[FutureBuddha] The Coming Upaya

[Hoseki]

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

Sure I almost wanted to stop at that. I think everyone might be talking past each other a bit. Jundo, as I see it, you are painting a picture where the negatives are minimal while the positives are great. Others are painting a picture where the negatives are much greater. So we all started with the "same" (I don't know if its ever really the same) idea and everyone is filling in the blanks around it.


Edit: The stuff below probably isn't that relevant. I left it in because I wasn't sure what to do. But I would probably stop reading here.

Gassho,
H

But for what it's worth if we could use drugs to help people develop compassion and empathy seems like a fine idea to me. At least in principle. It's just a new technology that we would be putting to use. My only concern is that people in positions of power would try and use this medication the same way mindfulness is used. Basically being implemented to make a better worker rather help people live more fulfilling lives. I wonder if our economics weren't so exploitative would more people be compassionate and empathetic in general. But I digress.

I have ADHD and a lot of us have troubles managing our emotions (emotional disregulation) and it likely lead to the cause of my generalized anxiety. If someone told me they could give me a pill that just dialed back on the emotional intensity I would jump at the chance. I would still be me but a little calmer, a little slower to anger, less likely to embarrass myself when I get overly excited about some current fixation. Those things would go a long way to make it easier for me to just exist. It would be like a lubricant for life.

Anywho, just some thoughts on the matter.


Gassho,
Hoseki
sattoday

[Tokan]

Hey all

I'm just re-reading the Platform Sutra at the moment and, along with re-listening to the dharma talks of Jundo's on Shinjinmei, I am re-minded that all things are not two, and that within those things being not two, there is also no one-ness, we have one-ness because of two-ness. Dropping two-ness means we also have to drop one-ness and just realise reality as neither one or two - the 'mind' of zazen. In this world everything that is manifest in the skandhas is two, but derived from the one that is not one. Though we like or dislike many things in or about this world, humanity, or ourselves - all things are as they are. We are human and we get locked into "good and bad," but still it is just the Universe doing its thing, not through us, because we are the universe itself. Although we do what good we can, and though we campaign for what we believe is right in this world, still it is all 'us', not two not one. Good and bad outcomes, as we judge them, will always be reality manifesting. We are free to do nothing about our current problems, which will be reality manifesting, or roll the dice with technologies we believe we can control, which will also be reality manifesting. The consequences are good or bad only as we see fit to judge them. Neither is ultimately good or bad, but we have to have a foot in both the relative and the absolute, else we deny the Bodhisattva Path.

This is a personal reflection, please do not mistake it for an attempt at teaching

Gassho, Tokan

satlah

[Seiko]

Human attitude to technology, science, medicine is constantly changing. Our concerns about AI, advances in medicine and other technologies may perhaps, one day, seem irrational. Of course, not all that long ago 1830-ish, Victorians were worried about rail travel, a few of the concerns included: the prediction that steam locomotives speeding through England would stop the cows producing milk, that train travel would cause women's uteruses to "fly out" and that any passenger travelling at 50 miles per hour would simply melt.

Gasshō
Seiko
stlah

[Tokan]

Human attitude to technology, science, medicine is constantly changing. Our concerns about AI, advances in medicine and other technologies may perhaps, one day, seem irrational. Of course, not all that long ago 1830-ish, Victorians were worried about rail travel, a few of the concerns included: the prediction that steam locomotives speeding through England would stop the cows producing milk, that train travel would cause women's uteruses to "fly out" and that any passenger travelling at 50 miles per hour would simply melt.

Gasshō
Seiko
stlah

Love it!

Gassho, Tokan

satlah

[Jundo]

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.

I have been consistent throughout. As I always say, if the doctors and researchers come up with (as appears more and more likely, on the horizon) various reasonably safe and effective means ... whether pharmaceutical, ultrasound, genetic ... not up to me which ... then it is good precisely because reasonably safe and effective. It is not up to me or you to say what the specific technology is, there are many variations in development. It is up to the expert medical and technological researchers and regulators, as well as to determine that it is safe and effective. As I wrote above ...

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 [e.g., it might be pharmaceutical].

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

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.

Yes, these are all suggestions, and I am totally consistent and painfully redundant in proposing the above. All the above are potential means, all are being worked on, theorized about by better minds than me, or are already under development. I said that some approaches (e.g., desire countering implants to prevent rape recidivism) are for convicted violent criminals, but we should talk about the ethics of use in obvious candidates before the first offence (someone exhibiting clear signs of propensities to rape) and how to handle them. We should TALK about the ethics.

Have questions about side effects? You can declare it "100% safe and effective".

Again, not up to me: That is for the doctors and regulators to rule on.

Some are here to practice the Buddha-dharma.

