect, individual rights. And so various individuals will come to their own conclusions. Right now there are various schools that all believe their teachings are consistent with those of the Buddha. There isn't only one way. That doesn't mean one of the schools are right and all the rest are wrong.


Were ChatGPT to be proven reasonably safe and effective in realizing Buddhist ideals and our Bodhisattva Vows to rescue sentient beings, reduce violence, increase empathy and kindness, to save children from harm, to reduce hate, to reduce harmful addictions and excess desires and over-consumption, to make sure that fewer if any are hungry and homeless by increasing empathy for their plight among the population, as well as to bring insights into the Emptiness of separate existence and the Wholeness of all ...

... then any Buddhist who opposed use of ChatCPT for such purposes would be violating those Bodhisattva Vows, would be contributing through their inaction to the violence, harm, hunger and homelessness, the ignorance which remains in part due to their refusal to use what Upaya were available to remedy the suffering. As a Soto Zen priest, it is my Vow to use what means become available to lessen or end suffering, even if such means did not exist 1000 years ago, or even 10 years or a minute.

The conclusion just doesn't seem warranted from the premise. But maybe that is just me.

Again, hank your for your though provoking post.

Gassho, Shinshi

SaT-LaH

[Risho]

If we could invent a magic pill to solve all of our woes it would be great, or would it? I'm not so sure. I'm wise enough to know that I know nothing and also that there is always cost... always a cost.

What does balance of desire actually mean?

Whose ideals would be the metric we are trying to attain? Although we take the same precepts and follow the same vows, we all have our own take on them.

Gassho

Risho
-stlah

PS I would absolutely love to accomplish all things you mentioned Jundo.

[Tokan]

Hi all

I'll leave the issue of Vows to one side for a second, to consider some of the other dynamics that involve all people, everywhere, of all religious denominations (or none).

I don't know whether it is reasonable or arrogant of humanity to think that all new technology or medicine should be tested to the point of being 99.9% safe before being used. Most of what we have now hasn't met that grade, and almost all industrial chemicals, and those we have around the house, have barely met any safety standard of the kind we are talking about here, by my understanding anyway. Exploration and experimentation seems to be a 'violent' process as well as a 'creative' one. We take something that exists in form and change that to another form. Even the most rigorous design, because it has been created by humans, carries with it the risk of unintended consequences. So I am all for pushing the boundaries of what is possible and spending enough time to consider what the impacts might be, but to have the wisdom to know when there has been enough deliberation.

Picking up on Kokuu's point about societal and geopolitical consequences - well we know that those that hold the power will ensure their own population gets the benefit first. The COVID vaccine is an excellent example, politicians won brownie points from the electorate for comments like "us first!" Of course, some of the things we are talking about here are possibly in a category of their own as we haven't really been looking at modifying humans or their behaviour on this scale or in such invasive ways before (well not with these kinds of technologies anyway that I can tell). I saw a documentary recently about the frontiers of human biology and I was staggered by what they believe will go from the lab to the community in the next 10-20 years. I was particularly struck by comments about how one scientist doesn't need to follow their own ideas through to their conclusion on their own, the idea that science is much more collaborative than that in the internet age, and that this allows us to cut years off of the development time of important advances.

From a Buddhist perspective our 'sickness' continues to be that which it always was - greed, anger, ignorance, and we will need to allow the majority to access ways to combat these as, sadly, I don't foresee a time when Zen will take over the world and even if it did, I doubt it would look like what we practice. I feel torn a bit by this issue, working in mental health, as I see so many people who just can't challenge their own thinking and make better decisions. I don't mean in psychiatric illness as that's a bit different, but in the increasing number of people who have negative thinking, are unable to cope with daily life and 'everyday' trauma, who choose antisocial behaviour to communicate their needs. Very few respond to our traditional interventions. I would like to see some advances in brain-wave modulation, perhaps a therapy you could access at home, a 'hat' to wear that does what zazen does for us, and allows those people to experience more calm, feel less anxious, be less agitated, see how we are all interconnected.

In respect of whether you'd be violating the Bodhisattva Vows by denying such technological advances, I think I would say that that can only be judged at the time, we are after all trying to do good, prevent harm, and save all beings, so it is hard to say that something we currently don't have is unethical because we do not occupy the space to evaluate the ethics of it. Were it to be used tomorrow, then we can feel justified in speaking up, but for something that might be 50 years or more away...how can we predict what the ethics might look like in a world of constant change? So I don't think it would be a violation of the Vows to speak up against technology if you believe it would lead to harm, but I also don't think you should be obstructive because you don't believe in such advances. The one thing I'm not sure we'd want to lose in all of this is our ability to hold opposing views - when we do so constructively, we seem to be able to achieve great things.

Gassho, Tokan

satlah

[Jundo]

"Reasonably safe" means precisely the same as it means for any medicine, the vaccine most of us recently injected, the surgery that saved my life, the airplanes we board to travel, the cars with their airbags which we ride in daily, the nuclear energy plants we run as a counter to global warming and for cheap electric with cleaner air, the food we eat which is allowed in the market (though, these days, even spinach with salmonella is a risk) ... none perfect, none full-proof. However, clinical testing and safety measures can and have been undertaken and set for each.

It is an equation that policy makers, researchers and consumers make together (and that the corporate sellers with their advertising try to skew in their favor): There is a risk of driving or flying, in any of the above, that the sometime reports of accidents make clear. And yet, we accept them. We test and test and test, minimize the risks which we can.

Bottom line: The risks are seen to be far exceeded by the benefits. Some may be hurt, even killed, whether by the medicine you are now taking for your male pattern baldness or bad kidneys, or the car you ride or lights you switch on with power from our coal fired plants ... but you judge it worth it. Each day our researchers develop new treatments for diseases ... ranging from cancer to morbid obesity to heart disease ... and the same questions are asked: Are there long term consequences, do the treatments last, are there risks which are outweighed by the lives to be saved? Well, social violence is a cancer, over-consumption of resources and environmental destruction is our social obesity, our ignoring of the hungry and poor is a disease of the human heart.

In this case, if we fail to act ... continue as we are going ... the dangers are far clearer.

Yes, we shoot for "reasonably safe." However, now it is time to call for, push for, these technologies in order to realize our Bodhisattva Vows of saving the sentient beings, reducing violence, increasing empathy to reduce or end homelessness and hunger, to save the children from abuse. We test and we test and we test ... then finally, regulators, scientists and consumers together, we judge that the benefits exceed the risks.

Buddhism has helped many individuals. It helps hundreds, many thousands today. Most it helps a little, some it does help very much. Yes, it has helped millions throughout history, most a bit and some a lot. But it never helped most, not saved most, not by a long shot. The war, the violence and suffering remains, just as in Buddha or Dogen's times, and in our current world with the potential destruction so much worse. If we just keep to our old Buddhist methods alone, the results tomorrow are bound to be not much better. Billions of people are untouched by all our sitting Zazen and twirling beads, and the world is at a precipice of destruction from our own environmental madness and weapons of mass destruction. Children continue to starve, our richest cities are filled with people living in the streets. At this point, only wise employ of science and human technology has a chance to save human beings from the worst of science and human technology, and the bad sides of human nature. It will soon be time to make a choice. There will be risks, but the risks of inaction are greater. Like all things, we Bodhisattvas must use what means are available to rescue the sentient beings or, at least, as many as we can.

And while using the medicines and technologies which we can, we can keep on sitting Zazen and twirling our beads too ... let's do it all! It is all powerful medicine for what ails sentient beings.

To fail to do so, if a means to help is shown to be "reasonably safe," bound to save so many more than the few who might be harmed, is to violate our Bodhisattva Vows. Even the Buddha took on the Karma of killing 1 to save 500. The same math applies to saving millions and billions, while risking some along the way. I will not hesitate to declare clearly -- Buddhists who refuse to use upcoming (and they are upcoming, right around the corner!):

... medicine, pharmaceuticals, neurological interventions, genetics and the like ... in realizing Buddhist ideals and our Bodhisattva Vows to rescue sentient beings, reduce violence, increase empathy and kindness, to save children from harm, to reduce hate, to reduce harmful addictions and excess desires and over-consumption, to make sure that fewer if any are hungry and homeless by increasing empathy for their plight among the population, as well as to bring insights into the Emptiness of separate existence and the Wholeness of all ...

... upon consensus of regulators and researchers ... the experts ... that any such means is "reasonably safe and effective" to its ends, like any medical treatment, intervention or surgery, vehicle or other product sold today ... would be violating their Bodhisattva Vows to rescue sentient beings. **

Gassho, Jundo

stlah

** PS - Am I being intentionally provocative in making that declaration. YES! It is time to be provocative and open the debate, get folks working on the project.

[Koushi]

Anyone refusing such Upaya, expedient means, if shown safe and effective, to lesson the suffering and to bring insight whatever the means, is simply abetting the harm and ignorance.

Ah yes… a worldwide Zen community of medicinal, pharmaceutical, neurological interventionist, gene-therapy, pushers!

