tumblr visitor





The Cultural Evolution of Suffering


B.Contestabile       admin@socrethics.com       First version 2007   Last version 2017





Table of Contents




1.      Introduction

2.      Basics

2.1  Suffering

2.2  Cultural Evolution

3.      Biological Mechanisms

3.1  Quality of Suffering

3.2  Quantity of Suffering

3.3  Distribution of Suffering

4.      The Belief in Progress

4.1  Science and Technology

4.2  Ethics

5.      Skepticism

5.1  Science and Technology

5.2  Ethics

6.      The End of Suffering

7.      Conclusion











Starting point

The capability to feel pain increases with biological evolution and seems not to be limited. The capability to feel pleasure increases as well, but pain cannot be compensated by pleasure across individuals.



Type of Problem

- Does suffering increase with cultural evolution as well as with biological evolution?

- To what extent can culture overrule the biological mechanisms?

- How will suffering end?



The evolution of suffering

In analogy to the biological evolution of pain suffering increases quantitatively and qualitatively in the course of cultural evolution. At the present state of knowledge it is impossible to foresee, if this trend can durably be broken.

In analogy to the biological evolution of pain, the general trend is an increasing inequality (injustice) in the distribution of suffering.

The counterproductive mechanisms of technological and social change are largely unknown or repressed. There is no systems theory of suffering.



The end of suffering


- Destruction is more likely than salvation.

- Suffering will end by the destruction of life by non-human forces.






1. Introduction



Starting point

The capability to feel pain increases with biological evolution and seems not to be limited. The capability to feel pleasure increases as well, but pain cannot be compensated by pleasure across individuals.



Type of Problem

         Does suffering increase with cultural evolution as well as with biological evolution?

         To what extent can culture overrule the biological forces?

         How will suffering end?




2. Basics



2.1  Suffering




         Suffering is a basic affective experience of unpleasantness and aversion associated with harm or threat of harm in an individual. It constitutes the negative basis of affective states (emotions, feelings, moods, sentiments) (Suffering, Wikipedia).

         For a definition of pain see The Biological Evolution of Pain.


The relation between pain and suffering is complex:

         Examples for suffering without pain:

o   death of a family member

o   loss of a job

o   regret of violence

         Examples for pain without suffering:

o   Little accidents like stubbing a toe on the driveway

o   Insensitivity to pain in the context of the Sramana movement

o   Pain asymbolia, Congenital insensitivity to pain

o   Masochism

      For more information see A New Discipline about Suffering.




1)      Objective indirect measures

a)      The International Human Suffering Index relies on the statistic of the World Bank, UN and other readily available resources. It was originally published by the Population Crisis Committee in 1987 (see Population Action International). Natural disasters are excluded in order to limit the measure to preventable suffering.

b)      A different index measures the suffering caused by calamities (natural and man-made disasters) and precipitous conditions out of the UNDP Human Development Report and associated data files [Anderson, 7-9].


2)      Objective direct measure

Pain intensity can now be measured from the outside, say researchers using a technique for analyzing MRI scans [Hamzelou]. Their claim reopens the debate over whether pain can be measured objectively.

The MRI-method could possibly be extended to the phenomenon of suffering.


3)      Subjective measure

Measures for subjective happiness (e.g. the Life Satisfaction Index) can be transformed into measures for subjective suffering [Anderson, 5-6].




1)      Objective measures

a)     Objective indirect measures do not consider the ambivalence of progress.

The suffering caused by increased competition and unnatural ways of living is discarded; also the negative side effects of technology.

Example: Car accidents are not included in calamities; they are in particular not included in Anderson’s “violent death rate”.

b)     MRIs cannot be taken from people in critical situations.


2)      Subjective measures

a)     The term “suffering” is much too general, i.e. doesn’t consider the differences in individual vita.

The comparison of individual vita and corresponding emotions is an immense problem. It is almost impossible to describe feelings by language. Surveys on life satisfaction attempt to circumvent this problem by using point scales or percentages.

b)     How is it possible to know, if a person suffers? We can never unlock its inner perspective.

In many cases (e.g. brain damage, young children) there is no language for communication. Even if there is a communication the investigator might be deluded by fraud or semantic differences.

c)      The most suffering people are excluded.

People who are directly involved in accidents, wars, crimes, severe diseases, strokes, natural catastrophes etc., as well as dying people, do not participate in surveys on life satisfaction.


3)      It is unclear to what extent the different measures correlate.




We are far from a reliable measure for global suffering.




2.2  Cultural Evolution




Cultural evolution is an evolutionary theory of social change.

Historically, there have been a number of different approaches to the study of cultural evolution, including dual inheritance theory, sociocultural evolution, memetics, cultural evolutionism and other variants on cultural selection theory (Cultural evolution, Wikipedia).


Today most anthropologists reject 19th-century notions of progress and instead call attention to the Darwinian notion of "adaptation", arguing that all societies had to adapt to their environment in some way. A prominent example is Marvin Harris’s cultural materialism (Sociocultural evolution, Wikipedia).


Cultural evolution, in the Darwinian sense of variation and selective inheritance, could be said to trace back to Darwin himself. He argued for both customs and "inherited habits" as contributing to human evolution, grounding both in the innate capacity for acquiring language (Cultural evolution, Wikipedia).




