The Pleasure Principle

The last post briefly described how our survival instinct emerged; essentially stating that it evolved due to random chance mutations within the DNA molecule and nothing more.  This mutation produced the first primitive nervous system . Subsequent mutations produced DNA segments compelling the creation of more sophisticated nervous systems, eventually leading to advanced neurological life as we know it today.  

The post also described the basic sensations produced by these nervous systems and the purpose thereof:  pleasure and pain. Both constitute a two-prong strategy the DNA uses to make copies of itself. Generally, the animal (i.e. the vessel containing the DNA) feels either pain or pleasure sensations when performing certain actions or present in certain environments; pleasure if acting in ways or existing in locales that increase odds of survival or reproduction, pain if the the opposite is the case. The "goal" of all this is to perpetuate the DNA ad infinitum, although to say DNA has a goal is an anthropomorphism – attributing human types of qualities, actions, or thoughts to non-humans (in this case a self-replicating molecule).

The role of pleasure is to inspire the organism to perform actions that cause it to live and reproduce. Physical pleasure’s goal is to inspire consumption of nutrients and energy sources plus engaging in actions that prolong either (directly) the survival of the organism or (indirectly) the survival of the species, i.e, the type of DNA molecule.   Psychological pleasure’s role is to inspire us to remain alive, namely by holding out the prospect of emotionally fulfilling experiences either at present or in the future. Again, increasing the odds for the survival of both the individual organism and the species. Thirdly both the physical and psychological aspects combine to create the urge to pair bond and to reproduce, yet again increasing the chances of both individual and species survival.  The role of pain (including fear) is to keep us away from situations that can cause us to lose our life or reproductive ability.  This sensation to be avoided at all reasonable costs, unless (from the organism’s perspective) there is something pleasurable to be gained that adequately compensates for the pain. 

This post will focus on the pleasure side of our sensations.  Pleasure (or the prospect thereof) is probably an organism’s strongest motivation to remain alive, particularly for  humans.  In fact, it is said to give the organism something to live for, its very reason for being, as discussed below. 

The Meme: Definitions of the Terms

Recognizing that pleasure is a strong, if not the strongest, motivator for a creature to remain alive, particularly a conscious and intelligent one, there exists a common meme among antinatalist members of YouTube: The purpose of life (i.e. its reason for being) boils down to “consumption, reproduction, cannibalism, and addiction”.

Definitions 

The definitions of both consumption (of resources) and reproduction deviate little, if any, from the conventional, common everyday ones.  However, cannibalism and addiction are defined much more broadly.  In this case, cannibalism mean the consumption of at least any neurological lifeform. This definition emphasizes the fact that all living things are related to each other. From this, many, but not all, antinatalists conclude that demarcations between non-relatives (i.e., edible life) and relatives (non-edible life) is arbitrary at best and illusory at worst, especially among neurological lifeforms.[1] Theoretically, at least, this could include even plants, fungi, and microbes, although most adherents to the meme limit the definition to neurological life on the grounds that such lifeforms possess neither a consciousness nor the capacity to experience pain. Nevertheless, even many antinatalists disagree that this broad definition of cannibalism makes any sense outside the abstract one. Even so, many antinatalists still argue that if in the process of obtaining nutrients we inevitably cause agony to a lifeform, then we ought not consume it.  Hence the meme's broad definition of cannibalism.

Addiction, as used by most antinatalists, also has a broader definition than the conventional one.  As used by many antinatalists, addiction appears essentially indistinguishable from need.  In this context, it includes any need for a thing, or any need for a pleasure or prospect thereof. This  includes pleasures or things universally seen as harmless or even necessary for survival. Therefore, addiction can include consumption and reproduction themselves, for these activities are also pleasurable. Still, addiction also includes consuming things or performing activities that may not be pleasurable, yet are necessary for its survival or reproduction.

Evaluation of definitions

While it may sound absurd to say that consuming sensible amounts of healthy food is addictive, a lack of food will make a person just as obsessed with finding food as any drug addict will be for his or her next “hit”.  It does not matter if the desired substance is absolutely vital or truly destructive for the organism. The point is that the organism needs it, to the point where it likely would become mentally unhinged without it.  By definition, this is an addiction in a very real sense, even if not the common every day one.

