Lurker > Reigning_King

Zareth posted...

Yeah, if your response to someone asking "are you racist" is "that depends on your definition of the word "racist"" you're probably a fucking racist

And it's exactly that people have this type of extremly silly thought pattern that makes it prudent to be mindful of your answers and elaborate when given the chance.

Zareth posted...

Or you could just say "no"

If people bastardzing language to use it as a weapon doesn't bother you or you're short on time and not giving an interview (the entire point of an interview being getting the thoughts of someone) sure I guess. You're acting like he didn't ultimately say "no" or something. Perhaps under your definition of the word racist you classify everyone who doesn't immediately deny being one with a simple one word response as a racist?

OhhhJa posted...

I've witnessed less cognitive dissonance with people having bipolar episodes

And I'm sure there are schizophrenics who spout fewer non sequiturs and denials of reality during their fits than you have been itt.

OhhhJa posted...

Why would I waste my time on someone who obviously doesn't even value human life?

If I didn't value human life I would be advocating for mass genocide or something, and there actually are people who do that.

OhhhJa posted...

I don't care to with you. You're a morally repugnant person. You wouldn't even comprehend the mindset of someone with normal human emotions so anything I say would be met with another narcissistic, deluded wall of text

You know it would have been less effort on your part to just elaborate than type that insult out. Anyways, bringing up one of my uncontested points, if babies are so great do you hold the opposite view as me, that there is actually a moral obligation to have children the way I believe there is a moral obligation not to?

I mean saying nothing in the world is more precious actually implies that birthing babies should be the highest priority of anyone, that even things like the autonomy of a woman to choose if she wants a baby is less important and thus she should be forced to have them.

Unless you were using hyperbole I guess.

Zareth posted...

Asked whether he is a racist, Bryant demurred.
It's according to what your definition of the word racist is. What a lot of the public's definition is, I might be a racist. But according to what the true definition of a racist is, absolutely not," he told the station.

How hard is it to just fucking say "no"

There are people who very seriously consider every single white person to be racist simply by existing, that they have an orginal sin of sorts. When a word has lost all meaning like that it makes sense to elaborate on what your personal definition of it is when asked if it applies to you.

OhhhJa posted...

Nothing in this world is more precious than a baby

Elaborate on this statement, if you can.

Far-Queue posted...

Nah, your BS has already been laid to waste by smarter people in this topic

Except those points are ones I gathered specifically because no one replied to them. That not even a troll like you can find a single one to try to twist just goes to show they must be pretty ironclad I guess. Must be the reason for the lack of interacting with them in the first place.

Far-Queue posted...

We're inflexible?! lmao

You love the smell of your own BS so much that you fail to realize that these non-existent people your whole garbage argument hinges on would prefer to live with some suffering rather than not live at all, and that denial of their existence is far more selfish than someone looking to improve their lives.

If you think unborn people, people who don't exist in any form, people who even if they existed would be otherworldly souls of some kind (who would have to be knowledgeable about life on Earth) have things like preferences then you need to seek psychiatric help.

I mean how does one communicate with something that doesn't exist? How do you know what they would or would not prefer? How do you know that a singular, specific one of these... souls or whatever you think they are, would want to be born? If even .01% of these souls (I can't believe I'm entertaining this absurdity) didn't want to be born than a mother would still be gambling with the life of her child if she happened to give birth to that one.

Truth_Decay posted...

Ignoring your points? Can't admit I'm wrong? Awful lot of projecting in your post.

I'll keep it simple for you, since you seem unable to stay focused.

Your argument falls apart because it isn't practical, and it doesn't solve anything. Getting rid of the humanity isn't a solution. It's a cop-out. If you're not smart enough to come up with real solutions, or lack the strength and resolve to face suffering in the interim, then I guess you resort to feeble-minded "solutions" like anti-natalism.

There's no quick fix to human suffering. I don't agree in genocide or catastrophic natural disasters any more than anti-natalism because none of those solves anything. They ignore the issues. There's no magic salve. You have to tackle issues on an individual basis. Homelessness, hunger, poverty, disease, war and conflict, etc etc.

Antinatalism isn't practical. It's not a solution. It's a cowardly and simple-minded answer to the complex problems we face as a species.

Well yes you're literally ignoring that I objectively proved you wrong twice in a row over your claim that I missed some part of your argument, among many other things. I'm not surprised at this point though, so be it if you have to ignore 80% of my posts to focus on the 20% you think is the weakest in order to try and keep up with me.

I mentioned anti-natalism isn't practical back in post #24, as far as how much impact it has but on a theoretical level it is the best way to end human suffering and I stand by that since no one else itt has come up with a single other way to do that compared to the several I have which I compared to come to my conclusion. Your idea of tackling individual problems might very well help reduce suffering but it will never eliminate it. We've been over this several times, just admit you think keeping humanity going is more important than ending suffering, you're more or less saying that already. We have two different goals, we aren't arguing how best to go about doing the same thing. To the problem I have, that suffering exist, anti-natalism is absolutely the correct solution. To the problem you have, that suffering is too great (or however you would phrase it) anti-natalism isn't the solution because you want to have your cake and eat it too by leaving people alive to enjoy the reduced suffering levels.

It's a childish fantasy that is ultimately even more impractical than anti-natalism. Suffering will never end, it will only change and since you brought up adaptability in the past I shouldn't have to tell you that people will simply adapt to these better conditions and not see them as anything special. Children born after the last illness is eliminated won't live their lives in perpetually joy because of it, that will just be the normal state of the world to them and they will focus on the problems of their own era. Eliminate homelessness worldwide and people will just become dissatisfied because some have nicer homes than others. Eliminate hunger and people will complain about the food they get. Eliminate war and groups in conflict will just attack each other indirectly. Eliminate disease (I have to assume this somehow includes death as well) and you get overpopulation and degenerative genes being passed along.

You call the idea of anti-natalism a cop-out or the equivalent of running away. Well I ask you why one should be ashamed of running away from an endless, difficult and entirely pointless battle where the soldiers sent to fight never asked to be involved in the first place.

Start of a new page so let me bring up some of my old points that were ignored before they get completly buried.

Reigning_King posted...

"Say you desire Outcome X and will do anything to avoid Outcome Y.
You believe that by following Plan A you will obtain Outcome X.
Later you learn objectively and without question that following Plan A will result in Outcome Y, not X.
Would you still go with Plan A or try to develop a Plan B?"

"Try thinking about it this way, why does anyone do ANYTHING? Hunger comes naturally without any action, we have to go out of our way to satisfy that hunger, every single thing we do is to satisfy some desire or another. Desires, wants, needs, deprivations, negativity in other words, that comes to us naturally. Many of these desires we can only partly satisfy if at all, plenty of people have starved to death after all, and of those who do get their daily bread, the need to empty their bowels will result soon after because of it. Even if we could somehow satisfy them all then we would be left with boredom, yet another negative. Life is a trial of trying to avoid and reject the negativity inherent to it, but as with all human endeavors it can only be done"

"So say you have a beggar in some filthy slum in some war torn 3rd world country who is blind and missing both his legs but has been in his position for so long and so many of the people who have been around him his whole life are also in awful positions or even worse ones that he doesn't see his lot as particularly bad... you would say that he honestly wouldn't be better off with his sight, legs, and money?"