It is Buddha-dharma. Helping save sentient beings from violence, suffering children, feeding the poor and helping the homeless by increasing empathy is as Buddha-dharma as Buddha-dharma can be. I never said someone had to approve of such means BEFORE they are ruled safe and effective, let alone fully developed and available! My essay begins ...

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 ... [etc. etc.] ... 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 ...

I will stand by that.

Gassho, J

stlah

[Sekishi]

Again, not up to me: That is for the doctors and regulators to rule on.

But we're being told that if we do not support "this thing" that we do not actually know anything specific about, we are violating the precepts.

I'd be very VERY happy to let this sleeping dog get back to its nap. You asked us to respond so I did.

Gassho,
Sekishi
#sat #sadder

[Jundo]

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

THIS is excellent and helpful! Thank you.

Saving suffering children, preventing hunger and homelessness, is not strictly an "economic" decision, I would say. We should do that, even if the economic return from saving a child from an abusive home is very small or indirect.

Also, economics is a funny thing: People are willing to spend more for what they desire more. But we are, in fact, talking about technology that will itself increase that very desire among consumers to spend more for social causes. For example, a man right now might only be willing to spend $1 to help the homeless, including investment in this technology to make people want to help the homeless. However, after the technology is developed, and his heart changes, he might come to feel that helping the homeless, including investing in this technology, is worth $1000 to him ... or is even priceless.

Yes, deciding not to use is also a choice. And, right now, it looks like a choice "not to use" is in fact a choice which is resigned to global warming, war, child abuse, school shootings etc. etc. BECAUSE every other suggestion looks like it won't get the job done until we adjust some aspects of selfish human nature.

The decision, again, on when something is ready, "reasonably safe and effective," is up to the doctors, researchers, other experts and regulators. Not the consumer. In that way, it is very much like any pharmaceutical or medical device approval today.

Failing to use an available, reasonably safe means to help suffering children is ... to me ... like walking by a drowning man and refusing to throw a life preserver. Buddhists do not do that. **

Gassho, J

stlah

** Actually, a small number might, believing that we don't want to interfere in the drowning man's Karma. Really.

[Jundo]

Human attitude to technology, science, medicine is constantly changing. Our concerns about AI, advances in medicine and other technologies may perhaps, one day, seem irrational. Of course, not all that long ago 1830-ish, Victorians were worried about rail travel, a few of the concerns included: the prediction that steam locomotives speeding through England would stop the cows producing milk, that train travel would cause women's uteruses to "fly out" and that any passenger travelling at 50 miles per hour would simply melt.

Gasshō
Seiko
stlah

That's right. Think about that the next time you drink milk on a train and your uterus does not fly out.

But we must be CAREFUL with any new technology ... the same way we must be careful with trains (so they don't derail and spill chemicals ... alas, need to do better there) and don't sell unpasteurized, adulterated milk. We don't ban all trains because some derail, ban them from carrying all chemicals, ban cows because a few consumers have serious allergic reactions.

Lovely.

Gassho, J

stlah

[Jundo]

But we're being told that if we do not support "this thing" that we do not actually know anything specific about, we are violating the precepts.

I'd be very VERY happy to let this sleeping dog get back to its nap. You asked us to respond so I did.

Gassho,
Sekishi
#sat #sadder

I am just preparing for what is likely just around the corner. We cannot pretend that these means are not coming, nor is there anything wrong with beginning discussion on how we might prepare for them.

For example, we do not have life expectancies generally over 100 yet, but there is an excellent chance that our kids (yours and mine) will. We can talk about that. How, for example, do the Precepts on not taking life impact this very real (likely in fact) scenario where people living will DENY life to the unborn who will never get a chance to live because we stay past our welcome?

Should we use devises to control violent criminals (right around the corner)? NOT theoretical.

(Here, by chance, is a small way already in use: GPS can be tied physically to the bodies of, or even implanted in, pre-convicted or post convicted criminals. Already possible. Any sex offender within 100 meters of a school gets hauled in, tossed in the jail. Is that unfair to them? Is it okay to tie the GPS to the body, but not inject it into the body where it cannot be removed easily? Does that limit their freedom of choice? Is this something we should support as Buddhists? Is it substantially different from a medication that limits their desire to have sex with a child?) We can talk about these things.

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2023/03/aae8834eece8-japan-to-introduce-gps-trackers-to-prevent-intl-bail-jumping.html

"This is the first time Japan has put forward a legal framework for enabling the use of GPS for tracking defendants, and it is important not to allow the system to become muddled," Saito said.

Those who take their monitors off without permission or enter a prohibited area, such as air or seaports, may be detained and subjected to imprisonment for up to one year -- a punishment to be introduced by 2025.

Gassho, J

stlah

[Sekishi]

I am just preparing for what is likely just around the corner. We cannot pretend that these means are not coming, nor is there anything wrong with beginning discussion on how we might prepare for them.

