Antinatalism: An Insightful Argument

For all other chat which isn't directly related to lucid dreaming and the world of sleep and dreams.
Online
User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4200
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Antinatalism: An Insightful Argument

Postby Summerlander » 13 Aug 2018 15:32

Can I just emphasise that the absence of pleasure for the non-existent can never be classed as a bad thing because there is nobody in existence to perceive its absence. So we are not depriving anybody---in this case the 'unborn'---of happiness because there is nobody to miss it.

So, if there is nobody, nobody is encumbered with the pursuit of pleasure in a world that is intrinsically impersonal to all. It strikes me as a good thing from a living perspective when we realise that with antinatalism no further life struggles. There is no fear, no uncertainty about the future, and no more struggles to be experienced by new subjects.
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
RedKryptonite
Posts: 253
Joined: 13 Oct 2016 02:26

Re: Antinatalism: An Insightful Argument

Postby RedKryptonite » 13 Aug 2018 16:44

I forgot to address this one:

Another cool argument I read about is that Benatar values the rights of non-existent beings (and their capacity for future pain) over the rights of existent beings (and their capacity for current pain) by focusing his efforts, and the attention of his followers, on antinatalism as opposed to philosophies which might help to reduce the suffering on Earth in the here and now. It's a criticism of his argument insofar as it undermines his goal for a perfect morality (ie no suffering ever).

I believe the reason for this is that there are already many organizations out there specifically for the purpose of addressing the problems existent people face. However,Antinatalism is a rather obscure philosophy to the public,and Benatar(along with many other authors/speakers)is focusing primarily on rectifying that,as the absolute best and most guaranteed way to save people from suffering is to convince as many of the already existing people to refrain from procreation or consider alternatives to it. (such as adoption,foster parenting,and/or volunteering,etc.)

Benatar himself might not be currently addressing the means and efforts of the prevention/minimization of the suffering of the already existent,but that doesn't mean the antinatalism community does the same. Here's a list of organizations that r/antinatalism supports if you want to do some activism for the minimization/prevention of suffering:

https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/wiki/activism


@Summerlander
and yessiree,that's one of the key points I was trying to get at. ;)
The nonexistent cannot be deprived. The existent however,are at a default state of deprivation and must make constant efforts throughout their lives to temporarily alleviate themselves of this default state.

Online
User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4200
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Antinatalism: An Insightful Argument

Postby Summerlander » 15 Aug 2018 04:25

Are fleeting moments of happiness and love enough reason to create and preserve life? Not in my book. Arguably, an extinction button that goes unpressed may well be an unethical move by a morally confused species.

Rationally, I find myself subscribing to the sentiocentric---and sensory-centric---type of antinatalism that you mentioned earlier, Red, known as 'efilism' ('life' spelt backwards plus the 'ism'). It strikes me to be a position of great moral standing which begins to address life as the problem that it really is---bordering on promortalism of the kind that right-winger Andrew Berwick would promote for Norwegians living under an Islamic or communist regime. (Minus the monomaniacally unprincipled mass murder!)

I would certainly draw the line where a living being should always have the choice between life and death, even if choosing the former means the latter will eventually come arbitrarily. :|
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
RedKryptonite
Posts: 253
Joined: 13 Oct 2016 02:26

Re: Antinatalism: An Insightful Argument

Postby RedKryptonite » 16 Aug 2018 07:40

Summerlander wrote:Are fleeting moments of happiness and love enough reason to create and preserve life? Not in my book. Arguably, an extinction button that goes unpressed may well be an unethical move by a morally confused species.

What you brought up is popularly known as "The Big Red Button" thought experiment in Antinatalist circles. A button that could end all of existence in an instant with no pain or anyone even being aware of it occurring.

I too was once unsure of the ethical implications of pressing such a button but one day,I had a debate about this with an insightful individual named "Uridoz" on reddit. He pretty much ended up convincing me that the most ethical thing to do would indeed be to press the button,as it permanently ends all suffering. You may then ask;
What about "Consent?"

Uridoz said that consent is only really important in the sense that not following it causes suffering. To use an example,some people love their lives,but they also love to eat meat(including me,sadly. :( ). Eating meat = Supporting factory farms who almost universally slaughters animals in a really painful and inhumane way(because its the cheapest way to get the job done.)

Yet,if you take away meat from those people,they WILL feel deprived and suffer. (like a drug addict forced to forever quit his favorite substance)

So the only winning strategy here for everyone is for nobody to exist. Does the "consent" (instantly sent to nonexistence)of the aforementioned people matter more than the animals who are being brutally slaughtered against their will in the factory farms? I honestly don't think so.

Before somebody brings up technology fixing this problem someday,this is only an example of the zero-sum facet of life. One person's gain often results in another one's loss. (Got that job promotion? another wants that job just as badly if not more. Got a wonderful significant other? there's probably somebody out there desperately in love with your husband/wife crying themselves to sleep every night. That nice big house you live in? a bunch of poor saps had to go through the labor of building it. Your country won the war? I don't think it even needs to be said about what the other country went through in the process of their defeat,etc.)