There’s no magic cure, silver bullet, or implant that will solve the suffering’s problems or ills. Not now, and I believe not in the future. Whatever is created will be created not for the benefit of humanity but for the benefit of those who stand to profit or control the most. This is human nature. This is the way of things.

We already have the tools to lessen suffering. To help others. To make the world and humanity better. We have the ability to feed the hungry, shelter the unhoused, protect the children. Systemic barriers, greed, racism, fear, ignorance: we know what the blockers are. Instead of carpeting the earth, I’m fine with my sandals, doing it the “hard” way.

Perhaps it’s because the hard way is all I’ve known that I see not only the value of suffering but the unlimited potential for those to escape it. Neurological implants and pills notwithstanding.

Gassho,
Koushi
STLaH

[Jundo]

There’s no magic cure, silver bullet, or implant that will solve the suffering’s problems or ills. Not now, and I believe not in the future. Whatever is created will be created not for the benefit of humanity but for the benefit of those who stand to profit or control the most. This is human nature. This is the way of things.

No, there is no single magic cure or silver bullet. But there are several likely, highly effective treatments and remedies coming down the pike.

You are right that the human nature of those who "stand to profit or control" would stand in the way. We need to change their human nature, making it to their pleasure and benefit, or at least, change the hearts of billions of ordinary folks who can then stand up to those who would choose to use them ...

... by infusing their hearts with empathy, feelings of their own suffering when witnessing the hunger and oppression of others, and pleasure in doing charity and good. We are wired for such feelings of empathy and pleasure, and merely require a touch of rewiring.

Will it solve all problems? No. But suddenly, violent crime will be much reduced, untold generations of children will be saved from sexual and other abuse, wars will be more infrequent, consumption down, and armies of people will instead work to house the homeless, feed the hungry and care for others in need, all by increasing human empathy within the human heart.

Gassho, J

stlah

[Heiso]

I think Kokuu, Sekishi, and Shinshi summed up the gist of my feelings on this, but I will add some points of my own as I have some concerns about the concept. Before doing so I would like to acknowledge your compassion in wanting to help all beings and your willingness to consider all means to achieve this, I hope any criticism comes across in the constructive spirit it was intended.

Regardless of what conspiracy theorists have been saying recently, I think we have a reasonably good idea of what the consequences of vaccinating or otherwise medicating somebody will be. We have absolutely no idea what the consequences of fundamentally altering millions of years of neurological evolution would look like and my hunch is we probably can’t. The unintended second or third order consequences seem almost unquantifiable; given how the neurological medication I take affects people so differently if we eliminate desire, would I cease to want to eat, care for my children, or stop myself walking in front of a bus? Would some people lose the desire to live while others cease the desire to help anyone but themselves? Could compassion pills make a person so compassionate they refused food in case somebody else might need it regardless of evidence to the contrary? There is also the other side of the coin in considering the potential financial value of a pill or process and given examples like Purdue, the incentive to suppress side-effects or adverse reactions for gain and power.

I think Kokuu and Shinshi were both right to highlight the issue of how to define ‘reasonableness’. In most jurisdictions the definition is not fixed and depends on considering the circumstances of each situation, accepted practices, and those involved. In this case, I would argue that the potential to fundamentally override key neurological processes of the entire population requires a bar immeasurably higher than that applied to the use of a seat belt or the inclusion of an air bag in a car where the worst case is you are in no worse a position than were you to not have either. Who would decide that bar, how would we reach consensus, and would that consensus ever be achievable given the recent reaction from some to a comparatively straightforward vaccine? The comparison to nuclear energy seems more relevant but it also seems we generally understand we should have had a much higher bar to start with, are playing with fire in that regard, and have retrospectively spent a lot of time and money trying to solve the problems involved, with many preferring we hadn’t developed it at all.

The next question is to ask how we would deploy these technologies. Would their use be voluntary? Would we force them on people convinced the ends justifies the means? Thousands of years of history tell us how that can work out, even when those advocating the means claim to be acting in the best interest of other. And for a graphic depiction, I’m sure most of us have seen or read A Clockwork Orange.

Similarly, there are endless examples of those in power claiming they are faced with a situation that requires a ‘state of exception’ to be declared. Technologies with the potential for mass population control would give rise to the temptation to use them in ways their creators would never have condoned. Even a leader with pure intentions is constantly subjecting themselves to the cognitive tricks that will convince their use is the right thing to do, like the way that if the death penalty is on the statute book it will be used. Few people think of themselves as the bad guys, just good guys making hard choices under difficult circumstances, but power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. It also seems relevant to remember that the use of nuclear weapons was only kept in check during the Cold War by the threat of mutually assured destruction, not that wiping whole cities off the map was morally wrong and we are haunted by the risk of their use once again.

