Before the advent of anaesthesia, surgery was an experience of unimaginable agony. It is difficult to grasp the relief people must have felt when painless surgical procedures were introduced in the late nineteenth century. Yet, surprisingly, the innovation was not universally welcomed. In Zurich, anaesthesia was even outlawed for a time. Pain, some argued, was natural, and any attempt to eliminate it was therefore morally wrong. As one Zurich city father reportedly claimed, to remove pain was to violate the natural order.

This resistance to anaesthesia reveals something deeply rooted in human thinking: the belief that suffering is not merely unavoidable, but necessary.

Is Suffering Indispensable?

Philosopher David Pearce challenges this assumption head-on. He suggests that one day the belief that emotional pain is indispensable may seem quaint—much like past objections to painless surgery. Pearce argues that humanity should strive to eradicate suffering in all sentient life. This ambitious project, which he calls paradise engineering, is, according to him, technically feasible through advances in genetic engineering and nanotechnology.

Pearce rejects the idea that a utopian society based purely on material abundance can make us permanently happy. Even if all material needs were fulfilled, he argues, happiness would remain elusive. This is because of the hedonic treadmill: the tendency of human beings to return to a stable baseline of happiness regardless of improvements in their external circumstances. No amount of environmental or social reform, Pearce claims, can permanently recalibrate the brain’s emotional set point.

For Pearce, therefore, external utopia is not the solution. Instead, he believes that re-engineering our biological foundations is the only morally acceptable response to suffering in the age of biotechnology.

A World Without Pain: Promise or Loss?

Imagine a life without moral suffering—no fear, no anger, no sadness, no frustration. The idea can be unsettling. Many people instinctively respond, “Thanks, but I’ll keep my blues.” We suspect that life without darker moods would lack depth, richness, and meaning. Without suffering, how would we appreciate joy?

Yet this intuition deserves scrutiny. People trapped in depression do not experience a richer emotional life; they experience persistent misery. If constant suffering makes people unhappy, why does the idea of constant happiness seem so implausible? Why should happiness be any more suspicious than suffering?

The Instrumental Value of Suffering

Still, suffering is not without function. Nick Bostrom, Director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, acknowledges that “there is something bad about all suffering,” but he also points out that much of our current suffering serves an instrumental purpose. Pain, for instance, warns us of danger. Touching a hot stove causes immediate pain, prompting us to withdraw our hand and avoid serious injury.

If such suffering were removed, Bostrom argues, we would need alternative mechanisms to serve the same protective role. A pain-free future would therefore require careful redesign, not careless elimination.

Engineering Happiness

Despite these concerns, Pearce remains optimistic. He envisions a future in which chemical mood enhancers are no longer necessary. With the human genome already mapped, he predicts that future science will identify the genetic combinations associated with low mood and depression. In time, parents may be able to select allelic combinations for their children, anticipating psychological and behavioural outcomes.

Given that most parents want their children to be happy, Pearce believes this genetic revolution in reproductive medicine could dramatically reduce—or even eliminate—mental suffering. Evolution, he claims, will no longer be blind or random, but guided by ethical intent.

Conclusion

The history of anaesthesia teaches us that what once seemed morally troubling can later appear morally obvious. The question, then, is not merely whether we can eliminate suffering, but whether we should cling to it out of habit and fear. If technology offers us the power to redesign the emotional architecture of life itself, refusing to do so may one day seem as strange as opposing painless surgery.

Whether suffering is an essential ingredient of a meaningful life, or simply a remnant of our evolutionary past, remains one of the most profound philosophical questions of our time.