So yes,I would press that hypothetical button,and I assume you would too,Summer. ;)

Funny that I talk about this,I've began working on restarting my lucid dreaming routine. I just had my first one today in quite awhile. It was a very short one though and I didn't get the chance to do more fun things.(damn you school!! :evil: )

Lucid dreaming is beautiful. one of the best things you could experience in the whole wide world. (and I'm sure many would agree,including Ms.Rebbeca) But bringing someone into existence just to share this wouldn't be worth it,considering all the other cons/downsides that come with life and sentience.

Oh yeah,you may want to take a look at this Summer. ;)
https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/comments/97oo6q/because_if_not_me_then_who/

Online
User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4200
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Antinatalism: An Insightful Argument

Postby Summerlander » 28 Sep 2018 13:49

Hi, Red!

I'm just checking out the link now. I'm in agreement with all your points pertaining to 'The Big Red Button' thought experiment. It should be clear to everyone that moral philosophy at its best demonstrably validates not only antinatalism, but also, promortalism in the 'big red button' context.

You would really owe it to yourself and every suffering being to save the day. Bam! No more experience; and nobody will miss it because hankering is a form of experience. Logic tells us that if there is no consciousness it is as though nothing exists. The cessation of being. Nirvana! :mrgreen:

Death really is the great deliverer. :|
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

lucidé
Posts: 579
Joined: 04 Feb 2017 03:10

Re: Antinatalism: An Insightful Argument

Postby lucidé » 29 Sep 2018 03:43

I may just be seeing this way due to my orientation, but why can’t spaying and neutering be an option if a person consents to this? If homeless and lower class citizens were allowed to consent to the organ removal surgery (and Medicaid could pay for that) think of how many lives we would save from having to be born into that kind of environment. Contraception is not a 100% guarantee against rape. What if people like me want to protect our world from bringing schizos into it (I was told I was a 100% risk for that. Since then, I have been begging to have my organs removed. Thinking it should be allowed in cases like mine with consent)
An example of lucid dreaming: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW7ps_VSPkg (1:46 Is that me or is this me? "Am I still dreaming?") Simpsons example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3X1n5Yny3g

User avatar
RedKryptonite
Posts: 253
Joined: 13 Oct 2016 02:26

Re: Antinatalism: An Insightful Argument

Postby RedKryptonite » 02 Oct 2018 04:19

lucidé wrote:I may just be seeing this way due to my orientation, but why can’t spaying and neutering be an option if a person consents to this? If homeless and lower class citizens were allowed to consent to the organ removal surgery (and Medicaid could pay for that) think of how many lives we would save from having to be born into that kind of environment. Contraception is not a 100% guarantee against rape. What if people like me want to protect our world from bringing schizos into it (I was told I was a 100% risk for that. Since then, I have been begging to have my organs removed. Thinking it should be allowed in cases like mine with consent)

Hi lucidé,
I agree with you 100%,and indeed its such a shame that despite the obvious intellectual capacity required of that to become a doctor,many doctors are unable to realize the fact that parenthood is not everyone,and there are people out there who would only propagate suffering if they became a parent.

Here's a link that may help you achieve your goals:
https://www.reddit.com/r/childfree/wiki/doctors

Some of these doctors offer Bilateral Salpingectomy,which is precisely what you're looking for. I hope you'll be able to meet with one of them. I'm glad to see you're one of the people who see the light. Many people in your position still choose to mindlessly procreate,ignorant(or they just don't care)of the fact that they are almost certainly just going to pass down all their problems and propagate the continuous cycle of suffering.

User avatar
RedKryptonite
Posts: 253
Joined: 13 Oct 2016 02:26

Re: Antinatalism: An Insightful Argument

Postby RedKryptonite » 02 Oct 2018 04:22

Summerlander wrote:Hi, Red!

I'm just checking out the link now. I'm in agreement with all your points pertaining to 'The Big Red Button' thought experiment. It should be clear to everyone that moral philosophy at its best demonstrably validates not only antinatalism, but also, promortalism in the 'big red button' context.:|

Hi Summer,

There's something I wish to ask of you,but do you agree with the right to die? That for some people,life is not worth living,and they should have access to the option of euthanasia.

I honestly feel that the world would be a much,much better place if the right to die is taken seriously. a lot of people say that suicide is selfish,but fact of the matter is,it is just as selfish to force a suffering person with no hope to keep on living. (ESPECIALLY when those same people trying to discourage it have neither the resources nor willingness to offer concrete help to the person with no hope and needs euthanasia.)

Online
User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4200
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Antinatalism: An Insightful Argument

Postby Summerlander » 09 Oct 2018 18:15

What is euthanasia? Well, as I understand it, it is pretty much death by prescription ...

Should people have a right to die when their situation is dire and desperate and hopeless? Absolutely! I never understood the stigma surrounding euthanasia. It's a way out of suffering. Mercy killers are moral heroes!

We never asked to be born so why shouldn't we at least have the right to pick the time and place where we want to cross over to nonexistence? Why should everyone have to worship life regardless of suffering? The pro-life creed infects the majority and it isn't surprising since human beings, like other lifeforms, have a survival instinct.

Life attempts to preserve itself at the cost of immense suffering and loss, and people have a tendency to ignore or fear the inevitable---death, the great deliverer.

The majority of people who commit suicide---I can't say all because some do it for religious reasons, in particular, the simultaneously homicidal kind---realise that death really is a guaranteed salvation; and they don't have to be nihilistic as some believe in an afterlife or reincarnation in other worlds (the latter promises a drastic change or divorce from the hell they perceive to be in).

Check out the assisted suicide of Michéle Causse:

https://youtu.be/JfyxUO4ZsDo
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

lucidé
Posts: 579
Joined: 04 Feb 2017 03:10

Re: Antinatalism: An Insightful Argument

Postby lucidé » 25 Oct 2018 04:03

One of the reasons why suicide is illegal in the US is with lawsuits or convicted felonies, suicide and murder-suicide can be used by a defendant to completely dismiss their lawsuit or any felonies they committed. If a defendant dies even if it is by suicide, the case gets dismissed. Usually the citizens and the attorneys are pretty happy with the defendant if they choose to commit suicide, as we end up paying so much less tax dollars for their court costs and prison fees. The government ends up donating the defendant's body to science, so it benefits science because they get to dissect the body (usually US corpses convicted of crimes end up getting donated to get studied, cremated, then they use those bodies to try to grow back destroyed coral reefs). If a defendant for specific lawsuits gets caught attempting suicide, that could result in a 30 year prison sentence and not just the usual 5 year sentence and wow...they punish someone attempting to escape a fate of living on the streets and possibly starving to death way harsher than punishing a serial rapist. They will never get to live that life they enjoyed again because someone had to take it all away from them often when the defendant is innocent and the plaintiff is lying. Why can't the defendant just end their existence without authorities subjecting them to yet more torture and years of prison rape for likely the rest of their lives?

One thing I support is immediate death penalty on any mentally disabled people accused of a 1st degree felony. Why punish a person who likely has damage in their brain and is mentally inferior? That would be like putting a talking dog in prison and subjecting it to rape and hitting it just for attacking a person. What do we do to a dog if it kills a person because it is violent and kills a person? It gets euthanized so it doesn't become a danger to us or itself. Why does it seem less humane to euthanize a mentally disabled person if they become violent enough and kill a person instead of punishing them by subjecting them to prison rape and having the guards hit them constantly in prison? Since Trump is not willing to financially support the disabled, the best thing that can be done without hurting them when they get to that point would be the death penalty. This is just my opinion, but why not give them those 5 star last meals over the serial killers to show we as a society still care for the disabled, but we want safety for both them and us. Another thing that should be done after the euthanasia is I believe science should study the brains of the disabled and figure out what exactly what went wrong. If they can study the brains of the schizos and the other disabled, perhaps more preventive measures could happen to prevent serial killing from the disabled in the future.

There are a few other reasons for suicide, but the main reasons are bullying, shame, death of a loved one, or believing you don't have a purpose either because of religion or no religion.
Bullying and shame are the biggest reasons in Utah it happens. Teachers are often bullies just as much as the kids and they will lie about this in front of the news (I should know, I was a victim of bullying and have seen other victims). If there are school shootings, bullying is often the reason why, yet the teachers and students will play the victim card and lie to the news and police (in middle and high schools, they can mess with security camera videos with Adobe Premier to create illusions) about 75% of the time. Bullying is also one reason I don't support traditional burials anymore. The victim can commit suicide, but the fact the bully will still urinate or stomp on their tombstone and sometimes kill flowers makes me feel a bit sorry for the victim's family. They need to donate the victim's body to anatomy classes, then allow the bullies to look at the damage they caused to their victim's brain. If we could educate them, maybe it would reduce the victims.
As far as shame goes, in Japan, 90% of the reason people suicide is because of shame, but the shame is often with good reason. This gets rid of the unproductive or dishonest part of society, and they actually have superior intelligence and a happier society over ours because suicide is legal and honorable. There is even a how to commit suicide book and a forest there where people go who have been shamed to hang themselves or they take some cyanide. Japan has a lower population than most of the world because they have found a way to keep their population in check. In the US, the way shame works is unfortunate because it is different than in Japan. Japan doesn't frown on homosexuality like the US does, but they do frown on stealing and drugs. Also they don't tolerate any form of harm and don't blame females for it like they sometimes shame females for in Utah, which does cause them to suicide.

Suicide because you cannot live without your loved one(s) is more common than you think. I once read a novel where a female teen hung herself after her boyfriend died of cancer. The parents buried the 2 teens side by side in the cemetery. People with an especially huge sexual interest in each other will often struggle if their partner dies, with some I have seen deciding that perhaps suicide is the only way they can end their pain. Perhaps that loved one is the only person who even likes them or understands their standards. Perhaps that child doesn't want to be forced to live with that foster family because they have strict standards that oppose that child's standards and the child would rather die.
An example of lucid dreaming: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW7ps_VSPkg (1:46 Is that me or is this me? "Am I still dreaming?") Simpsons example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3X1n5Yny3g


Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests