Abolishing Pain through a Joyful Pursuit of Millennium Development Goals

I enjoy tremendously Anthony Judge's texts at his website called "laetus in praesens" (joy in the present). They are mostly about world problems, or what he sometimes calls the world problematique, and they are, as he wrote once in his revision of The Charge of the Light Brigade, "prepared at a time of an exceptional crisis of crises: energy, water, food, shelter, health, unemployment, climate, banking, confidence, drugs, etc. -- accompanied by continuing unchecked cycles of violence and rumours of possible nuclear war."

I enjoy his 'laetus in praesens'. The association of joy or enjoyment with world problems is highly revealing, methinks. Just as we feel problems painfully, we feel joyful in solving them. I would go as far as saying, with much provisos and caveats, that feeling painful is THE problem, and enjoying a problem is (dis)solving it. World problematique, that is to say the sum of all problems, is the most enjoyable problem of all: that's why friends who meet around a table often go for a while into the process of resolving the problems of the world. As for me, I cannot imagine a better line of work than algonomy, because inasmuch as work involves pain almost by definition, I prefer to work painfully to relieve pain, especially, to begin with, the pain of work.

However… Joy and pain considerations are not enough for real problem solving because reality and problems are wider than our affective sensibility or even our whole consciousness. In actual fact, our consciousness is a recent evolutionary produce and it is subject to constant delusion. On the one hand, we are so 'transcendentally' deprived that we hallucinate gods or extraterrestrials. On the other hand, we are so 'immanently' deprived that we are blind and deaf to our intellectual dishonesty or to the most obvious material needs. See for instance Judge's masterful account in Institutionalized Shunning of Overpopulation Challenge ─ Incommunicability of fundamentally inconvenient truth which describes, with reference to Atkin [2008-07-01: with reference to Atkin's q-analysis, more precisely in that section], how some of the most basic problems escape collective care because they are hidden in psychological or structural traps underneath the scene, for the greatest benefit of exploiters or soulless self-perpetuating entities. Such deprivation is not the smallest of the growing pains that our species undergoes in this recess of the universe. However, despite everything, humankind seems already a viable species, already capable of the best morally as well as technically. So, at the very moment that we have to deal with problems that are typical of a species reaching maturity, we have no choice but to bet that our means are also coming to maturity.

Because… The big question that arises, the great unknown factor, has to do with evolution: do we have the brain-mind for the survival task that befalls us? Judge tries to answer this in Self-reflective Embodiment of Transdisciplinary Integration (SETI): the universal criterion of species maturity? I must mention here two peculiar features that Judge's texts presents, according to me, and which perhaps should be explained to new-comers. First, his texts at times may look overwhelmingly erudite, but readers should not be afraid: the guy has worked during decades in a world clearinghouse of information, he has no prejudice against even the most abstruse sources, but he always manage to express himself clearly, and, as a result, reading him is often extremely instructive. Second, his texts [2008-06-30: because they are so 'trans', 'meta', 'multi', 'pluri', 'poly', etc.] look to me like scores for the "songlines of the noosphere", an expression that he invented. Into those scores, I guess, one can replace the voice of any particular idea with that of another favorite idea, in such a way that, as a result, reading that author 'creatively' is like voicing one's own pet idea in a kind of world jubilation gospel choir. For instance, when Judge speculates and asks in Institutionalized Shunning of Overpopulation Challenge: "Is imminent population overshoot then to be understood as a significant mark on the collective face of humanity which it is as challenged to recognize as it would be for some immature species?", I, for one, rather ask whether the absence of algonomy is to be understood as such a mark. More specifically, when Judge sings:

• rather than self-recognition in a conventional mirror, the standard of maturity may be the capacity of a species to recognize its reflection in its environment as a whole.
• rather than "intelligence", maturity may be framed as the capacity to integrate such reflection meaningfully and to engage with others in the light of the recognition of how they mirror oneself.
• rather than the capacity to recognize the existence of a mark on one's face in a mirror, it may be more a capacity to recognize how a problem in the environment is a reflection of one within one's own awareness -- from which the problem emerged and by which it is sustained.

I sing:

• rather than self-recognition in a conventional mirror, the standard of viability for a highly intelligent species may be the capacity of its members to recognize their reflections in consciousness as a whole.
• rather than "intelligence", maturity may be framed as the capacity to integrate such reflections meaningfully and to engage with others in the light of the recognition of how they mirror oneself.
• rather than the capacity to recognize the existence of a mark on one's face in a mirror, it may be more a capacity to recognize how a problem in others is a problem within one's own awareness.

My point is that we are billions, each obsessed with one's own incommensurable stream of consciousness, collectively still unaware that the mark of consciousness is to be found not only on one's own face but also on the face of the others in the mirror, humans and animals [2008-06-30: the spot of one's own consciousness is not only on me but also on other humans and animals who all think that they are myself, literally!]. This is our most fundamental identity, beyond that of nation, religion, patronym, etc.: we are identical in consciousness. (Inspiration on this matter could probably also be taken from Judge's writings about the classic sequence of Zen Ox-herding Pictures [2008-06-30: link changed from the former one].)

