[chacha2]

> Trying to pretend we can erase any and all suffering we may cause ever is a fruitless effort.

I wouldn't be so sure. Eduard Hartmann came up with a solution in the 19th century.

https://theconversation.com/solve-suffering-by-blowing-up-th...

[morelisp]

This is a common feature of critiques of Schopenhaur; Philipp Mainländer advanced the position that God created the universe to end its atemporal suffering, exploding and binding itself temporally in order that its suffering should eventually cease.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_dead#Role_in_the_philos...

It's frustrating that your article brushes off the philosophy as "unimaginably wrong" so easily with some hand wave of techno-utopian "genetic engineering". Benatar's writing takes pains to address why the situation cannot fundamentally be solved, especially via naive scientism.

[perl4ever]

The article suggests that eliminating suffering rather than sufferers is the common sense way to go.

Is that any better? That sort of thing makes me think first of the horrifying disorder where people are unable to feel pain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pa...

And Jack Williamson's "With Folded Hands" which is sort of a story of another kind of paperclip maximization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_Folded_Hands

[grawprog]

That sort of implies trying to blow up the universe wouldn't be a fruitless effort in and of itself. You'd have better luck just waiting for the heat death of the universe at that point I think.

[chacha2]

It is the struggle, itself, that is important!