Emerging Voices | IMDB v2.1

Emerging Voices Apr 19, 2018 13:41:53 GMT

Quote

Post by viola on Apr 19, 2018 13:41:53 GMT

Apr 18, 2018 23:58:20 GMT @miccee said:

Apr 18, 2018 20:59:54 GMT viola said:

The anti-natalist position being the exact opposite of my own, I feel the need to oppose it, as its proponent’s fervor seems inexhaustible. He seems to by turns appeal to some “objective” ethics supposedly dictated by nature (“bad” is what evolution programs us to avoid, “good” merely the avoidance and amelioration of the bad) and some “subjectivist” belief that bad is what any given individual feels is bad. Thus, he seems to have taken the worst of both orientations to their dead end – in his view, life, especially sentient life, should be eliminated to remove any “suffering” from the universe.

Earlier in the thread, I mentioned Erikson and his idea of “negative identity” as well as Hofkirchner and his idea of values in historical context. Putting the former in such context, I found some articles. The first is a research thesis that connects Erikson’s idea to borderline personality disorder, which it finds overwhelmingly correlates with insecure attachment styles. The next is a meta-analysis showing such attachment styles, or dispositions, result from mistreatment of very young children. While neoliberalism, with its alienating effects, continues to encroach on every aspect of our lives, I do see some progress in countering these effects, especially for emerging voices.

Interesting that you "feel the need to oppose it" by not directly addressing anyone actually propounding antinatalist views and instead hiding your opposition in a thread with a title that has nothing to do with antinatalism.

I think that people should be allowed to determine how much suffering is worth the reward for themselves. I do not think that they should be freely able to drag along other people in their joy ride, when all the needs, desires and goals for doing so reside only in the mind of the people doing the imposing, and the costs will almost entirely be paid by the person upon whom the burden is being imposed.

Evolution does not work towards creating 'satisfied' and 'happy' beings, it works towards creating organisms that are best adapted to surviving in the environment in which they reside. In the case of sentient organisms, suffering is the mechanism which drives evolutionary success. An organism whose baseline disposition is one of satisfaction is one that is not strongly motivated to compete with other organisms; nor even strongly motivated to meet its own biological needs for continued living.

This thread has evolved from one about control of the media (one way voices emerge,) to one encompassing other forms of control. Your position has been formed by cultural forces in line with those that ended the fairness doctrine -- using Darwinism rather than earlier forms of belief to justify itself. You seem to accept this appeal to an "objective" morality, but are guided by some feeling that life is "torture." My last post shows evidence that this feeling is at most a phenotypic response to the environment (including the culture that arose from the aforementioned forces.) Thus, these feelings are treatable and not metaphysical.

goz: I think this answers your question also -- Let me know!