Richard Dawkins' 1976 book The Selfish Gene proposed the concept of the meme, which is analogous to that of the gene. A meme is an idea-replicator which can reproduce itself, by jumping from mind to mind via the process of learning from another via imitation. Along with the "virus of the mind" image, the meme might be thought of as a "unit of culture" (an idea, belief, pattern of behaviour, etc.), which spreads among the individuals of a population. The variation and selection in the copying process enables Darwinian evolution among memeplexes and therefore is a candidate for a mechanism of cultural evolution (Cultural evolution, Wikipedia).

In biological evolution, the transfer of information is unidirectional and vertical, whereas in cultural evolution it is bidirectional, and vertical, horizontal or oblique – in other words, network-like [Portin]:






Random versus goal-directed evolution

Human society evolves. Change in technology, language, mortality and society is incremental, inexorable, gradual and spontaneous. It follows a narrative, going from one stage to the next; it creeps rather than jumps; it has its own spontaneous momentum rather than being driven from outside; it has no goal or end in mind; and it largely happens by trial and error – a version of natural selection [Ridley].


Is evolution a random process indeed?

On the biological level randomness is disputed. Richard Dawkins, for example, insists that although mutations may be random, evolution is not. If we look at how evolution has turned out on neighboring islands, then we see the constraints to randomness. There are only limited ways of flying and swimming, for instance, which is why wings and fins have independently evolved on many occasions (see Convergent evolution) [Holmes, 2015].

Similarly, if we compare evolution in isolated cultures, we observe that there are only limited ways of managing competition and cooperation, constructing weapons, developing languages and dealing with the human condition. A concern which has independently evolved in all cultures is the desire to avoid or reduce suffering.



The conflict between biological and cultural evolution

As memes are “selfish” in that they are only “interested” in their own success, then that could well be in conflict with their biological host’s genetic interests (Cultural evolution, Wikipedia).

In this paper we concentrate on the conflict between the cultural interest to reduce suffering (example of a memeplex) and the biological interest to survive and reproduce (the host’s genetic interests):

         On the biological level pain has an adaptive function (see The Biological Evolution of Pain), i.e. the hedonistic system serves the biological goal. The most consequent cultural implementation of this principle is Social Darwinism.

         Cultural attempts to invert the priorities and put the reduction of suffering on top have a hard stand. Compassionate, retreat-oriented ethics like (early) Buddhism, for example, succumbs in the competition with power-seeking, expansionist ideologies.

An interesting compromise between biological and cultural interests is Rawls’ Theory of Justice, a concept which tolerates a competitive society and at the same time strives to improve the welfare of the worst-off. But even in a society of perfect fairness suffering could be immense. Can cultural evolution ever reverse the biological trend towards higher levels of suffering?



Thesis 1

The biological utility function is decisive for cultural evolution.


The long-term success of a cultural goal is defined by the influence it has on the genetic success of its supporters.


         Religiosity has a positive influence on the fertility rate of a population [Blume].

         The cultural criteria for human mating are strongly influenced by the biological utility function [Buss 2007].

Cultural goals serve the biological goal or disappear.



Thesis 2

Cultural evolution overrules the biological utility function.


According to Bob Holmes cultural evolution is a goal-directed activity and has even an effect on the human genome [Holmes 2013, 35]


In the following we investigate

         Thesis 1 which suggests that suffering increases with cultural evolution as well as with biological evolution (chapter 3).

         Thesis 2 which suggests that the biological trend towards higher levels of suffering can be overruled by cultural forces (chapter 4).




3. Biological Mechanisms



3.1  Quality of Suffering


The emergence of higher levels of suffering is not an accidental by-product of cultural evolution; it is (amongst others) the consequence of the adaptive role of suffering.



The capability to suffer

1.      Biological mechanism: 

The increasing capability to feel pain has to do with the increasing importance of learning mechanisms. The importance of learning mechanisms increases with the lifetime of the creatures and with the complexity of the environment. The behaviour of long-lived creatures is shaped by painful experiences acting on these learning mechanisms. A wide range of emotions enhances the capability to respond to the environment. A wide range of emotions implies a high level (intensity and duration) of pain. Under these premises the capability to feel a high level of pain is superior with regard to biological fitness.


2.      Cultural analogue: 

Cultural evolution so far prolongs the lifetime of humans. It also adds to the complexity of the environment and increases the need for adaptation so that learning mechanisms become more important. Humans with a higher sensitivity are better equipped to master the challenges of adaptation. As a consequence the survival value of sensitivity increases. Higher sensitivity implies the capability to experience a higher level of suffering.



The infliction of suffering

1.      Biological mechanism:

         Evolution by selection has produced competitive mechanisms that function to benefit one person at the expense of others [Buss 2000].

         Human violence has a biological origin [Buss 2007][Miles]. Killing the competition means more bounty for your own genes [Hooper]

         The proportion of human deaths phylogenetically predicted to be caused by interpersonal violence is similar to the one phylogenetically inferred for the evolutionary ancestor of primates and apes, indicating that a certain level of lethal violence arises owing to our position within the phylogeny of mammals. It is also similar to the percentage seen in prehistoric bands and tribes, indicating that we were as lethally violent then as common mammalian evolutionary history would predict [Gomez].

         There's a considerable literature on violence and cannibalism among non-human primates, and some of what goes on looks awfully like torture. Some of this has to do with enforcement of dominance hierarchies (Ask a Biologist).