Thus, according to many antinatalists the four factors above not only compel the organism survive and reproduce but it also serves as its very reason for being, for the simple reason that the organism’s genes contain instructions / programming that tells the organism’s body to make a nervous system; one that compels it to pursue these four factors.   The consumption, reproduction, cannibalism, and addiction serve as positive motivations for continuing our existence. Together with the pain avoidance for its own sake, it forms a very deeply coded genetic programming in our psyche which may be called the survival instincts.

The four aforementioned positive motivators are partially accurate.  Consumption and reproduction usually are pleasurable for their own sakes, and certainly necessary to keep the species a going concern.  Regarding consumption especially, it is a drive even when it is not particularly pleasant, especially if there is no other resource to consume (e.g., people trapped for days away from sources of water have been known to survive by forcing themselves to drink their own urine).  

Some also argue that consumption is not limited to physical resources.  Pleasure itself can be a form of consumption insofar that the pleasurable thing or activity provides us with joy.  In a very real sense, this is true; especially if we agree as sensible the saying “soak up the glory”, “take in the beautiful scenery”, etc.  It is hard to see how this cannot be intelligently interpreted as consuming the glory or scenery – at least in the sense of our aesthetic sense creating satisfactory states within ourselves. Because of this, we can well argue that admiring the beauty of scenery or a painting, or feeling pleasure when people display admiration and respect for you, is a kind of consumption; given that our souls feel like they are absorbing something when we are inundated with these experiences. Therefore, it is certainly legitimate in many contexts to see this as a form of consumption as well.

The same principle about pleasure derived from consuming physical resources goes for reproduction, or at least activities that lead to reproduction (having children, even if with a less favored mate), although even many non-antinatalists regard reproduction is necessary for happiness.  Even so, as a general rule, most people do have a drive to either have children or perform acts that can result in children.  Likewise, the same idea that consuming abstract but pleasurable sensations also applies to sexual or romantic activities as well – arguably even more so, especially in the poetic or metaphorical senses. 

Cannibalism seems redundant vis-à-vis consumption. While many, perhaps most, antinatalists do consider consuming animals as such, I suspect they use this term only because it highlights an important aspect of the often brutal nature of living existence. Therefore, the consumption of living things is just that - consumption, one of the basic activities increasing the probability that the DNA molecule will continue to make copies of itself. Therefore, while adding cannibalism is a good way to highlight the point they want to get across, it robs the meme of its strictly logical elegance.  This does not mean it is wrong through and through, just, as said above, rendering it rather inelegant.

Addiction as defined by antinatalists is agreeable - a mental state that compels the organism to do whatever it takes to acquire the things that give organisms pleasure, regardless of how good or bad they are for the organism.  As implied above, it does not matter if the substances the organism seeks out is bad or good for its health; it is a matter of whether they seek out the substance obsessively and fanatically in the first place.

The definition of addiction is are on stronger ground than cannibalism. Unlike the flatter, the notion of being addicted to even a vital need is not just academic - it is an everyday reality for all of us.  The antinatalists recognize that our ultimately maniacal desire to be alive is, by characteristic, irrational. Therefore it follows that consuming anything for the purpose of remaining alive is likewise irrational - unless our starvation or dehydration either (a) translates into an actual substantive and needed relief of another's pain or (b) is necessary to prevent a substantive loss(es) for another,. Even then, the other person's gains or loss prevention must be commensurate with loss of life in question.

Returning to the topic of food consumption as an addiction, people consider obesity caused by eating excess amounts of food an extreme case of food addiction, even if the excess food does happen to be of great nutritional value; which most people will very likely agree that it is.  In practice, both the mainstreams of the medical community and society will only call it an addiction if it causes serious health problems.  Nevertheless, antinatalists emphasize the fact that any deprivation of even a vitally necessary substance that causes us to act irrationally and maniacally is indeed and addiction - to pain avoidance at the least and outright pleasure at the most. This includes consumption and reproduction as well.