"In the past when life expectancy was low a man dying at 35 might not be seen as anything particularly tragic, and a man dying at 60 could have been considered to have lived a good long life. Now the reaction to both would be very different, the family would suffer more grief than their ancient counterpart most probably. Today if a man reaches 100 years old it is a major milestone to be celebrated and no one ever feels bad because so and so didn't live to be 200 instead because such a thing is (currently) impossible. Why shouldn't the inability to live to 200 (...) be seen as a harm?"

"...you (...) say that the extinction of humanity would "rob" future people of the chance to experience happiness... so you do actually think people have a duty to have as many children as they can? I mean otherwise those people are being immoral for "robbing" their potential children right? Tell me, every time you see a woman who isn't pregnant do you feel sad for her potential child who could have fun one day if only she got knocked up?"

"Optimism is the cause of untold amounts of harm."

"A given person might enjoy their own life and be thankful they were born despite the hardships they've suffered but that doesn't mean they should have free reign to make that same choice for someone else who might not have their positive personality or might simply suffer vastly more than they have."

"You can not guarantee with any certainty the type of life a child will have. Harming someone, causing them suffering with certainty without their consent because you think it might be in their best interests is unethical unless you can prove the chance of that benefit is 100% [and outweighs the suffering you caused them]."

"People can't control luck but they can control if they deliberately endanger people which is what having a child is."

"To all pro-natalists... what is your end goal? (...) I would like to hear your own individual end games, how long you think it will take to achieve them by following a pro-natal path, and how sure you are you will get what you want after that time. I assume it must be something fabulously noble if you think that the [relatively quick and painless] end of human suffering is a bad idea since it would interfere with your own"

"['Humanity should reject extinction and keep progressing forwards'] Progress towards WHAT?"

Feel free to tackle any of these.

Truth_Decay posted...

Ah, but this is a complex issue, and my entire point is meant to be taken as a whole, not broken down into pieces and argued word-for-word, or paragraph to paragraph.

I've seen you dismiss other posters rebuttals as "irrelevant", and your response to my post is very telling. You're unable to see the big picture. You're so laser-focused on this one thought: eliminating *all* human suffering, that you're wholly incapable of seeing anything else.

Your deeming other responses as irrelevant because they don't align with your very narrow viewpoint is indicative of not only your ignorance, but your willful ignorance. And your condescension and derision speaks to an unflappable arrogance. I see no point in continuing a conversation with someone so pigheaded as they won't even entertain an opposing viewpoint, such as I have:

^ this is called ceding a point. I can agree with a certain part of your argument without agreeing to the whole.

Yes, I agree there is no way, currently or in the foreseeable future, to end human suffering.

No, I do not believe antinatalism is the solution to ending human suffering, as ending humanity is not an intelligent, empathetic solution. It's a callous, psychotic solution.

Your whole argument rests on the notion that you're some champion for those who don't even exist. It's a ludicrous argument, and frankly not one worth having.

As I've already stated, though I'll repost as you have a tendency to gloss over and dismiss everything:

Speculation is worth as much as one can reason against it. That said, I'm fully comfortable saying that a majority of people, if given the choice, would choose a life with some suffering over no life at all, and that would mean that your "solution" of stripping away their chance at that life is no solution at all. It's not sensible, or practical. With that in mind, antinatalism cannot be "correct", regardless of how you spin it.

Would I trade my life for one with more suffering? No. Why would I? Unless I was looking to put myself into a scenario where I am attempting to help those less fortunate than myself by immersing myself in their world to offer direct assistance (example: Doctors Without Borders, Peace Corps, etc. Practical solutions to ending human suffering, mind you.) then there's very little incentive to opt for more suffering. Those who do choose that life are truly the noblest among us. Not those who would see complete destruction to make their point. Those who choose to glom onto these silly fantasy "solutions" only serve as a distraction at best, and an obstacle at worst, to a true solution to ending suffering.

This is one of the worst attempts at saving face I have ever seen. Let me reiterate:

Reigning_King posted...

I never said you were ONLY talking about humans who were alive, I was saying you're making the mistake of mixing the two groups and treating them like they were the same, which they aren't

Maybe stop ignoring key parts of my post. Even if you want to act like I was in the wrong for not taking your "complex" post as a whole it doesn't even matter either way because you still fucked up as I pointed out and that makes your singling out my first paragraph pure hypocrisy on your part. I really should end this post here since you've proven without a doubt you can't admit to your mistakes or faulty reasoning even when carefully spelled out for you but I'm a nice guy so I'll keep going, using the same format I've used for the entire topic.

Why is it strange that I'm focused on the main point of my argument? It's the one being discussed now isn't it? You people have ignored various other ends of it, so for now I'll talk about ending all human suffering.

If you haven't noticed this thread is basically just me verses everyone else, I don't have time to fully entertain every tangent like how long it will take the sun to make the earth uninhabitable or what the meaning of the word philosophy is. Even then I've tried to at least touch on them once or twice to see if the person who brought them up is going anywhere relevant before I write them off. If you can find a single instant of me calling a given point irrelevant the first time it is brought up and without elaborate on my part then I'll admit to having made a (understandable) mistake. Even then at least I have the decency of stating my stance on an issue instead of just acting like it was never brought up the way you do with the majority of my points.

Ending human suffering necessarily involves human extinction, so if anti-natalism isn't a good way to go about that what is? Global genocide? Waiting for a cosmic event or catastrophic natural disaster to wipe us out? If you think that preserving humanity is more important than ending human suffering just say that outright, because you have to ultimately pick one or the other.

What would you say of someone who hands out contraceptives to the homeless because they want to spare their future children from that fate or being wards of the state? Are they doing something wrong? Are they doing something that ultimately doesn't matter because the people they want to help don't exist?

I see you still haven't learned the difference between people who exist and those who don't but could. You're talking about unborn people "with full comfort" saying things like "if given the choice" as if someone who doesn't exist can have a preference the same as a living person. That type of thinking is actually insane, the unborn can't think or feel or weight the good and bad of the world and decide if they want to be born or not. You're anthropomorphizing a concept here to justify the blatant unethical action of bringing babies into the world without their consent by telling yourself "well they probably would have consented to this if we could ask them" when there was no one to ask in the first place.

Why wouldn't you want a life full of pointless suffering? Weren't you the one who said humans are adaptable? If they can adapt to horrible situations and return to the same mental baseline, if they can still find happiness in their situation than there is no objective way to measure how well off someone is except their own self assessment. Suffering is all in your head (apparently) so you wouldn't be changing anything if you were born in poverty or blind or in chronic pain because you would just adapt to it and therefore there is nothing wrong with such states, right? I mean the human ability of adaptability can't possibly cause people to become comfortable in situations that are factually not good for them, right? You were singing the praises of it so I have too assume that's the case.

kind9 posted...

I'm not saying I believe this. I'm saying I don't believe the opposite, that there will never be a way to totally eliminate human suffering, and you're doing nothing to convince me except reasserting it as a fact. You're making a knowledge claim that I'm not comfortable making. You claim to know that elimination of human suffering is unachievable, but you don't really know that, you're just incredulous to believe otherwise.

I think it's a good question. Who benefits from antinatalism? Literally no one.

