|
Post by phludowin on Dec 15, 2017 13:06:47 GMT
I still exist because suicide is difficult, for one reason and another. Also, I think that if I can be part of spreading consciousness of this philosophy, I may be able to contribute towards saving other people from suffering in the future.So in other words, you have found a purpose in life that makes the advantages of existing outweigh the advantages of non-existing. In other words: As long as you live, you are living proof that your antinatalist view is deeply flawed; one could even say hypocritical. It's ok not to have children (I neither have nor want them, and I'm a 50 year old virgin), but it's not ok to tell others how to live their lives; in particular guilt-tripping them for having children or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 13:09:56 GMT
tpfkar I think that it's highly disputable that people have an informed preference for existence over non-existence. But setting that aside, the consideration is whether people would be worse off for not coming into existence, and whether there is any benefit that is compelling enough to justify the collateral damage which is imposed on the unfortunate. In the scenario where nobody exists, there is no wellbeing to be harmed, and a barren universe can never be unfair or unjust. Sure, I'm sure you can dispute anything and try to wash it away with "they don't think like I think ![(Emojipedia 5.0) Crazy Face](https://s26.postimg.org/p3lh61a61/emojipedia_grinning-face-with-one-large-and-one-.png) ". It's simply not disputable that the vast majority would refer to have had the option than none. And "worse off" is highly subjective, and not your highly morbid Great Objective. There is no necessary collateral damage to be imposed on the unfortunate; certainly not like Trump-exterminating them and putting countless through additional eras of savagery & barbarity at the behest of your psychopathy & personal inability to thrive. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"By 'informed', I mean that they don't really know what it is they fear with regards to death. They just have a primal and base fear of dying, because the same is a product of evolution (animals that didn't have this strong aversion to death would not have survived in order to pass on their genes, hence natural selection favours animals with a strong aversion to death). Their preference for life over death reflects more on their fear of death, rather than their an endorsement of life. And no non-existent people would prefer to have the option to live rather than no option. One needs to first come into existence in order to appreciate the value of choice, before one can have a preference. Since a lot of risks have to be taken in order to get someone to the point where they are able to appreciate the choice, and given that they will not miss out on the choice were they not to be born, then there is no moral imperative to bring them into existence and a strong moral imperative to refrain from presuming consent.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 15, 2017 13:10:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Dec 15, 2017 13:10:48 GMT
I realize your philosophy makes it impossible to answer my question, even tough my question is directly involved with your philosophy. With such a pessimistic view of the human race.. why do you bother? I don't understand your question. Are you saying that life is worth it as some kind of 'endurance test' to see what kind of suffering can be withstood? What would be the point of such an experiment? Are you approaching this from a theological perspective, of a God who puts us through our paces, or what? My question was 'How are we going to know who can handle suffering if there are no people?' I arrived at that question because you seem to be saying that because we can't guarantee that a new baby will not suffer, we should not have that baby. I'm wondering how and when you'd find it 'safe' to have a baby.. and how we'd be sitting here pondering such things at all if everyone had the same mentality as you do. Do you resent your parents for creating you? Do you hold them personally responsible for all your sufferings? I don't have the perspective that 'God is putting us through paces'. My perspective is that we are all 'God' experiencing mortality, lost love, pain, and impermanence. Do you not plant a garden because it might get some weeds in it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 13:18:35 GMT
I still exist because suicide is difficult, for one reason and another. Also, I think that if I can be part of spreading consciousness of this philosophy, I may be able to contribute towards saving other people from suffering in the future.So in other words, you have found a purpose in life that makes the advantages of existing outweigh the advantages of non-existing. In other words: As long as you live, you are living proof that your antinatalist view is deeply flawed; one could even say hypocritical. It's ok not to have children (I neither have nor want them, and I'm a 50 year old virgin), but it's not ok to tell others how to live their lives; in particular guilt-tripping them for having children or not. Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. The people who are alive now can help to prevent harm from being inflicted on those whose wellbeing would be equally as valuable as our own wellbeing, and therefore to exist in order to (hopefully) prevent the existence of those future people is a selfless sacrifice. The only advantage of existing that I have outlined concerns preventing others from existing in the future; which is the opposite of an endorsement of the value of existence. Even those antinatalists who do greatly enjoy their own existence are not hypocrites, because they will freely admit that they would not have missed out on any of the joys of existence had they not been born to begin with, and they are concerned with the fact that whilst they are enjoying their lives, others must endure an undeserved lifetime of grievous suffering. There's no mechanism of desert or fairness to separate those who enjoy their existence from those who are tortured every minute of their existence. It's a lottery. I generally agree with you that we should stay out of other people's business; but only when their choices pertain to that person's own welfare and nobody else's. Having children is not such a case, because the children are the ones who will have to deal with whatever capricious fortune throws their way. Personal liberty should not extend to unilaterally making risky decisions for someone else, without gaining that other person's consent.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 15, 2017 13:18:46 GMT
tpfkar Sure, I'm sure you can dispute anything and try to wash it away with "they don't think like I think ![(Emojipedia 5.0) Crazy Face](https://s26.postimg.org/p3lh61a61/emojipedia_grinning-face-with-one-large-and-one-.png) ". It's simply not disputable that the vast majority would refer to have had the option than none. And "worse off" is highly subjective, and not your highly morbid Great Objective. There is no necessary collateral damage to be imposed on the unfortunate; certainly not like Trump-exterminating them and putting countless through additional eras of savagery & barbarity at the behest of your psychopathy & personal inability to thrive. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"By 'informed', I mean that they don't really know what it is they fear with regards to death. They just have a primal and base fear of dying, because the same is a product of evolution (animals that didn't have this strong aversion to death would not have survived in order to pass on their genes, hence natural selection favours animals with a strong aversion to death). Their preference for life over death reflects more on their fear of death, rather than their an endorsement of life. And no non-existent people would prefer to have the option to live rather than no option. One needs to first come into existence in order to appreciate the value of choice, before one can have a preference. Since a lot of risks have to be taken in order to get someone to the point where they are able to appreciate the choice, and given that they will not miss out on the choice were they not to be born, then there is no moral imperative to bring them into existence and a strong moral imperative to refrain from presuming consent.Pure convenient speculation on your part to try to dismiss "they don't have my morbidity". You have no clue what they "just have", but like anything else you're willing to state outright on no basis other than what you feel. The primal fear of dying only affects those that find life to be net-positive, and you're in that group. And there is no need for your religious "moral imperative". The option of the experience life is it's own reward. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Dec 15, 2017 13:25:27 GMT
I get it, I'm watching a lot of my peers settle down and form families. And while I have settled down I haven't taken any real attempts at starting a family. Nor do I really intend to any time soon. There is a lot of peer pressure, intentional or not, from everyone around you to do the typical stuff. Go to college, meet a mate, buy a house, have children, etc. But you really gotta weigh what you want. The worst thing you could do is start a family and then not want it. I've seen it a lot within my family and friends. It fosters neglect and hard feeling and ultimately creates an unhappy home life for everyone involved. But if a family tickles your fancy start the search. I'm not big on dating websites but there's a ton of them out there to at least dip your feet in the waters. 40 isn't too late to have a kid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 13:25:48 GMT
I don't understand your question. Are you saying that life is worth it as some kind of 'endurance test' to see what kind of suffering can be withstood? What would be the point of such an experiment? Are you approaching this from a theological perspective, of a God who puts us through our paces, or what? My question was 'How are we going to know who can handle suffering if there are no people?' I arrived at that question because you seem to be saying that because we can't guarantee that a new baby will not suffer, we should not have that baby. I'm wondering how and when you'd find it 'safe' to have a baby.. and how we'd be sitting here pondering such things at all if everyone had the same mentality as you do. Do you resent your parents for creating you? Do you hold them personally responsible for all your sufferings? I don't have the perspective that 'God is putting us through paces'. My perspective is that we are all 'God' experiencing mortality, lost love, pain, and impermanence. Do you not plant a garden because it might get some weeds in it? There is no way of finding that out without creating people. But also no reason to want to find out. ![](https://s26.postimg.org/gf93ycxax/giveup.gif) It can never be safe to have a baby, because at present, we do not know who is going to draw the short straw from who is going to win the jackpot. Therefore, since the one who draws the short straw (disability, disease, cancer, mental illness, financial insecurity, etc) are equally valuable and important as those who win the jackpot, then we must refrain from entering those people's numbers into the lottery altogether. I certainly