2.      Cultural analogue:

As far as the infliction of suffering has to do with the enforcement of dominance hierarchies, it could be called adaptive, because it contributes to the biological fitness of the dominant person.

         The fact that natural selection can be a poor designer explains not only glitches like supernormal stimuli (see Pain), but also glitches in the infliction of suffering, like sadistic behavior which is not, or at least no longer directly adaptive.

         As far as the history of torture is related to the enforcement of dominance hierarchies, it has a biological root. Hierarchies gain in importance with the size and complexity of the communities. One could argue that nowadays torture is outlawed by the signers of the human rights convention, but in practice many of these signers just outsource the dirty work. Furthermore, torture which is obviously related to the enforcement of dominance continues to exist in violent gangs, in drug cartels, in the territory of war lords and – exercised by pathological individuals – in the middle of civilized communities. Because of the overall increase in population size, the number of victims is larger than it was at earlier times.



The repression of suffering

1.      Biological mechanism:

The following asymmetry in the acceptance of suffering and happiness seems to improve the biological fitness:

       It is more difficult to take part in other people’s suffering than to take part in other people’s joy.

       A person who masters his/her grief gets more recognition than a person who remains controlled in the hour of triumph.

       Compassion and tears are considered to be a sign of weakness (unless the emotions express admiration for heroic people). Conversely happiness is

interpreted as a sign of strength so that people don’t hesitate to show it.

[Smith, chapter 1, section 3].

The capability of an individual to “forget” negative events and look optimistic into the future clearly improves his/her biological fitness.


2.      Cultural analogue:

       In her novel The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas Ursula K. LeGuin describes a city where the good fortune of the citizens requires that an innocent child is tortured in a secret place [LeGuin]. The child stands symbolically for the innocence of extreme sufferers. The setting is reminiscent of the French movie Le Sang des Bêtes where peaceful scenes of Parisian suburbia contrast with scenes from a slaughterhouse. Also the separation of old, ill and dying people from the rest of the society follows a similar logic. The dislocation of a suffering minority to remote places is a form of repression and improves the survival value of the majority.

       Why are distorted perceptions not corrected by experience? The cultural experience of suffering is systematically annihilated by the death of all witnesses. Most cultures do not have a long-term memory with regard to negative emotions. The suffering created by past wars, epidemics, natural catastrophes etc. is forgotten as quickly as the fate of extremely suffering individuals.




3.2  Quantity of Suffering


1.      Biological mechanism

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation (…)

If there is ever a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored (River out of Eden, Richard Dawkins).


2.      Cultural analogue

A cultural analogue to the biological mechanism was described by Thomas Malthus in his Essay on the Principle of Population and renewed by ecological thinkers like Garret Hardin and Safa Motesharrei et al. in Human and Nature Dynamics.

Its validity in high-tech societies, however, is disputed, see

a.       Malthusian Catastrophe

b.      Malthusian Trap

c.       Demographic Trap




3.3  Distribution of Suffering


1.      Biological mechanism

There are two opposing trends in the distribution of pain:

         Biological evolution is a process of increasing differentiation, implying increasing inequalities. Not only are the various forms of life unequal, but also the individual members within each form. Complex organisms differ more from each other than simple organisms. Evolution creates unequal distributions within all dimensions of life, and therefore also unequal distributions of pain. With an increase in the degree of pain, the degree of injustice increases as well.

         Certain kinds of pain (e.g. the pain of starving or being attacked by predators) are prevented or mitigated by biological altruism:

The net result of these two opposing trends is an increasing injustice in the distribution of pain.


2.      Cultural analogue

         Cultural evolution, as well as biological evolution is a process of increasing differentiation, implying increasing inequalities. Even if the average suffering in the population decreases, higher levels may emerge in minorities. Reasons are among others the aberration from statistical normality and the exclusion from benefits (see examples below).

         Certain kinds of suffering are prevented or mitigated by altruism.

The net result of these two opposing trends is an increasing injustice in the distribution of suffering.



Statistical normality and aberration

For every technological and social change there are winners and losers. Undesired side-effects of cultural progress are tolerated as long as they concern a minority of the population only:

         Pathological narcissism is an undesired side effect of self-control and individualism.

In a pathologically narcissistic civilization - social anomies proliferate. Such societies breed malignant objectifiers - people devoid of empathy (The Psychology of Serial and Mass Killers, Sam Vaknin).

         The higher velocity in transportation dramatically increased the number and cruelty of accidents. Since these accidents concern a minority only, they are tolerated and reported as a daily sensation in the news.

         Economic pressure motivates people to spend organs for money or subject themselves to medical experiments.

         Medical research at the root of suffering like palliative research has a high cost-benefit ratio but also a high risk of addiction and abuse. The development of high-tech torture on the basis of analgesics research stands for the actuality of this observation. Experience has shown that it is almost impossible to prevent the abuse of technological know-how in the long run. As a consequence the trend towards a qualitative increase in suffering cannot be broken.

Thesis: As long as there is a potential for a higher level of suffering (keyword technology) at least a minority will be affected by an unforeseen development or by hazard.



Exclusion from benefits

For almost every kind of suffering which is culturally defeated, there remains a fraction of the population which is excluded from the benefits. Because of the overall increase in population size, this fraction is often bigger than the original number of sufferers.


Example 1:

Although world hunger decreases, the growing world population brings about that the absolute number of hungry people is still bigger than it was at any point in history until the 20th century. According to the 2016 Global Hunger Index, levels of hunger are still serious or alarming in 50 countries. Whereas the hungry children in these countries struggle to survive the next day, researchers in other parts of the world work on life extension through nanomedicine.


Example 2:

According to anti-slavery-organizations the actual number of slaves exceeds the number of slaves that were shipped from Africa to America:

         The number of slaves today is higher than at any point in history: 12 to 27 million (Slavery, Wikipedia). The International Labor Organization estimates (2015) that about 21 million people suffer from contemporary forms of slavery (forced labor).

         From the 16th to 19th century: ca. 12 million slaves were shipped across the Atlantic (Atlantic slave trade, Wikipedia).

For information about slavery by nation, see Global Slavery Index, Wikipedia.


Example 3:

Discussions on extreme human suffering frequently evoke examples of torture and overlook untreated medical suffering. Unalleviated medical suffering is comparably severe to torture and significantly more common (…). I cannot find good estimates, but it is reasonable to assert that the number of people tortured every year is dwarfed by the millions dying in unmet need of palliative care (ref). Without giving an exhaustive illustration, metastatic cancers alone slowly but surely splinter limb bones, destroy vertebrae, tear contiguous tissue, necrosis in breasts, cause severe and unremitting head pain, and more. When they are capable, some patients take their own lives or attempt to (ref) (…). In 2011, it was estimated that 5.5 billion (83%) people live in countries with low or non-existent access to adequate pain management (ref). (from Increasing Access to Pain Relief in Developing Countries, by Lee Sharkey)

Because of the growing world population the absolute number of extremely suffering people is bigger than it was at any point in history until the 20th century.




4. The Belief in Progress



4.1  Science and Technology



Empirical findings

World Bank data shows that the percentage of the population living in households with consumption or income per person below the poverty line has decreased in each region of the world since 1990 (Poverty, Wikipedia):

World hunger decreases:





Picture taken from Global Hunger Index, Wikipedia


The Index ranks countries on a 100-point scale, with 0 being the best score (no hunger) and 100 being the worst, although neither of these extremes is reached in practice. Values less than 10.0 reflect low hunger, values from 10.0 to 19.9 reflect moderate hunger, values from 20.0 to 34.9 indicate serious hunger, values from 35.0 to 49.9 reflect alarming hunger, and values of 50.0 or more reflect extremely alarming hunger levels.



Following World War II, universal health care systems began to be set up around the world. From the 1970s to the 2000s, Southern and Western European countries began introducing universal coverage, most of them building upon previous health insurance programs to cover the whole population. Beyond the 1990s, many countries in Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region, including developing countries, took steps to bring their populations under universal health coverage, including China which has the largest universal health care system in the world (Universal Health Care, Wikipedia)

         Life expectancy increases, child mortality decreases (see World Health Statistics 2015).

         There is considerable progress in the development and availability of analgesics and palliative care.

         In the industrialized countries social welfare systems and psychotherapies have reached a previously unknown prevalence.



Optimistic speculations

         The current situation is unique in history:

Theoretically it is possible to use biotechnology to eradicate aversive experience in all sentient life. Life-long happiness could be genetically pre-programmed. In the post-Darwinian Era, applied nanotechnology could extend hedonic engineering to all life-forms on the planet (David Pearce, Negative utilitarianism).

         The Hedonistic Imperative outlines how genetic engineering and nanotechnology will abolish suffering in all sentient life. The abolitionist project is hugely ambitious but technically feasible. It is also instrumentally rational and morally urgent. The metabolic pathways of pain and malaise evolved because they served the fitness of our genes in the ancestral environment. They will be replaced by a different sort of neural architecture - a motivational system based on heritable gradients of bliss. States of sublime well-being are destined to become the genetically pre-programmed norm of mental health. It is predicted that the world's last unpleasant experience will be a precisely dateable event.

Two hundred years ago, powerful synthetic pain-killers and surgical anesthetics were unknown. The notion that physical pain could be banished from most people's lives would have seemed absurd. Today most of us in the technically advanced nations take its routine absence for granted. The prospect that what we describe as psychological pain, too, could ever be banished is equally counter-intuitive. The feasibility of its abolition turns its deliberate retention into an issue of social policy and ethical choice (David Pearce, Hedonistic Imperative).

         If above vision becomes true, then suffering could be seen as a limited, intermediary state associated with the birth of a new world – similar to the pain that goes with the birth of a child. Cultural evolution could be regarded as a (transhumanist) project which reduces or eliminates suffering, whereas otherwise it would persist or increase. If suffering can be besieged one day then the accumulated suffering up to this point may be the least among all possible paths of evolution.






This picture was taken from the internet (author unknown)




4.2  Ethics



Optimistic interpretations of historical data

Stephen Pinker argues that violence, including tribal warfare, homicide, cruel punishments, child abuse, animal cruelty, domestic violence, lynching, pogroms, and international and civil wars, has decreased over multiple scales of time and magnitude [Pinker].  Pinker considers it unlikely that human nature has changed. In his view, it is more likely that human nature comprises inclinations toward violence and those that counteract them, the "better angels of our nature". He outlines six 'major historical declines of violence' which all have their own socio/cultural/economic causes (Stephen Pinker)

1.      The Pacification Process – Pinker describes this as the transition from "the anarchy of hunting, gathering, and horticultural societies … to the first agricultural civilizations with cities and governments, beginning around five thousand years ago" which brought "a reduction in the chronic raiding and feuding that characterized life in a state of nature and a more or less fivefold decrease in rates of violent death."

2.      The Civilizing Process – Pinker argues that "between the late Middle Ages and the 20th century, European countries saw a tenfold-to-fiftyfold decline in their rates of homicide". Pinker attributes the idea of the Civilizing Process to the sociologist Norbert Elias, who "attributed this surprising decline to the consolidation of a patchwork of feudal territories into large kingdoms with centralized authority and an infrastructure on commerce"

3.      The Humanitarian Revolution – Pinker attributes this term and concept to the historian Lynn Hunt. He says this revolution "unfolded on the [shorter] scale of centuries and took off around the time of the Age of Reason and the European Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries" (though he points to historical antecedents and to "parallels elsewhere in the world"). He writes: "It saw the first organized movements to abolish slavery, dueling, judicial torture, superstitious killing, sadistic punishment, and cruelty to animals, together with the first stirrings of systematic pacifism.

4.      The Long Peace – a term he attributes to the historian John Lewis Gaddis.This fourth "major transition", Pinker says, "took place after the end of World War II"; in it, he says, "the great powers, and the developed states in general, have stopped waging war on one another"

5.      The New Peace – Pinker calls this trend "more tenuous", but "since the end of the Cold War in 1989, organized conflicts of all kinds — civil wars, genocides, repression by autocratic governments, and terrorist attacks — have declined throughout the world".

6.      The Rights Revolutions – The postwar period has seen, Pinker argues, "a growing revulsion against aggression on smaller scales, including violence against ethnic minorities, women, children, homosexuals, and animals. These spin-offs from the concept of human rights—civil rights, women's rights, children's rights, gay rights, and animal rights—were asserted in a cascade of movements from the late 1950s to the present day…”

(The Better Angels of Nature)

The book aroused criticism on a variety of grounds, such as whether “deaths per capita” is an appropriate metric, and Pinker's interpretation of historical data.



Empirical findings

         Illiteracy decreases worldwide (see Literacy, Wikipedia).

         There are signs of an increasing global risk-awareness and a corresponding international cooperation (see United Nations activities).

         The phenomenon of globalization reduces the number of major armed conflicts. If property is dispersed worldwide, it makes no sense to attack foreign nations. For statistical data see

o   Stockholm International Peace Research Institute: SIPRI

o   Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Kriegsursachenforschung: AKUF

         There is an increasing interest in ethical issues; theoretical and applied ethics get more funds and improve in quality.

         The number and quality of charitable organizations has reached a level never seen before.

         New insights from evolutionary psychology show that self-deception can be a very successful strategy. From this point of view philosophical pessimism is a maladaptation, a dangerous loss of "mental health" in a biological sense. But now things are beginning to change. Science is increasingly interfering with our natural mechanisms of repression [Metzinger 2009, 280-281].



Optimistic speculations

         Überlebens-Strategien sind in Konflikt mit Strategien zur Bekämpfung des Leidens. Der Buddhismus, welcher der Bekämpfung des Leidens die höchste Priorität einräumt, hat die Strategie der Selbsttäuschung von Anfang an verworfen. Die philosophischen Hoffnungen, das Leiden in dieser Welt reduzieren zu können beruhen (wie auch im Buddhismus) auf einer Zunahme des Bewusstseins bzw. der Erkenntnis. Diese Hoffnungen erfahren einen Dämpfer durch die These, wonach das Bewusstsein möglicherweise nur ein Epiphänomen ist und keine steuernde Funktion ausübt. Einmal abgesehen davon, dass diese These immer noch heftig umstritten ist, darf man nicht vergessen, dass auch unbewusste Mechanismen eine positive Wirkung haben können. Das Phänomen des biologischen Altruismus entstand z.B. ohne Wirkung des Bewusstseins. Ferner könnten z.B. die vielfältigen Mechanismen der Kooperation und Konkurrenz – welche nicht zentral und bewusst gesteuert werden – zu einem nachhaltigen Fortschritt im medizinischen Sektor führen.

         The success of reason in science and technology will spread out to ethics. The majority will turn away from irrational (religious) arguments in the context of voluntary euthanasia, population ethics etc.

         The increasing complexity of the living environment asks for an increasingly intense reflection. This in turn drives behavior away from its primitive biological roots.

         The increasing lifespan implies increasing experience with suffering. Experience with suffering enforces risk-aversion.

         Modern societies preserve experiences better than historical predecessors.

         Technological progress created writing, mass literacy and finally the current information technology. Each step in this process extends social networks and, in turn, induces an extension of empathy [Rifkin].

Possibly the world community passes thru a learning process which leads to a global consensus on a high degree of risk-aversion with regard to suffering, according to the German saying “Durch Schaden wird man klug” (“Being hurt, makes you wiser”). But even if the normative force of reason is grossly over-estimated or the concept of free will proves to be a complete illusion, suffering could still decrease because of mechanisms like the invisible hand.




5. Skepticism





I don’t know why we are here, but I’m pretty sure

that it is not in order to enjoy ourselves.


Ludwig Wittgenstein





Following some factors – besides the biological mechanisms described in chapter 3 – which contribute to skepticism in the fight against suffering:




5.1  Science and Technology



Pessimistic interpretations of historical data

         Medical progress has reduced child mortality and maternal help, but also led to overpopulation and (as a consequence) to epidemics and wars.

         The development of high-tech torture puts the whole research for analgesics in question, even if the risk concerns only a tiny minority.

         History has shown that knowledge and utopias are ambivalent, see Cultural Pessimism and Therapy (Postmodernism)

         The technological improvement of welfare may have to be “paid for” by increased technological risks, see On the Perception of Risk and Benefit.



Empirical findings

         Ethical progress trails far behind technological progress. Oligarchies and nepotism are hard to control (even in socialism, communism and theocracies) and conspiracy theory is still alive. Technology is a means in the hands of usurpers.

         The harm done to animals in factory farming, slaughterhouses and animal testing is immense. For information on animal suffering see List of animal rights groups.

         Some technological risks are systematically underestimated; see On the Perception of Risk and Benefit. The latter paper concentrates on death risk, but death risk is related in many ways to the risk of suffering.

         One of the issues of postmodern nihilism is the manipulation of feelings (values) by medicaments, drugs and the media.

         The world’s superpowers increasingly invest in military robots. A third world war was – so far – prevented by the MAD doctrine and not by ethical progress.



Pessimistic speculations

         If cancer, Parkinson’s disease and dementia replace death from bacterial and viral infections, then the prolongation of lifetime goes with a prolongation of suffering. The defeat of the mentioned diseases will hardly be the end of medical research and nobody knows if the trend from quickly killing diseases to long-term agonies can be broken. The striving for immortality theoretically creates the risk of hell on earth, i.e. the risk of eternal suffering.

         New forms of ecstasy create new risks of deprivation (drug withdrawal). Death becomes more threatening by the same degree, as life can be made more attractive.

         New technologies to prolong lifetime may be unjustly distributed and increase the suffering from early death.

         The higher the risk of terror, the more likely a restriction of privacy will be accepted by the majority. This in turn increases the risk to be controlled by dubious governments:

Universal surveillance is becoming technically feasible and could plainly be a safeguard against unwelcome clandestine activities. Techniques such as surgically implanted transmitters are already being seriously mooted to monitor criminals. If the threats escalated, we might become resigned to the need for such measures.(…) A “transparent” society in which deviant behavior couldn’t escape notice, may be accepted by its members in preference to the alternatives [Rees, 67].

         The increasing complexity of technology strikes back on all aspects of human life: education, economic and working environment and even the private sphere. Technological change seems to develop a momentum of its own. Individuals are increasingly controlled by complex systems [Revell].

         There is a growing awareness that the physical and mental capabilities of humans are stepwise surpassed and replaced by technology. Humans are in danger to be replaced by man-machine hybrids or genetically improved versions of their own species. The supersession of human intelligence by artificial intelligence may produce more losers than winners. Humans will be inferior to transhumans in much the same way as animals are inferior to humans [Bostrom]. Who guarantees that transhumans will not abuse technology?




5.2  Ethics



Pessimistic interpretations of historical data

         Religions (except Buddhism) tolerate all kinds of suffering which are not caused by humans. Among the successful traditions are Stoicism and Christianity. Both emphasize the divine origin of nature, as compared to the human origin of technology. Both developed in times, where little could be done to influence the course of nature and a positive attitude towards natural risks therefore improved the survival value [Birnbacher, 37]. The capability to glorify life and endure (natural) suffering which was promoted and awarded in both traditions contributed to their success.

         In the evolution of the nervous systems, both the number of consciousness subjects and the richness of the emotional nuances in which these subjects can suffer have steadily increased and this process has not yet come to an end. We are constantly forced to be as happy as possible - to feel good - without ever reaching a stable state. If we follow the naturalistic world view, there are no purposes (...). Subjective purposes arise in our brains, but evolution does not respect them in any way; It takes no account of the sufferings of individuals. If this is true, the logic of psychological evolution reveals that the fact of being caught in a hedonistic treadmill is hidden from the ego [Metzinger 2009, 280-281].



Empirical findings

         No utopia has ever existed. Large human societies tend to be governed by coercion. The instinct of warfare has been a driving force in nearly every civilization of the last five millennia, from ancient Mesopotamia to the British Empire.

A possible exception is the Indus civilization that flourished from about 2600 to 1900 before BC. The Indus script, however, is not deciphered and it remains unclear, if there were battles, sacrifice, torture and slavery as e.g. in the ancient Maya culture, which was once thought to be exceptionally peace-loving – until their hieroglyphs were deciphered [Robinson].

List of wars before 1000

List of wars 1000–1499

List of wars 1500–1799

List of wars 1800–99

List of wars 1900–44

List of wars 1945–89

List of wars 1990–2002

List of wars 2003–10

List of wars 2011–present

List of ongoing military conflicts

The world has become slightly less peaceful between 2008 and 2015 [Institute for Economics and Peace, 45].


         Further examples of man-made suffering can be found in the List of anthropogenic disasters. The list concentrates on death toll, but the death toll is related in many ways to suffering.

         The majority of the world population still adheres to irrational world views (see List of religious populations). Believers of the revealed religions maintain that we are not legitimated to valuate life or they assume that there is an omniscient god who knows the sense of suffering and doesn’t disclose it to humans. The belief in salvation and the hope that suffering will be compensated by happiness in an ulterior world also contribute to the tolerance of the world “as it is”. The best known illustration of the irreconcilable antagonism between a dogmatic and a critical rational foundation of ethics is the following passage in the Book of Genesis:

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying: Of every tree of the garden (Eden) though mayest freely eat: But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil though shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

         Not only religions, but also most secular ethics influences people to think positive. The empirical data about suffering therefore has to be distinguished from its valuation. Interpretation can make the world look positive, without manipulating the survey data. Positive utilitarianism, for example, compensates the suffering of the minority with the happiness of the majority [Broome]. The evaluation of global suffering, however, is distorted by a status quo bias or existence bias [Metzinger 2017, 243]. For more information on this topic see The Denial of the World from an Impartial View.

         Right knowledge and right action are not the necessary result of a natural development as evolutionary epistemology and evolutionary ethics suggest. The Darwinian train is a train to nowhere [Hampe]. Ecological behavior, for example, is in the interests of the whole of humanity, but it is thwarted by unconscious biological/ evolutionary mechanisms.

-       Biological evolution is not only short-sighted, but absolutely blind with regard to the future: the design of the organisms is adapted to a "race in the here and now".

-       Genetic reproductive success (the ultimate biological measure) is based to a large extent on efficient resource utilization.

Both mechanisms stamped our psyche and created the mentality of depletion [Voland, 145].



Pessimistic speculations

         Even in a society with perfect fairness suffering could be immense. Rawls’ principle of intergenerational moral impartiality allows such a state to persist.

         Because of the increased risks in violent conflicts the cultural trend goes towards less physical violence; see Steven Pinker. The decrease in physical violence in turn may have to be “paid for” by an increase in sadomasochism and/or by an increase in structural violence.

         Even if research comes to know that free will is no illusion, the normative force of reason could still be grossly overestimated. The fact that religiousness correlates positively with the fertility rate of a population [Blume] makes clear that reason is a means in evolution and not an end. If reason doesn’t serve the biological goal, it is simply dismissed, control is passed to irrational forces or the semantics of the term reasonable is modified until it complies with the biological goal. Suffering-averse ethics like Buddhism may be justified by experience, but as soon as it reduces the fertility rate, its adherents take themselves out of the game (see Negative Utilitarianism and Buddhist Intuition). Compassionate, risk-averse and non-violence ethics succumbs in the competition with less compassionate, less risk-averse and more violent ethics. Ethical concepts are subject to the forces of evolution, as well as biological and technological concepts. Possibly life-affirming ethics of any kind is counter-productive in the long-run, because it serves an inscrutable evolutionary process which perpetuates suffering [Zimmer, 214-215].

         Brain research has created its own perspective under which one can look at the known part of the physical world and the evolution of consciousness: namely as an expanding ocean of suffering and confusion in a place where such a thing has not previously existed (...) Psychological evolution has not optimized us for lasting happiness - on the contrary, it has placed us on the hedonic treadmill (...). We can recognize this structure within ourselves, but we will never be able to escape it. We are this structure [Metzinger 2009, 280].





6. The End of Suffering


It is easier to make predictions about the end of suffering than to make predictions about details like the level or distribution of suffering. In the following we attempt to assign probabilities to the end of suffering. These probabilities are based on evolving knowledge and may have to be revised.



Salvation by Non-Human Forces

Historical overview: Salvation, Eschatology

New concepts: New Religious UFO Movements


Probability: From a scientific point of view the probability for a salvation from outside is very unlikely, but science is limited by the following circumstances:

         only a small part of reality is conscious

         the conscious part of reality is shaped by the brain

It is dangerous though to use these limitations as an argument for salvation because they can be used for opposite visions as well.



Salvation by Human Forces

Technological progress becomes a vision when it is interpreted in the context of Paradise-engineering. The vision is based on the following ideas:

1)      Bio- and nanotechnology could be used to eradicate aversive experience in all sentient life.

2)      Mental states like consciousness may not depend on biological substance. Some day life could be transformed into a spiritual form free from suffering.

3)      Technological progress serves the hedonistic goal and is not used for power-seeking and domination.

Suffering then becomes a limited, intermediary state associated with the birth of an ecstatic or spiritual world. Evolution could be regarded as a project which reduces or eliminates (extreme) suffering, whereas otherwise it would persist or increase


Probability: From a scientific point of view it is unlikely that suffering will loose its role in evolution. More likely is therefore a symbiosis of biological and artificial life with ongoing or new forms of suffering.

Following some indications how evolution could create new kinds of suffering:

1)      deprivation from new forms of ecstasy (drug withdrawal)

2)      refused access to prolonged lifetime

3)      oppression or replacement of humans by machines

4)      high-tech torture



Destruction by Human Forces

1.      Conscious violent destruction

Some atheist or agnostic philosophers who have lost the hope for salvation (because they identify the human race or the mechanisms of life as the cause of suffering) developed a wish to destroy humanity or life as whole. The first promoter of conscious violent destruction may have been Hartmann (1842-1906). It is known that Hartmann used far eastern sources. But the old Indian philosophers, despite of their belief in the inseparable connection between life and suffering, never thought of destroying life - a fact that might be explained by the Hindu tradition of non-violence (Ahimsa). At the times of Hartmann the technology for destroying life was lacking, as well as in old India.


2.      Destruction by unawareness, high risk tolerance or accident

Hartmann’s successors may wish to destroy life but (by the lack of access to technology) cannot realize their dreams. On the other hand global destruction could be caused by people who desperately want to live, e.g. the creators of the MAD doctrine, the millions of people who cause a climatic catastrophe or the transhumanist researchers who strive for omnipotence.

Future artificial intelligences could silently prepare for the extermination of all human beings – on purely ethical grounds [Metzinger 2017, 253].

The corresponding philosophy of apocalypse is therefore mixed with cynicism and irony (or it insinuates that there is a subconscious death wish, see Horstmann). For details about the underestimation of technological risks see On the Perception of Risk and Benefit.



Destruction by Non-Human Forces

Fatalist, Hindu, back-to-nature and other philosophies maintain the thesis, that suffering cannot be defeated on a global level. In order to release this world from suffering, life as a whole has to be terminated by natural causes.


Probability: According to actual physical theory life will be terminated by one of the following events:

         Climate change as a result of volcanic explosion

         Asteroid collision

         Burnout of the sun

         Burnout of the universe

With the restriction that nothing is absolutely certain (i.e. scientific theories are open to falsification) we can say that above statement is close to certain.




Above qualitative estimations can be summarized as follows:



global termination of suffering


by non-human forces

by human forces

by destruction



close to certain

in the far future


in the near future


by salvation



very unlikely

at all times


in the near future




Destruction is more likely than salvation.

More arguments in support of this thesis can be found in Human extinction, Wikipedia




7. Conclusion



The evolution of suffering

         In analogy to the biological evolution of pain, suffering increases quantitatively and qualitatively in the course of cultural evolution. At the present state of knowledge it is impossible to foresee, if this trend can durably be broken.

         In analogy to the biological evolution of pain, the general trend is an increasing inequality (injustice) in the distribution of suffering.

The counterproductive mechanisms of technological and social change are largely unknown or repressed. There is no systems theory of suffering.



The end of suffering


         Destruction is more likely than salvation.

         Suffering will end by the destruction of life by non-human forces.






1.      Anderson Ron (2012), Human Suffering and Measures of Human Progress, Presentation for a RC55 Session of the International Sociological Association Forum in Buenos Aires, Argentina

2.      Bentham, J., Value of a Pain or Pleasure (1778), in: B. Parekh (ed.): Bentham´s Political Thought, London 1973

3.      Blume Michael (2006), Religiosity as a Demographic Factor – An Underestimated Connection, Marburg Journal of Religion No.11

4.      Bostrom Nick (2014), Superintelligence, Oxford University Press

5.      Buss David M. (2000), The Evolution of Happiness, American Psychologist, Vol. 55, No. 1, 15-23

6.      Buss, David.M. (2006), The Murderer Next Door: Why the Mind Is Designed to Kill. Penguin

7.      Buss David M. (2007), The Evolution of Human Mating, Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39(3), 502-512

8.      Frey Bruno, Stutzer Alois (2001), Happiness and Economics, University Presses of CA

9.      Gomez José Maria, Miguel Verdú, Adela González-Megías, Marcos Méndez, The phylogenetic roots of human lethal violence, Nature 538, 233–237

10.  Hampe Michael (2009), Manche sterben nie aus, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Nr.31, B3, 7./8. Februar

11.  Hamzelou Jessica (2010), The scanner that feels your pain, in New Scientist, 6 March, p.6

12.  Holmes Bob (2013), Life’s Purpose, New Scientist, 12 October, 33-35

13.  Holmes Bob (2015), Life Chances, New Scientist, 14 March, 32-35

14.  Hooper Rowan (2016), Where do good and evil come from?, New Scientist, 3 September, p.34

15.  Institute for Economics and Peace (2016), Global Peace Index 2015

16.  LeGuin Ursula (1973), The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas, New Dimensions No.3, ed. Robert Silverberg, Signet, New York

17.  Metzinger Thomas (2009), Der Ego Tunnel, Berlin Verlag

18.  Metzinger Thomas (2017), Suffering, the cognitive scotoma, in The Return of Consciousness, 237-262, Editors Kurt Almqvist & Anders Haag, Stockholm, Sweden

19.  Miles James (2003), Born Cannibal: Evolution and the Paradox of Man, London: IconoKlastic Books.

20.  Pinker Steven (2011), The Better Angels of Nature, Viking Books, New York

21.  Portin Peter (2016), Comparison of biological and cultural evolution, Atlas of Science, 7 January

22.  Rees Martin (2003), Our Final Hour, Basic Books, New York

23.  Revell Timothy (2017), Workplace AI tells your boss if you’re slacking, New Scientist, 4 February, 10

24.  Ridley Matt (2015), The Evolution of Everything, HarperCollins Publishers, New York

25.  Robinson Andrew (2016), Forgotten Utopia, New Scientist, 17 September, 31-33

26.  Schaller Mark, Crandall Christian S. (eds.) (2004), The Psychological Foundations of Culture, Mahwah, NJ

27.  Smith Adam (1759), Theorie der ethischen Gefühle, Felix Meiner Verlag, Hamburg, 2004

28.  Voland Eckart (2000), Welche Werte? Ethik, Anthropologie und Naturschutz, in Philosophia naturalis Band 37, Heft 1, 131-152

29.  Zimmer Heinrich (1973), Philosophie und Religion Indiens, Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Wissenschaft, 7.Auflage 1992, Suhrkamp Verlag, Berlin