This is quite agreeable where the issue’s jargon is concerned, especially if we question what the real point is in pursuing this pleasure. Is it really for our own sakes or merely because a molecule possesses a segment that programmed us to have these sensations – and that programming just happens to be one better able to sustain the molecule's existence long enough to make another copy of itself (i.e. reproduce).  In short, what’s the point of this DNA making a copy of itself?  If there is no objective point, then we are hard-pressed to say that our existence serves any purpose beyond allowing a non-sentient molecule to perpetuate itself. In that case, our desire for even the most basic pleasures is a kind of addiction, even if some of them are necessary to keep us alive. 

However, if there is an objective point in the DNA molecule making more copies of itself, then that point must come from something outside ourselves.  Just as it’s difficult to say what purpose a von Neumann machine would have if its creator created it just to see if he or she could create it, so it is that it is difficult to say what objective purpose a self-replicating molecule would have if nobody created it.[2]  In fact, the DNA is in an even worse position.  At least the von Neumann machine served the purpose, however temporary, of giving satisfaction to its creator.  The DNA molecule doesn’t even have that much going for it, at least barring the existence of a supernatural creator, which not all people agree with. This aspect will be discussed in a later post. Suffice to say that even assuming any one supernatural belief system is, in fact, true, this need not be a real obstacle to antinatalism.

For the above reasons, perhaps the meme is better rephrased “Consumption, reproduction, pleasant sensations, and addiction”, or we can drop the “pleasant sensations” and possibly even the “addiction” parts if we wish to be the most parsimonious about it (if we're thinking strictly in terms of what it takes to keep a living thing a going concern). If we choose to focus on the nervous system's pleasure-pain psychology instead, we can say that we live only to satisfy addictions; with consumption, reproduction, and ultimately pleasure being the things we are addicted to.  No matter which aspect is the focus, it is still meeting needs and engaging in pleasures that will never be permanently satisfied; and in any case must come to an end for all of us at some point - whether as individuals or as a species.

The DNA strategy is to the compel the organism to perform activities that lead to survival on both the individual and species levels reproduction – namely consumption and reproduction. Success in these endeavors results in the pleasure sensation. If something is pleasurable, yet the activity leading to that pleasure furthers the DNA “agenda”, totally aside from whether its pleasurable, then the DNA achieved its goal – compel the vessel that contains it to perform activities that allow the DNA to produce another copy of itself, or at least the increased probability thereof. Consumption, coupled with the pleasure generated from it, is the shortest term goal of the nervous system and ultimately the DNA molecule that created it. 

While reproduction is usually a pleasure itself, it is more accurate to say that it is the activities leading to reproduction that are pleasurable.  Reproduction is usually a pleasure itself, it is more accurate to say that it is the activities leading to reproduction that are pleasurable.   In fact, many unplanned pregnancies are the result of obtaining sexual pleasure for its own sake, if we focus only on the neurological aspects of pleasure and go no further (which almost everyone does, barring a few to near the vanishing point).

However, pleasure is not enough to compel an organism to consume and reproduce.  There has to be negative motivation to further increase the chance that the organism will do the bidding of the DNA molecule it hosts. That negative motivation is pain, which is will be discussed in the next post.

NOTES

[1] Anticipating the possibility of discovering extraterrestrial life, one might try to justify hunting and consuming extraterrestrials possessing a vaguely human-like intelligence or even a human-level one, even species possessing a civilization as we define it  – for the simple reason that if we already consume this planet's life, then why should we not consume life on other planets, even species that possess advanced civilization? They are in no way genetically related to us, after all.   However, practically every conscious human alive today would violently oppose this view, and on the same grounds as they oppose human cannibalism besides. For this reason, it is more sensible to believe that cannibalism means consumption of intelligent sentient life, regardless of any relationship (or not) we have to it and no matter where in the cosmos it is.

[2] A von Neumann machine is a hypothetical  machine that can make replicas of itself; in short, a self-replicating machine.  The concept is named after mid-20^th Century mathematician and computer science pioneer John von Neumann; though others at the same time contributed greatly to the concept.  More recently Eric Drexler, nanotechnology pioneer (manufacturing machines at the level of nanometers, or the size of only several thousand atoms) uses the self-replication idea to advance the notion that nanometer-sized self-replicating machines could in principle exist.  Given that DNA is an already-existent self-replicating molecule, it is easy to see how the purpose issue can apply to both artificial and naturally produced self-replicating entities.