I've never said there is anything wrong with having a discussion. I'm saying "I do not know enough details to support these technologies" and I do not believe that statement to be a violation of the vows I have taken.

Gassho,
Sekishi
#sat

[Jundo]

...
... My only concern is that people in positions of power would try and use this medication the same way mindfulness is used. Basically being implemented to make a better worker rather help people live more fulfilling lives. I wonder if our economics weren't so exploitative would more people be compassionate and empathetic in general. But I digress. ...

I write about that a lot too.

First off, this stuff is coming anyways, and will be grabbed by the industrialists to make better workers and consumers, and the militarists to build super-soldiers. We (the so-called "white hats") have to try to head the "black hats" off at the pass. We have no choice, except to stick our heads in the sand.

If we can make substances so pleasant and healthy ... leading to feelings of well-being and calm, even dopamine rushes or orgasmic pleasures ... so nice that even Mr. Bezos and Mr. Putin would consider taking it for the same reason that they get facelifts, go skiing, buy yachts ... even as it makes them a touch more empathetic, compassionate and socially concerned ... then even some of the elite and powerful might consider doing so voluntarily. (And let me note clearly that, yes, I might shoot Mr. Putin with a "love drug" involuntarily, in a war situation, assuming we could get within 10 feet of him ... and the Pentagon is actually working on these weapons now, so not speculative ... )

Even if EVERYONE, including all the elite and powerful, did NOT partake of these treatments, it would still do much good in the world for all the rich and powerful who did, even if not everyone. Furthermore, they are not something which would render us so much in la la land, so extremely empathetic, that we would not be able to defend ourselves against the Putins who refused. Furthermore, if millions of people did partake, even if millions choose not to, that is still millions more people working on issues such as homelessness, voting in elections for good candidates, and opposing the forces of evil. Not everyone need partake, only lots or most people.

Gassho, J

stlah

[Sekishi]

(And before Sekishi object, let me note clearly that I might shoot Mr. Putin with a "love drug" involuntarily, in a war situation, assuming we could get within 10 feet of him ... and the Pentagon is actually working on these weapons now, so not speculative ... )

[Ryumon]

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.

This is a very bold statement. Assuming that science WILL solve all problems is a very long stretch form the possibility that some problems MAY be solved partially or fully. As we know, there are always side effects to drugs and medical interventions, and risks and benefits have to be weighed for any such intervention.

No scientific advances have been anything other than incremental; the assumption that there will be magic bullets is the wrong way to look at the world.

Gassho,
Ryūmon (Kirk)
Sat

[Jundo]

This is a very bold statement. Assuming that science WILL solve all problems is a very long stretch form the possibility that some problems MAY be solved partially or fully. As we know, there are always side effects to drugs and medical interventions, and risks and benefits have to be weighed for any such intervention.

No scientific advances have been anything other than incremental; the assumption that there will be magic bullets is the wrong way to look at the world.

Gassho,
Ryūmon (Kirk)
Sat

Oh, I rather agree with you. It is more of an inspirational statement than a guarantee, a hope more than a promise.

However, I am actually pretty confident on the idea of the measures to head off raging violence and sexual desire in convicted predators. That would actually do a lot to reduce violent crime, and from the experts I have spoken too informally, may be very doable.

As to the effects of increasing empathy, and whether increasing empathy is even possible in such way? That is just something to discuss. Could something like that be done? Would it have good effects? Religions have been assuming so for a couple of thousand years, and preached just so. Is their preaching and hope any different?

Gassho, Jundo

stlah

[Bion]

Oh, I rather agree with you. It is more of an inspirational statement than a guarantee, a hope more than a promise.

However, I am actually pretty confident on the idea of the measures to head off raging violence and sexual desire in convicted predators. That would actually do a lot to reduce violent crime, and from the experts I have spoken too informally, may be very doable.

As to the effects of increasing empathy, and whether increasing empathy is even possible in such way? That is just something to discuss. Could something like that be done? Would it have good effects? Religions have been assuming so for a couple of thousand years, and preaching so. Is their preaching and hope any different?

Gassho, Jundo

stlah

We love to believe we are above the chemistry of the brain, as if emotions were not just complex chemical reactions that come and go based on conditions. Higher or lower levels of dopamine, serotonin or norepinephrine determine how we “feel” at any given time. Monoamine, for example, has been deemed as the substrate for emotions and medications we take for anxiety, depression or phobia target it to effectively “cure” us. So, it is not far fetched to think the more we study and understand the chemistry in us, the more we are able to manipulate it. It’s not like compassion or love or hate are magically beamed to us through a laser ray from the Buddha’s forehead. Through our practices we simply stimulate the production of these chemicals, the same way medications do.

Anyway, sorry for running over the three sentences.

[emoji1374] Sat Today