wish that my parents hadn't created me; but I know that 'free will' is an illusion and they probably hadn't thought of having children as being a selfish and risky endeavour whereby they were gambling with someone else's wellbeing. Based on your perspective, what do you think the point of existence is, if there is one? Is there anything that's actually productive about our existence, and experience of mortality, lost love, pain and impermanence, when we compare that condition to a barren universe? Do you ever wistfully reflect on the barrenness of Mars and feel that the would-be Martians who don't exist are missing out on something important? Vegetation doesn't draw any distinction between what is a weed and what is a flower. I would plant the garden thinking that it would benefit me personally, and safe in the knowledge that my choice would not be imposing any harm or risk on the plants in the garden.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 15, 2017 13:26:22 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 13:26:55 GMT
tpfkar By 'informed', I mean that they don't really know what it is they fear with regards to death. They just have a primal and base fear of dying, because the same is a product of evolution (animals that didn't have this strong aversion to death would not have survived in order to pass on their genes, hence natural selection favours animals with a strong aversion to death). Their preference for life over death reflects more on their fear of death, rather than their an endorsement of life. And no non-existent people would prefer to have the option to live rather than no option. One needs to first come into existence in order to appreciate the value of choice, before one can have a preference. Since a lot of risks have to be taken in order to get someone to the point where they are able to appreciate the choice, and given that they will not miss out on the choice were they not to be born, then there is no moral imperative to bring them into existence and a strong moral imperative to refrain from presuming consent.Pure convenient speculation on your part to try to dismiss "they don't have my morbidity". You have no clue what they "just have", but like anything else you're willing to state outright on no basis other than what you feel. The primal fear of dying only affects those that find life to be net-positive, and you're in that group. And there is no need for your religious "moral imperative". The option of the experience life is it's own reward. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.So do you think that the "Net positive" is a purely intellectual calculation of life's benefits versus its drawbacks?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 15, 2017 13:28:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Dec 15, 2017 13:36:37 GMT
1. I certainly wish that my parents hadn't created me. 2. Based on your perspective, what do you think the point of existence is, if there is one? Is there anything that's actually productive about our existence, and experience of mortality, lost love, pain and impermanence, when we compare that condition to a barren universe? Do you ever wistfully reflect on the barrenness of Mars and feel that the would-be Martians who don't exist are missing out on something important? 3. Vegetation doesn't draw any distinction between what is a weed and what is a flower. I would plant the garden thinking that it would benefit me personally, and safe in the knowledge that my choice would not be imposing any harm or risk on the plants in the garden. 1. Sucks to be you I guess. I'm personally glad my parents created me, flaws and all. 2. To quote Alan Watts, I believe we are aperatures through which the Universe looks at itself. I believe we are here to notice things, help others and be witness to beauty. No, I do not look at Mars and wonder that.. that seems like silly nonsense to me and I can't imagine anyone thinking that. I look at Mars and think 'It's amazing that a tiny dot so inspired someone like Kim Stanley Robinson.' 3. You missed the point of the analogy. The point was that the question 'Why bother trying to make anything beautiful if it can be marred by ugliness' is pessimistic and will lead to no beauty and nothing created. I actually embrace nothingness, that's why I enjoy spending long periods in a sensory deprivation tank.. But part of the wonder of the experience of nothingness is that everything can come out of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 13:44:22 GMT
1. I certainly wish that my parents hadn't created me. 2. Based on your perspective, what do you think the point of existence is, if there is one? Is there anything that's actually productive about our existence, and experience of mortality, lost love, pain and impermanence, when we compare that condition to a barren universe? Do you ever wistfully reflect on the barrenness of Mars and feel that the would-be Martians who don't exist are missing out on something important? 3. Vegetation doesn't draw any distinction between what is a weed and what is a flower. I would plant the garden thinking that it would benefit me personally, and safe in the knowledge that my choice would not be imposing any harm or risk on the plants in the garden. 1. Sucks to be you I guess. I'm personally glad my parents created me, flaws and all. 2. To quote Alan Watts, I believe we are aperatures through which the Universe looks at itself. I believe we are here to notice things, help others and be witness to beauty. No, I do not look at Mars and wonder that.. that seems like silly nonsense to me and I can't imagine anyone thinking that. I look at Mars and think 'It's amazing that a tiny dot so inspired someone like Kim Stanley Robinson.' 3. You missed the point of the analogy. The point was that the question 'Why bother trying to make anything beautiful if it can be marred by ugliness' is pessimistic and will lead to no beauty and nothing created. I actually embrace nothingness, that's why I enjoy spending long periods in a sensory deprivation tank.. But part of the wonder of the experience of nothingness is that everything can come out of it. 1. Yes, but you wouldn't have missed existing had your parents not created you. 2. I used to flirt with similar kinds of mystical beliefs. 3. Sorry I missed the point of the analogy. I agree that the potential of a beautiful thing being marred by ugliness is not sufficient reason to refrain from creating the beauty. But you can't really extend that to cases where someone else's wellbeing is on the line. Most lives have some kind of balance between good and bad, but some consist of nothing more than unremitting suffering. If we green light the endeavour of creating more human life, then we must accept the collateral damage which is imposed on the most unfortunate. From where I'm sitting, the wellbeing of the lowliest African peasant is equally as important as the rich and talented celebrity, or the middle class American kid. The suffering of the peasant, the cripple or the homeless person is the price that must be paid for your high-faluting notions of beauty, and this is a price that should be rejected. After all, the positions could easily have been reversed, and you could be the one suffering from chronic poverty or crippling mental illness. It isn't that you deserved your comfortable life more than they deserved it; it's simply that they got the wrong numbers in the lottery draw. A universe without conscious experience will not be one that is bereft of beauty. The conscious experiencers capable of appreciating beauty have to exist before a lack of beauty can exist.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Dec 15, 2017 14:01:57 GMT
1. Sucks to be you I guess. I'm personally glad my parents created me, flaws and all. 2. To quote Alan Watts, I believe we are aperatures through which the Universe looks at itself. I believe we are here to notice things, help others and be witness to beauty. No, I do not look at Mars and wonder that.. that seems like silly nonsense to me and I can't imagine anyone thinking that. I look at Mars and think 'It's amazing that a tiny dot so inspired someone like Kim Stanley Robinson.' 3. You missed the point of the analogy. The point was that the question 'Why bother trying to make anything beautiful if it can be marred by ugliness' is pessimistic and will lead to no beauty and nothing created. I actually embrace nothingness, that's why I enjoy spending long periods in a sensory deprivation tank.. But part of the wonder of the experience of nothingness is that everything can come out of it. 1. Yes, but you wouldn't have missed existing had your parents not created you. 2. I used to flirt with similar kinds of mystical beliefs. 3. Sorry I missed the point of the analogy. I agree that the potential of a beautiful thing being marred by ugliness is not sufficient reason to refrain from creating the beauty. But you can't really extend that to cases where someone else's wellbeing is on the line. Most lives have some kind of balance between good and bad, but some consist of nothing more than unremitting suffering. If we green light the endeavour of creating more human life, then we must accept the collateral damage which is imposed on the most unfortunate. From where I'm sitting, the wellbeing of the lowliest African peasant is equally as important as the rich and talented celebrity, or the middle class American kid. The suffering of the peasant, the cripple or the homeless person is the price that must be paid for your high-faluting notions of beauty, and this is a price that should be rejected. After all, the positions could easily have been reversed, and you could be the one suffering from chronic poverty or crippling mental illness. It isn't that you deserved your comfortable life more than they deserved it; it's simply that they got the wrong numbers in the lottery draw. A universe without conscious experience will not be one that is bereft of beauty. The conscious experiencers capable of appreciating beauty have to exist before a lack of beauty can exist. 1. How can you state that like it's fact? Nobody knows what happens before we enter these vessels.. for all you know we line up and the people choosing the bodies that will suffer the most are like people who choose to go on the most scary amusement park rides. 2. Okay. IMO searching out the mystical is all there is once a person learns that materialism is a dead end. 3. "But you can't really extend that to cases where someone else's wellbeing is on the line." From my perspective any suffering here is a temporary symptom of the flesh. The children dying in Africa are equally as important as the raindrop falling into the ocean. You are a good person to feel so strongly the pains of others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 14:27:35 GMT
