Internet Manifesto of Note (gotta love it with colorful phrases like "psychochemical Dark Ages")

...The ultimate strategic objective should be the neurochemical precision-engineering of happiness for every sentient organism on the planet.

I highlight this manifesto not so much because I as yet think it will happen, but rather that I'm still trying to think up a philosophical or other objections based on more than a general dismissal of utopian-thinking or obvious potential side effects and misuses. (I'm interested what precisely is objectionable about the notions expressed when those objections don't come from notions based themselves on consolations for the imperfect world). In point of fact, with the discovery of some of the key pleasure centers of the brain back in the 1950's, it's far from inconceivable with current technology to have cranial implants to induce directly feelings of well-being. (It would be fun to be on the marketing department of whatever med equipment company that does it, sure to be a lot of laughs in thinking up the name and commercials for the implant. It's on my list of joke/satirical fake company websites worth developing.)

The objection that I see as being the weakest is the naturalist fallacy. That is, the notion that "is" (or how it's always been until now before humans gained in power) equals "ought." Or the allied idiom of thinking that "100% natural" is always a good thing. "Ah, nothing like the smell of 100% natural radon gas in the morning."

The more powerful short-term objections are the medical ethics of developing a hypothetical device to the point of being F.D.A. safe and effective (if the anatomy of the brain would ever make that practical), for what amounts to treating the human condition (and hence amounts to human experimentation). Perhaps such a device will get its start as a sort of last-resort methadone, seeing as it's now become a popularly-known practice to perform bariatric surgery versus the perceived greater risk of morbid obesity. That it already hasn't happened yet is likely in part due to the lobotomy-legacy and the palatability of having "fifty" pharamaceutical options that can be tried in succession, even if the efficacy is questionable in many cases. If a drug doesn't work, but won't kill you ("give it a shot") it still has the advantage over a surgery that might be more likely to work, but also more likely to kill you ("drastic").

Okay, now that I've gone completely beyond my knowledge and I'm just doing simplistic speculation, it's back to researching my armchair philosophy.

My parting thought is that if something like this scheme could happen, there would need to be even more thought put into alternate regulation of handling external threats (how negative feedback could still occur). There is a rare syndrome that causes the sufferer to be insensate to physical pain, and the horrific result is that they literally mangle their bodies beginning from infancy from the lack the corrective feedback (as occurs in other conditions like leprosy). Analogously, emotional pain does have it's raison d'etre....