It's a binary, either ending human suffering short of ending human existence is possible or it isn't. If you don't believe we will never do it than you believe we will, or at least can do it. A double negative (don't-never) equals a positive, this is basic English grammar here. If someone said "God doesn't exist" and I said in response "I don't believe that God doesn't exist" that translates into "I believe God exists", now sub out the word God for the phrase "ending human suffering short of ending humanity". Ignoring me having to explain something this simple to you at least I've made an effort to explain why I think the way I do outside of asserting it as a fact (a fact the vast majority of the world would agree with) with my little sci-fi scenario. You haven't explained at all how such a thing might be possible without or even with fundamentally breaking the concept of humanity except vaugly pointing towards scientific advances, as if any new technology would cause problems as well as solve them, or as if any technology that could be used for great good can't also be used for great evil. In my sci-fi scenario I even glossed over these points as if they could be solved and still showed that problems and suffering would exist. You've ignored so many of my other points but I'll ask you to elaborate here, how could suffering be ended? Keep in mind that billions of children would have to be born to keep society going in this utopian future, all of whom will suffer and many suffer greatly on the road to the future I deny exists, is all of that sacrifice acceptable?

Who benefits from an alcoholic schizophrenic crack addict in a physically, emotionally, and sexually abusive long term relationship not bringing a child into that mix? The unborn child obviously. Or would such a person having a child and introducing them to the situation not be bad in your eyes? You being too selfish and inflexible to conceive of benefiting someone who could but doesn't exist isn't an argument.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

that's a staff

It's a spear, like if a staff and a dagger had a baby basically.

kind9 posted...

What about what I said implies that I want to simply reduce suffering? I said "eliminate suffering as much as possible." In case you didn't know, quality of life has been on a steady incline for centuries. As science and technology improves, who knows what the future holds? I mean other than you with your power of omniscience to claim as an undeniable fact that human suffering will always exist.

What does it matter if you eliminate human suffering when there are no humans left to experience that blissful existence? I don't care about imaginary people in imaginary worlds. I care about extant humanity. When there are no humans left and the concept of "good" no longer has meaning or application, what good have you accomplished?

Even if you could somehow reduce global human suffering by 99.9% of its current value that is still only reducing it, not ending it. I should not have to explain the meaning of basic words to you. I don't need to be omniscient to say human suffering is tied to human existence, it is something so simple a child could grasp it, the question is whether or not you accept that fact, which most people do by saying the suffering inherent to life is worth the good parts. If you actually think there is a way to totally eliminate all human suffering while humans exist, you're wrong to a staggering degree. Even in some insane sci-fi future where all wants and needs are instantly taken care of for humans and everyone is immortal and invulnerable (so that the suffering caused by death and injury are eliminated) there would still be problems, conflicts between people, boredom, the unsustainably of such a society. Hell if there were no problems at all, no possibility of ANY type of suffering no matter how small then no one would do anything. Why get out of bed in the morning if you were 100% satisfied while laying there? You don't need to eat, or piss, or even breathe because all of that is (somehow) not an issue. If you get up because you want to socialize then that means you weren't fully satisfied being alone which is impossible in this ridiculous utopia (remember how I just pointed out that the word utopia means NO WHERE?). No, the concept of life without suffering is oxymoronic at every level.

Suffering is negative, suffering is undesirable. If you want to be pedantic I'll say "true" suffering, that is suffering beyond the ability of a person to handle which serves no greater purpose or confers any benefits, is those things. Anyone who cares about morality should be able to acknowledge we should try to help people avoid true suffering as much as we can. "As much as we can" logically means we should aim for 100% reduction, or elimination of true suffering. As I have pointed out and the vast majority of the planet would agree with, this is impossible with any traditional means. Hence anti-natalism. That no one would be around to experience good things anymore is a complete nonissue as I have said several times unless you're a loon.

Reigning_King posted...

how many people would say that they find it disagreeable that potential people miss out on the joys of life? Who says that women should have as many children as they possibly can since it's a bad thing that their potential children are missing out?

Truth_Decay posted...

Don't complain that someone isn't paying attention or is misunderstanding you, when you yourself can't be bothered to pay attention and read someone's post.

...Are you being serious right now? Alright, I'm going to use this as a litmus test to see if you're capable of admitting that you're wrong.

The part of my post (#188) you quote in post #189 is referring to the first paragraph in your post #186, this:

Truth_Decay posted...

What makes you think people who suffer want their suffering to end through the means you're proposing? Very arrogant of you to assume your idea is something people need, or even want.

When I said you were talking about people who currently exist this is what I was referring to. The phrases "People who suffer" and "...something people need, or even want." very obviously shows you were talking about currently living people in this paragraph, after all people who haven't been born can't suffer nor do they have any wants or needs. You bringing up living people when they aren't the focus here is why I called you out by saying:

Reigning_King posted...

You, like so many others before you show a basic misunderstanding about what anti-natalism is. Here's a hint, it's in the name, natal as in birth. You're talking about currently living humans, I'm talking about potential humans, two different subjects. Also I've never claimed my philosophy was something anyone needed or (directly) wanted, pretty arrogant of you to put words in my mouth. I'm simply pointing out that it is the morally correct thing thing to do.

My first paragraph was a direct response to your first paragraph, that's generally how the exchanges have been going itt and just in forum discussions in general. I use that format because I like to try to cover every part of my opponent's posts instead of just focusing on a small part of it and ignoring the rest like you ha e consistently done to me.

You didn't bring up your hypothetical unborn cancer doctor until your fifth paragraph which my remark in my first obviously isn't talking about. Even ignoring the space between the statements and basic context clues I never said you were ONLY talking about humans who were alive, I was saying you're making the mistake of mixing the two groups and treating them like they were the same, which they aren't so there is literally no conflict here except in your head.

Truth_Decay posted...

Extreme ignorance on your part. I've laid out for you why in my first post, if you bother to actually read it.

...your first post? The one where you said:

Truth_Decay posted...

Can we ever achieve a life without *any* suffering? Absolutely not.

?

You're literally admitting that I'm correct to say suffering is intrinsically tied to human life, it is impossible to ever achieve a life without any suffering, yes. Please tell me how to end human suffering short of extinction if we will never find a way to be free of it in our current world? I want to END human suffering, not just REDUCE it, obviously there are many ways to do the latter but as I've said I don't think that's the right path. So where is my ignorance you quote coming from on THIS singular issue, think me a fool or madman on everything else but explain yourself here.

kind9 posted...

"Moreover, when asking what would be best for their future children, prospective parents are not asking about the comparative value of two possible worlds."

It's difficult to tackle the points in these snippets since I'm lacking full context but I would argue here that it is something parents should be asking themselves. Every time we deliberate about a choice we are basically trying to "see" parallel realities by imagining what outcomes each of our decisions will have. Nobody thinks about it like that since it's such a common everyday thing but still. I can sit here to myself and think "hmm, if I have a child I'll be forcing someone else to live a life they might find disagreeable or suffer in excessively for my own selfish reasons, but if I don't have a child then my hands will be free of those sins." I'm imagining two different worlds, and the lack of harm to my hypothetical child in World 2 is a definite bonus the way I see it.

kind9 posted...

Why have antinatalists given up on striving to eliminate as much suffering as possible by making life better for everyone? That is a noble cause. Antinatalism is more like a lazy escape route for edgelords.

There is a big difference in wanting to simply reduce the amount of human suffering in the world and wanting to eliminate it entirely. If suffering were a hydra it would be the difference between sacrificing countless soldiers to try to cut off it's heads and keep them more or less in check or sending a relatively small number to attack the body and kill it directly and for all time. I find the first approach wasteful and pointless, when one head is cut off (problem plaguing humanity solved), more will grow to replace it. Consider the literal meaning of the word Utopia, it means a place that exists nowhere.

I really don't get how you can call the reduction of human suffering noble but condemn the eradication of it.

Truth_Decay posted...

What makes you think people who suffer want their suffering to end through the means you're proposing? Very arrogant of you to assume your idea is something people need, or even want.

Everyone suffers, this is true. But for many, suffering is a small part of the overall life experience, and suffering is manageable.

Humans are adaptable. For people born into extreme poverty and famine, suffering becomes a part of life, and they find joy and happiness in their experience still. For many people born into seemingly impossible situations, who experience tremendous adversity, they still come away enjoying life. They don't look to throw up the white flag, they look for ways to improve their lives, and the lives of their forebears.

Aside from being incredibly arrogant of you to assume antinatalism is the best choice for ending human suffering, the idea that we should give up and end humanity is beyond ignorant. Every year we inch closer to ending cancer. Someone who isn't born yet could be the key to solving the riddle, and once we discover that cure, think of the countless numbers of people whose suffering - at least in terms of the cancer experience - will end. And that's one facet of suffering. You're proposing throwing in the towel. Future generations could solve so many issues that we face as a species, as well as issues that that have a negative effect on societies, environment, animal welfare, etc etc.

We should strive to improve upon each generation. Can we ever achieve a life without *any* suffering? Absolutely not. But many, and I'd hedge a bet that it's a vast majority, would choose to push forward and make incremental progress, rather than give in and wait for death.

You, like so many others before you show a basic misunderstanding about what anti-natalism is. Here's a hint, it's in the name, natal as in birth. You're talking about currently living humans, I'm talking about potential humans, two different subjects. Also I've never claimed my philosophy was something anyone needed or (directly) wanted, pretty arrogant of you to put words in my mouth. I'm simply pointing out that it is the morally correct thing thing to do.

This reeks of first world privilege. How many times a week do you go to sleep hungry? Thirsty? In pain? In fear? Really now.

Alright let me ask you, would you be fine switching places with someone in extreme poverty in a famine? I mean you're effectively claiming that one can't assess one's situation by any objective metric and suffering is 100% perception. What about if you were trapped in someone's basement torture and rape dungeon? I mean you could just adapt right? Find joy in being fed day old table scraps instead of week old ones right? That line of thinking also lays the blame of anyone who feels that they are suffering on themselves. If someone loses their legs in an accident and feels bad about it they should just adapt and get over it, they're choosing to feel bad about it by your logic. That totally isn't a disgusting and insulting way to think on your part.

The ONLY choice for ending human suffering is human extinction, literally nothing else would work. This isn't a matter of opinion, this is an outright, undeniable fact. As long as humans exist human suffering will exist. Anti-natalism is the least violent and least invasive method I can think of, there is no Infinity Gauntlet laying around that would let someone snap their fingers and bring it about instantly and painlessly. You point about a potential person curing cancer is irrelevant, if there are no humans in existence than there will be no human cancer to be cured, why bring millions if not billions of children into the world, all of whom are GUARANTEED to suffer, on a gamble that one of them might solve a problem that only exists because people are cruel enough to keep breeding in the first place? The very reason humans are animate in the first place is because of our problems. Every single action undertaken by any human is a striving to fulfill a desire, to meet a need, this "want" is inseparable from humanity.

Progress towards WHAT? You ignored my questions on that matter (and the other one) so I ask you directly to address them now, go on.

I'm going to get this back to the forefront since everyone ignored it and it leads into another facet of this issue.

Reigning_King posted...

Say you desire Outcome X and will do anything to avoid Outcome Y.
You believe that by following Plan A you will obtain Outcome X.
Later you learn objectively and without question that following Plan A will result in Outcome Y, not X.

Would you still follow Plan A or attempt to construct a Plan B?

I'll also ask another question, a very simple straightforward one.

To all pro-natalists... what is your end goal? Mine is ending human suffering as I've made clear. I would like to hear your own individual end games, how long you think it will take to achieve them by following a pro-natal path, and how sure you are you will get what you want after that time. I assume it must be something fabulously noble if you think that the end of human suffering is a bad idea since it would interfere with your own plans. Anyways in my case, all human suffering could be ended within a century with 100% certainty if everyone followed my philosophy.

kind9 posted...

"How can the absence of pain count in favor of a decision if there is no-one forwhom that absence is good?"

I covered this back on page 1 (and Benatar covers it in his book). Basically it boils down to the idea that most people can see a given thing/event would be cruel if it were to happen to a hypothetical person. This is why I've been pointing out that most people believe that at least certain people shouldn't breed, because it wouldn't be fair to their potential offspring for whatever reason. This is a completly natural way of think, to find the suffering of someone who doesn't, but could, exist disagreeable even though this suffering doesn't actually exist. On the other hand how many people would say that they find it disagreeable that potential people miss out on the joys of life? Who says that women should have as many children as they possibly can since it's a bad thing that their potential children are missing out? Far from being a natural mindset something like that sounds insane. There is clearly a case of asymmetry here.

Another way of looking at it is the counter factual sense where we look at a human who does or did exist in reality and imagine a parallel dimension where they didn't. What constitutes suffering and if all suffering is good or bad is debatable but I don't think it can be denied that some suffering is entirely pointless. It's an extreme example but consider two people who get into a car accident and while one dies instantly the other doesn't and instead dies a slow and agonizing death pinned down inside the wreak. The extra time the poor soul gets can't be used to do anything meaningful like call their family one last time or write a will, they simply suffer and die after awhile. I don't think it's controversial to say in that specific case they would have been better off simply dying instantly as well. Anyways back to the point, if you look at the life of anyone in "Universe A" you will see that they have some degree of suffering in their life. The non existence of this suffering in "Universe B" is obviously a benefit even if they don't exist, while the non existence of the joy and positive things they felt isn't an issue since they don't exist. Saying the joy they missed out on is relevant would be falling into the whole "producing as many people as possible so they don't miss out on the joy of life" insanity I brought up before.

Even if you completely reject this entire argument of asymmetry then you would still need to justify gambling with people's lives and why bringing anyone into the world who is likely to suffer more than they enjoy life isn't unethical. You would have to develop or adopt a method of quantifying the quality of a life (keeping in mind the distortion most people have about their quality of life) and show good evidence that any given unborn child will live a good life. It is simply not a defendable position.

OhhhJa posted...

Well, don't worry OP. Rest assured, nobody is gonna procreate with you anyway

You say that as if outside opinion on that subject is relevant to me at all. I don't want to, and would never do it but it's entirely my own choice.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

If you think there is an objectively correct solution to this puzzle, you're probably a virgin.

All the best gamers are my friend, so yeah.

If you think there isn't an objectively correct solution to this puzzle you've already failed.

Mad_Max posted...

Pot, meet kettle.

Sure you're not a shitposter? You're definitely acting like one.

...oh no, are you a shitposter who is also bad at constructing arguments?

faramir77 posted...

Go seek psychiatric help

I'm firmly grounded in reality unlike many of the people obsessed with covid.

Mad_Max posted...

"I'm rubber, you're glue! Waaaaahhhh!! "

So you weren't shitposting and you're just incredibly bad at producing worthwhile arguments? Well in that case I apologize, like I said I don't really remember much about you.

Metalsonic66 posted...

The absolute irony

Show me where I claimed to be akin to mr science man Clench.

faramir77 posted...

Literally the EASIEST thing we've been asked to do, and they won't do it.

How is getting one to two shots easier than washing your hands or wearing a mask?

faramir77 posted...

religiously

Key word of the rest of your rambling post. People really are treating this like a religion. I see people out riding their bikes without a soul anywhere near them and they're still wearing a mask, a person that devoted to your religion has almost assuredly gotten the vaccine too. It's actually pretty hilarious that the people who push for the vaccines the most seem to have the least faith in it actually helping aside from the conspiracy theory types. Then when the saints of this new religion, the CDC try to lower the level of fervor by saying the obvious that vaccinated people don't need to wear masks you people turn on them for their heresy of not fanning the flames of fear and panic.

Arcturusisnow posted...

You mean, like, before the vaccines came out? Yeah, what was your point? Oh, right, you didn't have one.

Reread my post and you might understand the point, I hope so at least it's pretty obvious.

Mad_Max posted...

Arcturusisnow posted...
Never does. Just shitposts stuff like it's fact without ever backing it up, sticks his fingers in his ears when someone explains how the real world works, then regurgitates the same moronic shit he said already, as though repeating it will somehow make it true. Figured his gimmick out quick with that antinatalist topic. His shit is boring already

Funny since aside from myself there was only one other person in my topic posting anything of worth, that is to say backed up by some sort of argument. I vaguely recall your username but nothing else so I have to assume you were simply one of the people actually shitposting there.

Man Clench, you're really bad at making any sort of point aren't you? I really hope to god you don't think you're clever in the slightest, but given how quick you were to try to bring up your "status" in that other topic I'm afraid you might be under such a delusion.

faramir77 posted...

That's a guy who is going to get the absolute shit kicked out of him and isn't aware of it yet.

And hopefully is such a thing happens the assailants are arrested and charged with assault. Physically attacking someone for saying a mean word (not even to them, or at that moment mind you so it would be premeditation and not "a crime of passion") isn't something that should be happening past middle school age or room temp IQ on the part of the person who can't control themselves.

If he said it to be rude (which he claims he didn't, and it seems he didn't) then that's a dickish thing to do but even if that was his intention imagine being an adult, not just any adult but one who is supposed to be a leader of sorts and crying because someone called you a mean word.

I seriously can't think of a single string of words someone could say to me that would elicit that type of reaction. This is what happens when people give too much weight and power to a word in their minds.

kind9 posted...
I don't remember why I brought it up. I think it was because you seemed to imply that because it's philosophy it can't reasonably be refuted. There are peer reviewed papers refuting this philosophy.

To answer my own question, 5-6 million years. Kind of weird to say "my philosophy" when you didn't come up with it. The dude who came up with it was mentioned earlier in the topic by the other antinatalist.

No what I'm thinking of is definitely an aspect of antinatalism. The lunatic who came up with this "efilism"(a word I had never heard until this moment) calls it "advanced antinatalism" and "secular atheism". Pure garbage philosophy. Here's the youtube "philosopher" who came up with it(he argues that you should drown cats to end their suffering):

https://youtu.be/fRS2t6saFBc

I mean, this is the obvious answer I expected from you, which is why I posed other questions there. It doesn't matter. At the end of the day this philosophy is based on highly subjective concepts that I doubt you could answer for. I'm sure Mr. Benatar has answers. He has injected his philosophy with answers to every objection. He even calls into question our ability to assess our own happiness. So if you thought you were happy think again, you should never have been born.

I'm interested in those papers since no one itt has come close to refuting a single one of the points I've made (with some still going unadressed), I'll have to look for them.

Your whole thread about life evolving after humans is totally irrelevant to the case I'm making just like you philosophy tangent and the concern for non human animals. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this for you to understand and stop wasting my time with it.

Another irrelevant time waster is you being obtuse enough to think when I say "my philosophy" I mean I invented anti-natalism. The United States is "my" country but I'm not saying I own it or anything when I say that. Also David Benatar is not the person who invented the idea either, he's just the popularized it in the modern era. There are old testament bible verses of men like Job lamenting that they had the misfortune of being born instead of dying in their mother's womb, and the general idea is almost assuredly older than that even.

I suppose I will say nothing that guy in the video says is wrong, it's just that the state of cats isn't a priority for anti-natalists. I also like how you call it garbage philosophy while in the same breath saying you only just now heard about it. Basing your understanding of it off of probably a free mintures worth of googling, very professional.

LeetCheet posted...

Could it be because, I dunno, people traveling all over the place(both nationally and internationally) and further spreading it?

It's so annoying to see commercials and ads about thanking people for staying home and then see other ads about traveling abroad during the summer for vacation.

But I guess that's what happens when money matters more than anything.

Oh no, people (who might have already had it, been vaccinated, get tested frequently, and like the vast majority of the population and don't have a high risk of a severe case if they do catch it, etc. for you know) want to actually live their lives, the horror! Things would be so much better of the lock downs had never ended and the government had just printed an infinite amount of money to hand out for free, I'm sure that wouldn't have had any negative effects at all.

Clench281 posted...

I've already explained why it's not worth trying to argue with you.

Why would anyone argue with the human equivalent of a white noise machine?

If you aren't going to (can't) back up your claims of being someone with a relevant scientific background don't bring it up and I won't have to take you to school, simple as.

Clench281 posted...

Self-reflection can be helpful.

Take some time to reflect on the fact that someone whose occupation is the discovery and dissemination of scientific knowledge--whose prime motivator in life is to increase scientific literacy in others--has declared you a lost cause.

(No idea how I accidentally posted this in the wrong topic before!)

Take your own advice and stop jerking yourself off, you aren't anyone special. You haven't made a single argument in any of your posts and you still need to fall back on some piece of paper that you may or may not even have for all I know, how sad.

Also you probably posted it in the wrong topic because you're upset, either way it seems you can make mistakes just like a mere human, wow.

kind9 posted...

I have no respect for people who think philosophy never fails or who use it to justify/buttress stupid beliefs or to con people. I've been calling antinatalism a philosophy this whole time in case you didn't notice, genius. So you can keep calling it what it is and I will too. Now that you know my disrespect isn't for philosophy itself you can go ahead and list those examples. And maybe go look up the meaning of "extremism". You might be surprised that it's not a synonym for terrorism.

Turns out you're right about the age of the sun, at least partially. It won't be closer to the earth, but it will be burning too bright and hot for the earth to sustain life. The sun won't start to expand until it begins to transition into a red giant in 5 billion years. How long did it take for humans to split from apes?

If you were consistent in your views shouldn't you extend antinatalism to all animals? Your reason for not doing so is because they're just "automatons" and don't experience suffering the same as we do. But how do you know that? Have we fully assessed the sapience of all animals? Do you use the same excuse to justify factory farming? Is the way that we experience suffering all that matters? What about children born with brain defects who don't experience suffering the same? What is the objective measure of suffering that you're using?

As I said it isn't relevant, even less so if you agree anti-natalism is one. I have no clue why you even brought up the subject in the first place while I have entire parts of my argument that have been ignored like post #126

For the third time, if humans were to die out there is basically zero chance of anything replacing us. Even if the chance did exist as I've said sapient aliens who suffer similar to humans might very well exist too but my philosophy is human focused as a matter of practicality. It isn't worth the trouble of searching the cosmos for these hypothetical aliens just like it isn't worth the trouble of worrying about hypothetical sapient species that could replace humanity.

What you're thinking of is called Efilism, which is slightly similar to anti-natalism except for all forms of life (efil being life backwards). The main difference being that since you can't convince a dog or cow to not breed forced sterilization or outright extermination would necessarily have to take place which isn't the case with anti-natalism. I've read their literature but I'm not a proponent of the school myself. The only relevant question in this final list is about the case of a brain damaged child who experiences suffering differently... and guess what, my opinion is that such a child should have never been born in the first place. This is the most basic part of anti-natalism, it is about preventing harm before it can ever occur, the focus isn't about people who already exist.

MeteoricBurst posted...

You didn't need to type up all the rest of that crap because this sums up your whole attitude. It's all about you not anybody else.

The reason I feel so strongly about this bullshit is because the over the top counter measures that were and are being taken are ultimately going to cause more human suffering than if they hadn't been taken. Even worse the people pushing them act like they're in the right, I might understand if they would openly admit that it was more about saving their own skin and keeping their power but instead they flood the media with all this sickening, sappy trash when they're the villains here.

Clench281 posted...

I didn't say you need help.

Clench281 posted...

I really wish I could help you

Damn, so upset you forgot what you posted like 20 minutes ago? Either that or you were saying you wished to help someone you didn't think needed help? I suppose that could be it, after all many people have been "helped" in this "difficult time" who didn't actually need it in the first place.

Clench281 posted...

I really wish I could help you

Unfortunately one needs a rudimentary level of understanding to even be receptive to what's going on, so there's not much we can do for you

Presumptuous of you to assume I need any help, not that an easily frightened and manipulated weakling like your lot could possibly help me even if I did need it. The only issues related to covid I've had since it started have had to do with the ridiculous over reaction by fear mongering politicians.

Clench281 posted...

Thank you random non-credentialed person on the internet for your epidemiological analysis! Your post surely contains a valuable perspective that we should care about over those who make the study of disease transmission their life's work.

If you actually read my post you'll notice the first line is "According to the people peddling the vaccines". Your passive aggressive little jab doesn't really work either way though since the same people are suddenly not to be trusted after saying vaccinated people don't need to wear masks according to the same people who demanded they be blindly followed just a few months ago.

Ironically the same people regurgitating the "trust science!" tag line don't even understand basic numbers let alone science. What a joke.

The actual term is Efilism.

https://efilism.fandom.com/wiki/Efilism_Wiki

Interesting stuff on a theoretical level, but I think it's pretty impractical. There's a book of sorts on the subject that was a nice read but because of the type of language used in it (and that it's 1,200 pages long) I don't think I can post a link but it's called "Ever Deeper Honestly" and is available for free online if you look for it.

Naruto_fan_42 posted...

if you have a genetic disorder you can adopt a child, which is better for the environment and reducing current suffering than having your own

I think most people would broadly agree with this sort of thought, which means they realize that there are some lives which aren't worth starting or at least that it is a moral transgression to start them (as I've said, a life worth starting and a life worth living are two separate things). That means that anti-natalism isn't as divorced from their mindset as most of those same people would want to believe. We both agree on this key point, that unborn children should not be subjected to undue suffering by being born, the only difference is that I'm much less picky about what I call undue suffering.

Zareth posted...

I mean, if you can't afford to have kids, you shouldn't

Why not? What is your basis for saying that?

According to the people peddling the vaccines they're super effective and considering the amount of people who have gotten it as well as the amount of people who already had the virus it's pretty much impossible for this to reach the heights they did. I mean I guess it took more than two weeks to flatten the curve like the puppets liked to repeat ad nauseum but at this point it's undeniably been done, unless you're the type who likes constantly being in fear over nothing I guess.

adjl posted...

It's making a comeback right now. The current 7-day average for daily new cases is triple what it was a month ago.

...and what was it a month ago compared to the beginning of the year or this time last year? Tripeling a small number isn't really that impressive.

Mead posted...

Lazy trolling from a sad alt account, ya hate to see it folks

I mean... are you saying he's wrong?

Ashley Mizuki Robbins.

ReturnOfFa posted...

Stop trying to paint nonsensical portraits of other people using negative implications that are also involved in your bizarre point of view. Another total contradiction.

That kind of thinking is pretty common though, it's just the degree that matters for most. For example even though you're pro-natal would you think it was right for a couple who knew they had the recessive genes that produce Tay-Sachs disease to reproduce? If you don't know what that is here's the wikipedia article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay%E2%80%93Sachs_disease
The long and short of it though is that if their child inherited the disease they would be guaranteed to die an excruciating death before they turned 5 years old. If a couple knew this could be the fate of any children they had, would you think it irresponsible of them to take that gamble? I think most people would say it wouldn't be fair for the potential child.

That's on the extreme end but there's a whole spectrum, should someone with schizophrenia have children and possibly pass it onto them? What about this?
https://youtu.be/7oqX64KW7og
As you go up the spectrum there are plenty of people who believe that people too poor to care for their children shouldn't have them, and some extend that to certain ethnic groups and so on but even before that point it's still a type of judgemental discrimination.
"My life is so nice, I'm glad I was born, but how on earth can [insert group X here] stand to bring more of their kind into existence?"

I don't discriminate, I don't think anyone should have kids period.

Adjl, your problem is that you are starting from the assumption that because life has always existed in a certain way that must be the right way and any contradictions to that way must be the wrong way. Anti-natalism is obviously a fringe philosophy but because of that I understand both sides, having been raised in and indoctrinated by a pro-natal society as all of the rest of you. Once again I applaud you for your professional conduct but I can't help but feel the most productive type of debate would have to be between two people who understand both sides. May I suggest to you (and anyone else) the premiere anti-natalist work, Better Never to have Been by David Benatar.

Beyond expanding your mind he is far more articulate than I and gets the main points across better than I can. I'm not withdrawing from this debate by any mean but I wanted to post this as a thank you of sorts.

adjl posted...

Sure there is. If you enjoy your life, you're personally invalidating the belief that life is something harmful that should not be inflicted upon people by giving birth to them. You are yourself deciding that living is worthwhile because it has been a net positive experience.

Provided you apply a pretty useless definition of "harm," that's a plausible argument. But the thing about useless definitions is that they're useless, so that doesn't really amount to much. Your first premise is also innately flawed: It's perfectly ethical to harm somebody without their consent, provided they are incapable of deciding for themselves and that harm is necessary to attain a benefit that clearly outweighs it. The "harm" that every human can reasonably be expected to experience is not so bad as to outweigh the positive experiences that one will generally have if one exists, so the whole "technically everyone faces some quantity of suffering" thing does nothing to invalidate the net positive effect of being born.