1. Yes, but you wouldn't have missed existing had your parents not created you. 2. I used to flirt with similar kinds of mystical beliefs. 3. Sorry I missed the point of the analogy. I agree that the potential of a beautiful thing being marred by ugliness is not sufficient reason to refrain from creating the beauty. But you can't really extend that to cases where someone else's wellbeing is on the line. Most lives have some kind of balance between good and bad, but some consist of nothing more than unremitting suffering. If we green light the endeavour of creating more human life, then we must accept the collateral damage which is imposed on the most unfortunate. From where I'm sitting, the wellbeing of the lowliest African peasant is equally as important as the rich and talented celebrity, or the middle class American kid. The suffering of the peasant, the cripple or the homeless person is the price that must be paid for your high-faluting notions of beauty, and this is a price that should be rejected. After all, the positions could easily have been reversed, and you could be the one suffering from chronic poverty or crippling mental illness. It isn't that you deserved your comfortable life more than they deserved it; it's simply that they got the wrong numbers in the lottery draw. A universe without conscious experience will not be one that is bereft of beauty. The conscious experiencers capable of appreciating beauty have to exist before a lack of beauty can exist. 1. How can you state that like it's fact? Nobody knows what happens before we enter these vessels.. for all you know we line up and the people choosing the bodies that will suffer the most are like people who choose to go on the most scary amusement park rides. 2. Okay. IMO searching out the mystical is all there is once a person learns that materialism is a dead end. 3. "But you can't really extend that to cases where someone else's wellbeing is on the line." From my perspective any suffering here is a temporary symptom of the flesh. The children dying in Africa are equally as important as the raindrop falling into the ocean. You are a good person to feel so strongly the pains of others. 1. I state that based on all the evidence. If humans have pre-existing 'souls' which choose which body to enter, then what is the soul made of, and what causes the soul to make the choices that it does? If you've ever known anyone with Alzheimer's disease (my grandmother developed advanced Alzheimer's), then you'll notice that their brain will atrophy to a certain point where all sense of self will be lost. They'll no longer have any recognisable traces of their old personality, and won't even recognise members of their own family. So if there is anything else to what gives us our personality, then it seems to hide itself in brains that either aren't fully developed, or are injured or decayed. 2. I've never encountered that dead end. Materialism may not be satisfying for some, but I don't see how it's even possible for some kind of immaterial spirit to exist, given that something would have to cause that spirit to have the nature that it has. 3. The one saving grace is that it's all temporary, unless we find out that we're actually simulated minds being tortured for eternity by Roko's Basilisk, or that the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum physics is correct and once our consciousness dies in this universe, it diverts off into a parallel universe in which we don't die. But without invoking some kind of unprovable notion of God, all we can really say is that it appears to be a futile, harmful and unnecessary exercise, that wouldn't likely wouldn't pass an university ethics committee if it were proposed as an experiment. And thank you for the compliment.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 15, 2017 14:54:58 GMT
tpfkar If we green light the endeavour of creating more human life, then we must accept the collateral damage which is imposed on the most unfortunate. "Collateral damage" doesn't have to exist, save at the behest of those that wish to destroy the tempering influence of society via Trump apocalypse and replace it with the savagery and barbarity of early- / pre-civilization or even of sentience in it's incipient phases, or some similar tragedy. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 16:10:17 GMT
tpfkar If we green light the endeavour of creating more human life, then we must accept the collateral damage which is imposed on the most unfortunate. "Collateral damage" doesn't have to exist, save at the behest of those that wish to destroy the tempering influence of society via Trump apocalypse and replace it with the savagery and barbarity of early- / pre-civilization or even of sentience in it's incipient phases, or some similar tragedy. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"If collateral damage doesn't have to exist, then how would you prevent it? I mean starting from this very moment, no more people born who will endure non-trivial suffering?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 16:17:08 GMT
when I see other people of my age with kids. I also feel frustration and anger. I have the exact opposite reaction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 16:18:50 GMT
when I see other people of my age with kids. I also feel frustration and anger. I don't know how to exactly deal with this. Do like I did 20 years ago, steal a child from one of your siblings. A sibling who has more than one child may not even notice if you steal one of them. Buddy of mine had a decent idea, married a woman with a 15 year old boy... adopted him, then kicked him out of the house three years later. Easy peasy
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 15, 2017 16:18:50 GMT
tpfkar If collateral damage doesn't have to exist, then how would you prevent it? I mean starting from this very moment, no more people born who will endure non-trivial suffering? No one spoke of starting from this very moment. There's no reason to think that we can't solve the abuse of people for gain and the the non-collateral problem of consequential birth defects, for example, if we don't scupper progress by purposefully committing mass murder and returning things to prehistory primitiveness & savagery. As for your vision of "non-trivial", who knows. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.
|
|