So… Let us suppose that we have what's needed for maturing "just in time". Then what work should we collectively undertake for our survival, inasmuch as it depends on us? I suggest, for my part, the following operative rule, until the time comes that it can be replaced with another operative rule: let us work to save from 'intolerable' suffering each and every being that we are 'capable' of saving at a 'reasonable' cost. I trust that we can see the relevance of mastering suffering for the sustainable pursuit of our consciousness destiny, and I trust therefore that we are able to get a working consensus on what is the meaning in this context of 'intolerable' or 'capable' or 'reasonable'. Now, given that we can see and hear, that we can show enlightenment and sing together, it still remains that we have to decide and act, as far as what depends on us is concerned. What shall we decide and do? There are thousands of suggestions on the table! How are we going to choose? I suggest that we turn to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), since they are de facto constituting our most 'global' strategy of action, as I argued in Le (sous) développement fait partie de la (défectueuse) gestion collective de la souffrance, et vice-versa. (in French only).

MDGs, admittedly, are in many ways short of being adequate as a global strategy. First, they are not 'algonomic, be it only because they do not consider tough questions having to do with deciding who is going to suffer what, how, when, why, etc. For a glimpse at what should involve an adequate strategy, see for instance Judge's contribution to reflection on viable strategies for sustainable development. Or see Judge's harsh judgment in Institutionalized Shunning of Overpopulation Challenge about one of the masterminds of MDGs: "The seemingly naive 'fix-it' optimism of analyses such as those of Sachs -- as for climate change -- completely fail to take into account the track record of failures with regard to fix-it strategies of past UN 'development decades' and development goals ('health for all', 'food for all', etc.)" For a fresh report on MDGs by the North-South Institute, see We the Peoples 2008 — Getting to 2015: Building participation, seeking success. As far as I am concerned, I am looking since last January for a place where I, as a 'thinker', could take part in the success of MDGs. I am not sure that such a place exist yet, but in any case, I believe MDGs could be conceptually improved and become one of the central pieces of a global strategy for the management of suffering, until 2015, and far beyond that date, well into the new millennium.

Catholicism, Suffering, and Algonomy

Pope Benedict XVI gave on November 30 2007 an encyclical letter entitled Spe Salvi (Saved by hope), a document which has less than sixty paragraphs, but in which the words suffer or suffering occur more than sixty times.

Suffering has a tremendous importance in Catholicism: its suffering founder taught that to suffer for good and to help those who suffer are necessary for being saved from eternal suffering.

The best that Catholicism has to offer on the subject can be found in Benedict XVI's piece, but an author like Walter Kaufmann should be read also in order to have a glimpse of the worst that the doctrine may show. Kaufmann writes for instance: "According to Augustine and many of his successors, all men deserve eternal torture, but God in his infinite mercy saves a very few. Nobody is treated worse than he deserves, but a few are treated better than they deserve, salvation being due not to merit but solely to grace. In the face of these beliefs, Augustine and legions after him assert God’s perfect justice, mercy, and goodness. And to save men from eternal torment, it came to be considered just and merciful to torture heretics, or those suspected of some heresy." (See The Faith of a Heretic)

Until now, suffering has been used as an argument for or against this or that ideology, religion, worldview, policy, etc. Algonomy, the work domain concerned with suffering, is now offered as a neutral framework for looking at the phenomenon itself from diverse perspectives. Obviously, religions like Catholicism or Buddhism might bring a lot to algonomy, and hopefully, algonomy might also be useful to Catholicism or other faiths. Of course, interfaith dialogue cannot be a logical discussion, because words do not have the same meanings in different universes of discourse. However, within an algonomic framework, we could probably share our views more usefully and reach collectively better results concerning that topic about which many of us feel so strongly.

The encyclical itself, section 22, says: "A self-critique of modernity is needed in dialogue with Christianity and its concept of hope. In this dialogue Christians too, in the context of their knowledge and experience, must learn anew in what their hope truly consists, what they have to offer to the world and what they cannot offer. Flowing into this self-critique of the modern age there also has to be a self-critique of modern Christianity, which must constantly renew its self-understanding setting out from its roots."

Going toward freedom from pain and suffering

Philosopher David Pearce is advocating a project for the abolition of suffering through scientific techniques. Here is the introduction of a text adapted from invited talks that he gave at the Future of Humanity Institute (Oxford University) and the Charity International Happiness Conference (2007):

"This talk is about suffering and how to get rid of it. I predict we will abolish suffering throughout the living world. Our descendants will be animated by gradients of genetically preprogrammed well-being that are orders of magnitude richer than today's peak experiences. First, I'm going to outline why it's technically feasible to abolish the biological substrates of any kind of unpleasant experience - psychological pain as well as physical pain. Secondly, I'm going to argue for the overriding moral urgency of the abolitionist project, whether or not one is any kind of ethical utilitarian. Thirdly, I'm going to argue why a revolution in biotechnology means it's going to happen, albeit not nearly as fast as it should."

