Antinatalism: An Insightful Argument

For all other chat which isn't directly related to lucid dreaming and the world of sleep and dreams.
User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4338
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: 252
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.

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4338
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: 252
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/


Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests