Oh yes, lots...

Lots to think about, hhhmmm.....

1) Well, we have to establish first what you mean by "pleasure". Do you mean pleasure in the Platonic Form sense, or the actual sensory/nervous system sense? If the first, I don't know what to tell you, as I don't think my brain picks up Pleasure. If the second, then I would ask in which of the five senses?

There are pleasing arrangements of colors and objects, pleasant sounds, pleasurable flavors and aromas and lastly but not least, touch. All have different feelings, varying degrees of pleasing, and are experienced differently from one person to the next.

Then of course there are different kinds of pleasure not related to the senses. Being told you are loved, or that someone is proud of you causes biological reactions in the body to be sure, but there is something more to the experience than that. Satisfaction from intellectual stimulation or social acceptance can also cause pleasure to a person.

As I've now take a butcher's blade to your first question and gone far beyond the original context of the question, I'll answer it now the way I thought you meant the question to be answered.

I assumed you meant that this would be some kind of machine that would create a matrix-like environment or even just something that directly stimulated the pleasure centers of the brain. The first possibility is something that could spawn its own thread of conversation entirely (hint hint), so I'll go with the second.

For a visual I'm imagining some kind of hat or helmet that covers the entirety of one's head, so as to be close to the surface of the brain.

Do I think that such a device, one that produces pure pleasure, should be banned? I don't think so. The biggest problem with drugs is that they do have side-effects that can be potentially lethal to the users and those around them. Impaired judgment, loss of coordination, and relationship to criminal elements etc. are all things that go into law enforcement's consideration of how bad a drug really is, and whether it should be banned. So if there are no damaging side-effects, then there is no reason to ban it from a public safety stance.

One could object on the grounds of public health concerns. If such a device really did exist, and was effective in creating pleasure, who would ever want to take it off? People could develop terrible habits of sitting on a couch, strapped into their portable pleasure device, only stopping to sleep, eat, and occasionally work to ensure they can continue using their helmet. Obviously, the health risks associated with such a device would be pretty serious, and addictive behavior would be a concern.

From a public policy stance as well, one could object to such a device. With so many people likely to use it, how would it affect social networks, government, the workplace, and the economy? Now there is a concern now that people are getting more and more disconnected to reality, their neighbors, even their own family, even as they are getting more connected to the world. A world with this device would only serve to further this disconnection to reality.

Should it be banned? Maybe. Its hard to deny people something so enticing, and yet it might be the best course of action.

(Hah! You thought I was done, didn't you?)

2) Aaahhhh.... genetic modification. Hopefully I'll write a book about this one day. So here's the deal: I'm not opposed to genetic modification on principle. In fact, I think it could be a very powerful instrument for improving the world.

I'm only partially moved by the objection that it would be "playing God", or "messing with nature". After all, we do that everyday don't we? We flip on the lights using energy from splitting atoms, burning coal, or harnessing wind. We jump into cars that burn fossil fuels. We take anti-biotics when we are sick. All of that is decidedly unnatural, yet we have no problem with it.

Genetic modification is an uncomfortable subject for many people, myself included. It goes to the heart of the human question: what am I? Genetics says you are one part of an unbroken chain of deoxyribonucleic acid stretching from the distant past to today. It is uncomfortable, to say the least, to think that our fundamental nature is reducible to breeding, and could be changed by people in lab coats.

That said, I have no problem with genetic research going into identifying, eliminating and patching up sections of DNA that cause any number of genetic disorders. Gaucher's disease, asthma, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's, Lou Gehrig's disease and the list goes on. Can you imagine a world where any one, or all, of these diseases could be eliminated?

It is an exciting possibility, and one that later generations would be more than grateful for. If possible, I would definitely want to ensure that my children would not be burdened with a disease for which I was a carrier. But that's about how far the extent of my meddling would go.

For some reason, and maybe its the genes talking, but I do want to pass down a part of myself, not create some hand-picked uber-version of myself. There's something uncomfortable and a bit creepy about being able to create an entire person using spare code. It would also be an awesome responsibility, one which I don't want to take on.

Then again, if everyone is doing it I could get an angry call from my son/daughter is born. If world is filled with 6' 4", blond hair blue-eyed ubermenchses and uberwencheses who can do calculus with one hand, recite the Odyssey and hang from the rim on a basketball court after having dunked from the three-point line, my kids will probably have a bone to pick with me about why I simply chose to prevent them from getting male-pattern baldness and severe pollen allergies. That's not a phone call I really want to receive.

At the end of the day, could you really deny someone the option of determining how physically and intellectually capable their child would be? I don't know that I could, but I do know that I'd have a problem making that choice.

I guess I'll just have an answering machine screen my calls.

3) It was pretty good. It wasn't the orgasmically good screenplay that I was told I should believe it was though. It does make it into my "Superhero Movie Hall of Fame" though.

4) I think the same way about it that I do female birth control: Waste of money unless you're having a ton of sex, or are a woman with period issues, which some birth control actually helps alleviate. As I am currently not doing the former, and am not the latter, I'm not planning on buying anytime soon.

Further up and Further in!

Something to talk about

Originally submitted by InventionEnds:

Just to discuss something:

1) If there were a machine that cost very little and had no side effect but which produced pure pleasure, should it be banned like drugs?

2) If genetic modification became common place by the time we had kids, would you want to make sure your child had the best chance in life (e.g. Gattica)

3) How about watchmen!

4) Leaving aside personal moral implications, what do you say to the male birth control pill? Take it once a week and three months later, you're sterile until you stop taking it. (Like a lot of the questions in this email, I got it from this site: http://www.sentientdevelopments.com/2008/04/sorry-ladies-male-birth-control-pill-is.html)

Thank you!