A venturesome view on the politics of suffering

In my view, there are presently, in our societies, NATURAL extended systems for the management of suffering. Societies are equipped with supply and security systems for our survival, our biological, psychological, social, educational, and various other kinds of needs... These systems evolved to meet two contradictory aims : the aim to avoid suffering because of its often dreadful discomfort, and the aim to inflict suffering for various advantages. What I propose is that we PURPOSIVELY develop a systematic management of suffering, and thus make clear for whose interests suffering is now going to be managed in our societies.

Let us look for example at the war in Afghanistan. The country’s main production is opium poppy, a plant indispensable in the control of many forms of suffering. In the late 1990, Afghanistan was supplying 70% of world's opium. In 2001, just before September 11, the Taliban had reduced the production to near zero, because the drug is “a great threat to personality, wisdom, life, health, economy and morality”. The US-led war (an operation called Freedom from Enduring, or rather Enduring Freedom) ousted the Taliban in the end of 2001, and the opium production came back to normal (Information taken from Poppy production soars in Afghanistan). Recently, on June 17th, The New-York Times had this cover story on its magazine: When Is a Pain Doctor a Drug Pusher? It is on medical uses of ‘the immense power’ of opioids, on how much pain is still radically undertreated, on how doctors are imprisoned or kept in fear in the name of the war on drugs. As if the international drug dealers were lobbying against doctors who could take control of their lucrative market, and as if Taliban-like moralistic governments were more responsive to these criminal money-profiteers than to our most dedicated welfare-makers… According to the latest news, Afghanistan produces now more than 90% of world’s opium: see Afghan opium production 'soars'.

Another support in favor of something like algonomy

Here are the first and last paragraphs of a post in Evan Palmer's blog The Way It Can Be:

"If we want a guiding principle, it seems that directing ourselves to the reduction and elimination of suffering will lead us eventually to a kind of paradise. It's similar to having compassion for all creatures. It's similar to "love your neighbour as yourself" or "do unto others..". However, it has an advantage in that it has more of an orientation to action. It pushes us to look at suffering and try to see its causes and remedies and then asks us to act.

(...)

The reduction and elimination of suffering leads us to good stewardship of nature, to vegetarianism, to peace, to right living and livelihood. It does bring us face-to-face with spiritual laws and if we accept them or want to follow them. It does force us into the unpleasant calculus of the greatest good for the greatest number and accepting some suffering against greater suffering, or accepting some suffering against violation of a spiritual law and what we feel would be the certainty of greater future suffering. It makes us address deluded suffering brought on by things like consumerism or greed but with compassion and an appropriate gentleness."

Global cooperation is needed for ending the world's suffering

This title is taken from an opinion piece by Scott Beale in The News Journal (Delaware, USA). The last paragraph of his article goes like this:

"It is important to recognize the contributions that the U.S. has made to address global challenges like human trafficking; but it is also time to reflect on what more can be done to promote international cooperation. Personally, I refuse to be a passive participant in the global politics abdicating the power we all have to make a difference. I am embracing my role as a global citizen and the shared responsibility we have to address the suffering that persists in the world."

Scott makes judicious remarks about the complexity of problems and solutions, based on his experience in India, Bosnia, and Columbia. He created recently an organisation called Atlas Corps. He says: "Former U.S. Sen. Harris Wofford, one of the founders of the Peace Corps, has joined our Senior Advisory Board and in a few months we will launch a new approach towards international cooperation." All this is very good.

Yes, indeed, global cooperation is needed for managing successfully the world's suffering, but then I submit respectfully that an overarching frame of work is needed, and by definition, or by the argument of requisite globality if you prefer, this framework can only be algonomy.

New Text Added in Wikipedia on Suffering

Wikipedia article on suffering, section "Health care approaches":

Breaches in health such as disease and injury are a main source of suffering in humans and animals. The huge sphere of health care addresses that suffering in many ways, as can be seen in much details through various Wikipedia articles: Medicine, Psychotherapy, Alternative medicine, Health profession, Hygiene, Public health…

Palliative care is presently the branch of medicine that is the most concerned with the relief of suffering as such. A concept of 'total pain' was thought of by pioneer Cicely Saunders for referring to the whole set of physical and mental distress, discomfort, symptoms, problems or needs that are painfully experienced by a patient. Textbooks authors like Robert Twycross or Roger Woodruff are now rather using the expression ‘total suffering’.[8]

Health care approaches to suffering remain highly problematic, according to Eric Cassell, which is the most often cited author on that subject: "The obligation of physicians to relieve human suffering stretches back to antiquity. Despite this fact, little attention is explicitly given to the problem of suffering in medical education, research or practice." "In fact, the central assumptions on which twentieth-century medicine is founded provide no basis for an understanding of suffering. For pain, difficulty in breathing, or other afflictions of the body, superbly yes; for suffering, no." Cassell proposes to define suffering as "the state of severe distress associated with events that threaten the intactness of the person."[9]