You’ve written before about groups of white hat scientists being needed to work together on these technologies, but it seems to me that their energy (and funding) would be much better put towards creating substantive solutions to concrete, immediate problems like simple, long lasting energy generation and storage or low impact, genuinely reusable materials for use in building manufacturing.

With all that considered I don’t see how raising objections could give rise to a violation of the Bodhisattva Vows; you could even argue with the potential for misuse there is a stronger case for the opposite to be true. As Sekishi rightly suggested, at present this is an imagining. Absent any substance, it seems we’re just left with you asking if we would use expedient means to alleviate the suffering of others, with the definition of those means left hanging in the air to be considered later. I’m assuming most of us would agree if we had considered the benefits outweighed the cost in the same way we approach any decision. But at present we are in no position to weigh those risks. With the greatest of respect, I’m not sure how this debate continues. Unless there is anything tangible to address it seems we just have a hypothetical, techno-futurist trolley problem, wrapped in Buddhist robes.

As I said, I am very grateful for your willingness to consider all options to alleviate suffering and I recognise the fear for future of this planet as one I share, I just don’t agree on the solution at this stage.

Gassho,

Heiso

StLah

[Jundo]

Hi Heiso,

You are reading in too much, and have not read enough of what I write.

There is no need to mess with the genome in order to lessen raging anger, thus violence and murder done in rage. There is no need to alter the genome in order to increase empathy in a significant part of the population.

And if we did play with the genome, we should test and test and test before doing so.

Further, I present a plan for not forcing anyone, but rather, attracting them through the sheer physical and emotional joy and pleasure, health and contentment which would be attached by the designers (I present as an example levels of dopamine burst, now obtained from sex and video games, but rewired to arise in acts of charity). The closest to "forcing" anyone might be convicted rapists and child abusers, as a mitigation of a part of their prison sentences. But even they are not forced, because it is presented to them as a voluntary option upon informed consent, free to refuse and choose standard incarceration as planned. War is another situation where there may be pacifying alternatives to maiming and killing weapons. If the earth were truly in dire straights, well, that would be a special case.

Nobody is talking about "eliminating" desire or turning people into saints, nor about tranquilizing the population. I speak of a moderate increase in compassion and empathy, although in a wide swath of the population. Nobody is talking about such degrees of self-sacrifice and empathy that we forget to feed ourselves. Even a moderate increase, but impacting millions of people, would do much to change our politics (and election results), and organize mass efforts to care for the homeless, feed the hungry, etc. People would no more leave a homeless man in the streets than they would leave their own father or brother there.

If you would like to know my ideas, I suggest to go through the series of posts that I have made so far.

I am so tired of the doomsayers who say that the technology will lead to ruin, and yet our present course ... continuing with human nature as it is in the world of environmental destruction and weapons of mass destruction ... is the true danger.

Do you want to know what is "speculative" and "ineffective," even dangerous? Buddhism is speculative and ineffective beyond the small numbers who practice it (although wonderful for those of us who do, and even there, its benefits range from great to small and subtle), and continuing as we are as a human species is dangerous. Likely deadly, in fact.

Anyone who thinks that the technology is not here, or right around the corner, is not following science publications.

Gassho, Jundo

stlah

[Sekishi]

There is no need to alter the genome in order to increase empathy in a significant part of the population.

Perhaps folks can be excused for assuming we are talking about altering the genome when you opened this very thread with:

Were modern technologies, including medicine, pharmaceuticals, neurological interventions, genetics and the like

Do these "genetic interventions" include the include the germ-line / genome or not? That is a very detail oriented discussion (which is honestly one too far from my area of expertise to event be able to address).

But I think this illustrates something important for me. Part of the reason I do not want to engage with you on this transhumanist / future-Buddha stuff is that what exactly "the thing(s) under discussion" is (are) feels like a macguffin - an object that can warp and move and change as needed to fulfill a current narrative need. Sometimes it is "the most mild of mild ideas - only as 'addictive' as Doritos, but healthy!", sometimes it is a pill, sometimes an implant, sometimes "genetic intervention", sometimes it is only for convicted criminals and psychopaths, sometimes it is for "pre-crime" (e.g. to be used on children who are "predisposed" to commit school shootings), sometimes it can be dispensed as an aerosol over war zones.