Now, that's not to say there aren't situations where it's likely that the child will suffer such that their life is a net negative experience. In those cases, reproducing is indeed irresponsible and inconsiderate. Attempting to generalize those circumstances to the population as a whole, however, is just plain silly.

There is a difference between thinking a life is worth living and thinking a life is worth starting. I'm sure you've gone to the movies or a restaurant where the film or meal wasn't perfect, maybe it wasn't even that great, but how often do you abruptly stand up in the middle of the film/meal and just walk out? I mean you're already there, it would have to be pretty terrible to just leave wouldn't it? Now on the other hand say you knew before ever leaving the house that you probably wouldn't think it was the best, you would naturally look for another film/restuarant to go to right? That's the difference between starting something and continuing it except it's not the best analogy since in that case you're making a choice for yourself and in the case of procreation you're playing with the life of another person, forcing them into a situation that you know for a fact will involve the ordinary types of human suffering I've covered as well as God knows what else. A given person might enjoy their own life and be thankful they were born despite the hardships they've suffered but that doesn't mean they should have free reign to make that same choice for someone else who might not have their positive personality or might simply suffer vastly more than they have.

We clearly disagree on the usage of the word harm so I'll move on to the bolded part. I would actually agree with you here, for example if I was in a house fire and had fallen unconscious and someone needed to push me out of a first story window to save me I would take the bruises and minor cuts in exchange for my life. However, change that first story window to a third story one where I might just die anyways or end up handicapped if I hit the ground wrong and things start to change. You see I agree with your statement but it isn't relevant to our discussion for the simple fact that the benefit you speak of isn't guaranteed, it's a gamble. You can not guarantee with any certainty the type of life a child will have. Harming someone, causing them suffering with certainty without their consent because you think it might be in their best interests is unethical unless you can prove the chance of that benefit is 100%. Say I steal $10,000 from you and invest it in a project that has a 99% chance of doubling your money, all of which I plan on giving back to you but I'm unlucky and lose it all, would you really say I haven't done something unethical? Would you just shrug and say it's fine because my heart was in the right place? This is also a somewhat poor analogy since you are a flesh and blood human who needs money to survive (or in the other example I'm a human who wishes not to burn in a fire), but in the case of an unborn child they have no interests. A child who doesn't exist can not care one way or the other that they don't exist and are missing out on the great benefit you arrogantly claim to exist for the average person. By bringing them into reality they are being harmed for something they can not care about, they is no benefit, not even for the potential child of the world's best couple. This is all ignoring my other points about how happiness can't even exist without suffering and all that, no matter how you look at it, it simply isn't ethical.

And here you admit it's a gamble. Tell me, how is one supposed to determine which births are "inconsiderate" before the child is born? Consult a fortune teller? No, it's always a gamble, the child of a homeless woman can live a "blessed" life and the child of a wealthy couple can be full of misery and terror. Reusing an analogy from earlier it's playing Russian roulette with someone else and if they're shot the culprits (the parents) can just shrug and say "oh well" and get away with it, how on earth is that fair or just? People can't control luck but they can control if they deliberately endanger people which is what having a child is (once again ignoring what I've said about the intrinsically harms of living).

Your point here is actually pretty close to a eugenics stance as well. Like should the poor who can't properly care for their children not be allowed to breed? What about those with hereditary disabilities or maybe low IQ? Who are you to say which people is certain situations should and shouldn't have children?

KodyKeir posted...

well there is your problem, your optimistic outlook

Yep, it's pretty regrettable how much suffering such a "happy" disposition brings to the world without people even knowing it. Optimism is the cause of untold amounts of harm. My boy Schopenhaur has plenty of quotes pointing this out but two of my favorites are these from The World as Will and Representation.

"optimism, where it is not just the thoughtless talk of someone with only words in his flat head, strikes me as not only absurd, but even a truly wicked way of thinking, a bitter mockery of the unspeakable sufferings of humanity."

"if we were to conduct the confirmed optimist through the hospitals, infirmaries, and surgical operating-rooms, through the prisons, torture-chambers, and slave-kennels, over battle-fields and places of execution; if we were to open to him all the dark abodes of misery, where it hides itself from the glance of cold curiosity, and, finally, allow him to glance into the starving dungeon of Ugolino, he, too, would understand at last the nature of this best of possible worlds"

Zedonra posted...

I don't know if the anti natalist perspective means much versus just hoping for the mass and quick extinction of all humankind (and all life). If you're being an absolute realist humanist who hates human suffering then life is inherently evil because it brings about suffering inherently and the world is a really unfair, cruel, and unjust place (not to mention all the horrific things we lucky 1st worlders don't see on a daily basis and ignore the fact that they exist). You can't really stop people from procreating even if you adopt this perspective, so you have to hope for a global extinction event (or bring it about yourself with global thermonuclear war, but you'd have to be one hell of a powerful human with luck on their side too to bring that extinction about yourself. And even then global thermonuclear war could leave survivors. Maybe in the future when we understand science to the point where we could annihilate the earth in a quick fell swoop). The quickest death that could be imparted to all life on this planet is probably spaghettification by a wandering black hole or gamma ray burst. Not sure how quick exactly and how much pain would be caused by either extinction event in the moments before death.

I wouldn't be opposed to a sudden mass extinction mostly because as you say my suggestions for a peaceful man made one are extremely unlikely to pass. Realistically we're looking at a long and drawn out, unplanned one with unnecessary suffering, but even that is better than no extinction at all. I talk about anti-natalism since as impractical as it is, it's still something that isn't just a hope or a dream, something that places the power to choose in the hands of the individual.

ReturnOfFa posted...

PS the animal kingdom also creates suffering, even though they are of nature. Should they be controlled? Will they create magical peace Earth after humans peacefully die off? LOL NO MOTHERFUCKER!!!

Nonhuman animals are effectively biological automata simply following the program that is DNA that tells them to replicate endlessly for no reason. They aren't nearly as relevant as humanity since some of us are actually capable of going against our programming and seeing it for the pointless sham that it is. Humans are uniquely able to reach the conclusions I've come to not just because of our intelligence but also something that no wild animals has, free time. Time to ponder is what gives birth to philosophy. Many humans are living lives akin to animals where all they do is think about how to get by, how to put food on the table one more day, they have no time for higher thoughts than that and so they dismiss those who do, that is happening itt but imagine if I went to some 3rd world country and tried this there, I would be ridiculed far more if not seen as insane.

This time to think is both a blessing and a curse, it is the reason suicide and rates of depression are so much higher in the 1st world than the 3rd world, but I'm glad I had it and was able to utilize it. The point I'm trying to get to is that as the world becomes more and more advanced (automation, ubi, etc) and more and more of humanity is given this time you will see more and more people come to the same conclusion I have. Humans are special, we need to use that speciality to break the chains that have enslaved us, the other animals aren't as lucky so they will just have to live out their days under their yoke.

Mead posted...

Every part of this entire topic is bad

Don't insult my sword drawing.

Mad_Max posted...

Feel bad for TC, honestly. Imagine being so consumed with suffering that you don't see a point to existing any more. Like, I've cut off a finger. Lost my mother to a car accident. I've experienced some pretty hefty pain and trauma in my life, but I have never sunk so low that I'd want all of humanity to die off. I enjoy life, despite the "sad bits". He must be miserable. Poor fella :(

And trying to pass it off like it's some noble effort, preventing potential future suffering in unborn children?? That's some flawed rationale if I've ever heard it.

"Someone might stub their toe, so I better cut every human being's feet off"

That's stupid.

And that half-baked "well you only perceive joy because you suffer and vice versa blah blah blah" - that's all bullshit. You still experience joy and happiness, and many people go through life feeling happy a majority of the time. Why would you want to rob future people of a life of happiness and fulfillment, just to avoid a small percentage of suffering.

Imagine feeling so hopeless that you'd rather give up on humanity, rather than work to make life better and address the problems we face.

And the gall to think that because you can't enjoy life, that somehow think you know what's best for everyone else. If you're so miserable, focus on your own problems. Where do you get off feeling like you can speak for the entire world on this matter?

Seriously, tell your cousin or sister or aunt or whomever that they should get a hysterectomy so they prevent their unborn children from suffering, and see what kind of a reaction you get.

This is one of the dumbest topics I've seen on this board. And there's been a lot of dumb topics on this board.

Keep your fake sympathy, I've never once said I find life to be disagreeable. Someone can be an anti-natalist and love life, there is no conflict of interest there. So many of you seem to have trouble distinguishing between those currently living and those yet to live, current humanity can do as they please with their own lives but by bringing another human into existence they are immorally involving someone else.

What is so flawed about that line of thought? It is undeniable that all humans suffer, it is undeniable that all humans are born, it is therefore undeniable that all humans who are born suffer. Truthfully the burden of explaining why this is acceptable should fall on the people bringing these humans into existence, I shouldn't even need to point these simple facts out.

In your "example" the act of cutting off all feet would cause immeasurably more suffering than the occasional stubbed toe. If you honestly believe that is a valid analogy for what I'm saying then you are effectively saying that the non-act of not being born is far more painful and debilitating than the suffering inherent to life. You're going to need to explain this, do you believe that before being born everyone has a soul that is tortured endlessly in some hellscape or something? How can someone who doesn't exist feel pain? Also by your logic people would have a moral duty to have as many children as they possibly could since they would be "saving them" from "having their feet cut off" in exchange for life as a human which is only like "stubbing a toe". Please explain yourself here.

I see you go on to literally say that the extinction of humanity would "rob" future people of the chance to experience happiness... so you do actually think people have a duty to have as many children as they can? I mean otherwise those people are being immoral for "robbing" their potential children right? Tell me, every time you see a woman who isn't pregnant do you feel sad for her potential child who could have fun one day if only she got knocked up? Sorry but that sounds insane to me.

As I've pointed out all problems humanity face are intrinsically tied to being alive. Anyone who claims to be a humanitarian and doesn't advocate for human extinction is incredibly inefficient and ineffectual at best and a blatant hypocrite at worse. Human suffering will exist as long a single human does, if you're cool with pointless suffering then fine but some people aren't.

There is a very simple formula that shows I am correct, at least from the moral perspective. I posted it ages ago (post #26) and only a single person even acknowledged it and only to futilely try to poke holes in it. I'm not saying everyone has to do the morally correct thing in every instance but they should at least be able to admit they are acting selfishly (having a child) openly. That is the first step to change.

Unfortunately even that is too much for most given the reactions I've gotten itt. The average person is too indoctrinated by breeder society and has vested interests in continuing it, not to mention wanting to avoid the cognitive dissonance the truth of my philosophy brings them.

ReturnOfFa posted...

Who will care for the final generation of elderly? Sounds like a lot of suffering. Inconsistent paradoxical and performative.

The extinction could be gradual, but I'm not a fan of that route since while a baby being born for a specific purpose and for the benefit of the remainder of humanity is assuredly better than one being born for the common reasons (or no reason) it is still selfish.

Since this plan could only ever work with global collaboration in the first place I believe that by combining the resources and knowledge of all countries we could build automated facilities for the final generation to live out their final days in relative comfort. If we started tomorrow we would have a solid 50 years or so to do it, and probably longer than that.

Even in a situation where something like that didn't happen and everyone was just left to find for themselves the amount of suffering would be large but magnitudes smaller than the amount our normal everyday way of living produces and the most important thing is that it would be a finite amount of suffering.

adjl posted...

So now you're not even citing actual harm, you're relying on the brain subconsciously perceiving harm and thereby assigning greater positive feelings to something that better avoids that.

"Not suffering" and "not having room to improve" are two very, very different things. Winning a million dollars is not suffering, but I'd still be better off if I won $2 million.

The position you're trying to argue seems to amount to "everyone's life sucks and if they think it doesn't it's because their brain has tricked them into enjoying their Sisyphean struggle against their inevitable suffering and death," which is an utterly useless way to look at anything. Yes, you can find measurable harm and negativity in everyone's life if you take a sufficiently vague, high-level approach to it. Nobody cares. Nobody is actually unhappy because sometimes they need to poop. The idea that they ought to be is thoroughly ridiculous.

As I said in the very post you're replying to, "goodness" can also be granted for preemptively avoiding harm, and I don't get your point about the brain anticipating harm as somehow not real harm. If someone points a gun at you but hasn't actually shot you yet and your brain causes you feel an overwhelming amount of fear in anticipation of being shot and to try to make you do whatever you need to to avoid that outcome is that fear somehow not actual harm?

You have a very bad habit of not actually answering my questions (although I do appreciate that you're at least trying to be civil unlike everyone else). In my hypothetical would the man be better off or not? In his assessment he's perfectly fine but how many others would say that he is correct? Is self evaluation the end all be all for if someone is suffering? Keep in mind the documented psychological phenomena I've already pointed out before answering.

You can it a useless mindset only because you refuse to accept that there is only one solution to the problem. Nobody cares because they too refuse to accept the solution, actively or passively humanity has accepted that suffering, and bring more children into existence to suffer (with no end goal or point to any of this I should point out) is a better alternative to extinction. This is completely illogical and immoral, but understandable I suppose. All I want to do is help people see the error of their ways.

Also on the issue of pooping being a harm, it absolutely is. As I've said another aspect of human psychology is that when evaluating our quality of life we compare it to that of our peers to form a base line even if another group would put our peer group far above or below their own. That is the reason rich people, even the super filthy rich don't report themselves to be much happier if at all than those in poverty unless they are specifically asked to compare themselves across groups. Anyways, all humans poop, we are all in the poop peer group together so it isn't seen as a positive or a negative but that absolutely doesn't mean that it isn't. A being similar to a human in all ways except that they never needed to poop with no downside would be inarguably more efficient and suffer less than a normal human. This goes for all natural processes. In the past when life expectancy was low a man dying at 35 might not be seen as anything particularly tragic, and a man dying at 60 could have been considered to have lived a good long life. Now the reaction to both would be very different, the family would suffer more grief than their ancient counterpart most probably. Today if a man reaches 100 years old it is a major milestone to be celebrated and no one ever feels bad because so and so didn't live to be 200 instead because such a thing is (currently) impossible. Why shouldn't the inability to live to 200 or go without pooping be seen as a harm? Because you lack the imagination to envision a future where such a thing is possible and our time is looked back on as pitiful for having had to suffer such things?