We cannot actually have a discussion / argument about "this thing" because you control all its properties with your mind. Have questions about ethics? You can declare it "completely ethical". Have questions about side effects? You can declare it "100% safe and effective".

Anyone who thinks that the technology is not here, or right around the corner, is not following science publications.

Some are here to practice the Buddha-dharma. Perhaps we here can be forgiven for not being up to date on science publications.

I agree with and echo what others have said here about how much I appreciate and understand your heartbreak and desire to do something about the state of our world. I had a good ugly cry yesterday morning because it feels like every time I sit down to read the news there is either another mass shooting here in the US (multiple this weekend alone) or another politician or pundit blaming the victims and/or simply lying about the events. But I also ask that you please be careful with your words. The accusation that "any Buddhist who opposed use of such modern technologies" without knowing fully the nature of such technologies (which do not yet exist to actually be able to understand), well I find that hurtful.

Gassho,
Sekishi
#sat #sad

[Meian]

Perhaps folks can be excused for assuming we are talking about altering the genome when you opened this very thread with:



Do these "genetic interventions" include the include the germ-line / genome or not? That is a very detail oriented discussion (which is honestly one too far from my area of expertise to event be able to address).

But I think this illustrates something important for me. Part of the reason I do not want to engage with you on this transhumanist / future-Buddha stuff is that what exactly "the thing(s) under discussion" is (are) feels like a macguffin - an object that can warp and move and change as needed to fulfill a current narrative need. Sometimes it is "the most mild of mild ideas - only as 'addictive' as Doritos, but healthy!", sometimes it is a pill, sometimes an implant, sometimes "genetic intervention", sometimes it is only for convicted criminals and psychopaths, sometimes it is for "pre-crime" (e.g. to be used on children who are "predisposed" to commit school shootings), sometimes it can be dispensed as an aerosol over war zones.

We cannot actually have a discussion / argument about "this thing" because you control all its properties with your mind. Have questions about ethics? You can declare it "completely ethical". Have questions about side effects? You can declare it "100% safe and effective".



Some are here to practice the Buddha-dharma. Perhaps we here can be forgiven for not being up to date on science publications.

I agree with and echo what others have said here about how much I appreciate and understand your heartbreak and desire to do something about the state of our world. I had a good ugly cry yesterday morning because it feels like every time I sit down to read the news there is either another mass shooting here in the US (multiple this weekend alone) or another politician or pundit blaming the victims and/or simply lying about the events. But I also ask that you please be careful with your words. The accusation that "any Buddhist who opposed use of such modern technologies" without knowing fully the nature of such technologies (which do not yet exist to actually be able to understand), well I find that hurtful.

Gassho,
Sekishi
#sat #sad

Gassho2 stlh

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Houzan]

The Coming Upaya

I read into the assertion three points that are not explicitly mentioned, but that I do believe are part of it:

1)Cost/efficiency is also a decision criterion, in addition to effectiveness and safety
2)Not deciding to use new technologies (alternative 1) is to actively choose the status quo (or alternative 0)
3)‘Reasonably safe and effective’ means ‘the expected safety, effectiveness, and cost of adopting new technologies are better than in the alternatives’, e.g., alternative 0

Reading those three points into the assertion, I agree with it 100%! How can I not agree?

I think we could summarize all the perspectives above as the following (running the risk of simplifying too much): when is the right timing of the decision? Or put another way, how much information is enough information? Or yet another way: what risk tolerance should we have when making these types of decisions? These are all different ways of asking: how much should we know before deciding?

To need to know everything (all the information) about alternative 1 in order to make a decision is poor decision-making. We all agree on that. That is to choose alternative 0 for all eternity as we will never be 100% sure. We need to know enough. Now, this can be calculated! When the cost of gaining more information is higher than the cost of delaying the decision, you should make a call, despite the risk. As bodhisattvas, we need to be rational decision-makers, and that means being comfortable with risk (or put another way: avoid decision biases). A stylized example: would you choose A) 80% of gaining $5000 for sure or B) 20% of gaining $20 000? Most people choose A due to risk aversion. The irrational answer is both A and B. The rational answer is ‘indifferent’. The bodhisattva should be indifferent to whether a decision involves risk or not.

Also, as bodhisattvas, we need to be aware that we make decisions all the time. Not choosing new technologies is to actively choose alternative 0 with all the downsides and risks related to that. If the expected effect on the decision criteria is worse in alternative 0 than in alternative 1, the bodhisattva should choose alternative 1, always. Whether alternative 1 includes genome sequencing or not is completely besides the point.

Gassho, Michael
Satlah