We are not only experiencing the negative state, but know we are. — schopenhauer1

I think suffering is self-explanatory in the sense that it is what one simply doesn’t want to experience, so everyone suffering must know that he doesn’t want it, and will therefore avoid it whenever possible. I think it is impossible to suffer and at the same time not know that one doesn’t want to suffer.

Though regarding the general awareness of the circumstances of the suffering it likely makes it even a dimension deeper and more horrible.
This seems like a major difference between humans and wild animals living out their instincts*.

And this circumstantial awareness may be one of the reasons why -at least some- humans were able to cut their losses (or wished they were able to).

But thinking about it, if there are actual cases of animals euthanizing themselves in a way that really should go against their instincts – like jumping of a huge cliff, maybe even while struggling doing it, this could be a very strong indicator that at least some of them know their horrible situation as well.

Maybe all those stranded whales weren’t all that “disoriented” after all.
And who knows, some of those toddlers (as in humans temporarily on the mental level of animals) drinking bleach may had a specific goal doing this..

*though I’m not sure about animals in those “concentrated-animal-feeding-operation”s, as they aren't able to live out their instincts at all, they may know very well that their situation is catastrophic.

Please share any more thoughts on the matter. — schopenhauer1

Speaking of sharing, one of the most insightful posts I found over the years on the nature suffering is from here, namely this post.


The implications of what dukkha wrote are absolutely horrific, and a rock solid case for antinatalism (yet another one – as you know). Though there is still much to add** and I may write soon a thread on it and will be curious what you think about it.

**f.e. how our perception of time makes matters a lot worse, as it decelerates time down to slow-motion while we have to endure suffering - and as if that weren't bad enough already, at the very same time it accelerates it while we experience pleasurable moments, so that it basically acts a fast-forward to suffering.

It's amazing how much of the day could disappear, and it really wouldn't matter, or would be in fact, a relief. It's like grinding gears, that is somehow also like being on autopilot, because it's just things to maintain some sort of work related to (inevitably) surviving in a complex society, or its related to comfort, also in the context of a complex society. — schopenhauer1

Speaking of ‘being on autopilot’, this is another indicator of how our mere presence is miserable, because how much of our doing results in dissociating from ‘mere existing’.

I used to meditate for an hour (years ago) and it’s not all that much if you think about it, but I always had to force me to do it, and if ‘just sitting doing nothing’ is so hard and so uncomfortable (and it is!), what exactly does that tell us about our existential baseline?

Though to be fair, it might be because we are so addicted to stimulation through technology (including books), that ‘just sitting doing nothing’ immediately starts a (drug-like) withdrawal.
Theoretically it could be possible to overcome this stimulation-addiction, so that mere presence doesn’t pain you so heavily anymore, but I’m not sure if it is actually possible.

But, even if it were, that we are so very prone to getting immensely addicted to external stimulation in the first place is telling in itself, and stems from suffering-avoidance for sure.

I call this kind of inherent, constant suffering and "want" necessary suffering, as it is built into being alive, as you say. — schopenhauer1

This is another important point, I’m not sure if suffering is actually necessary for consciousness, I doubt it is, and it certainly isn’t to the degree that we have to go through.
If consciousness is forced external input onto some “I”, it is inherently unfree, but could theoretically still at least be neutral. So that makes me assume a sadistic creator even more, and I really, really hope I'm wrong with that.

(But ultimately, I found it very hard to go even near the bottom of the matter. How does suffering even work fundamentally, and how is the “I” even created, presumably out of nothing? It looks like logic doesn’t even apply there.)

I think it is impossible to suffer and at the same time not know that one doesn’t want to suffer. — Zn0n

I can agree with this definition. Other animals may have pain/negative state in the moment, or maybe even unknowing trauma from past events, but I would not necessarily call it suffering from their point of view. Thus a distinction can be made between mere harm and suffering, which is a secondary reflection on the primary harm taking place. One has to be a linguistic animal it seems, to suffer vs. only be harmed/feel negative. Thus, the point of this thread.

Speaking of sharing, one of the most insightful posts I found over the years on the nature suffering is from here, namely this post.

The implications of what dukkha wrote are absolutely horrific, and a rock solid case for antinatalism (yet another one – as you know). Though there is still much to add** and I may write soon a thread on it and will be curious what you think about it. — Zn0n

That is an excellent quote, and I remember it! A great example of a sort of Schopenhaurean (Eastern?) understanding of the negative view of pleasure. We are striving away from negative states rather than necessarily being driven by positive ones. The (what first seems to be) apparent "intrinsic goods" of positive states might be just as dukkha describes- a sort of cessation/distraction from the suffering. And it is suspect, as he also noted in that post, that we would never want pleasures to last more than their temporary experience of them (e.g. orgasm, the constant taste of something we liked in the moment).

The implications of what dukkha wrote are absolutely horrific, and a rock solid case for antinatalism (yet another one – as you know). Though there is still much to add** and I may write soon a thread on it and will be curious what you think about it. — Zn0n

Please do!

**f.e. how our perception of time makes matters a lot worse, as it decelerates time down to slow-motion while we have to endure suffering - and as if that weren't bad enough already, at the very same time it accelerates it while we experience pleasurable moments, so that it basically acts a fast-forward to suffering. — Zn0n

Yes, excellent observation. Another aspect of the human animals' unique situation of suffering- not only in our increased perception of duration of suffering, but our decreased sense of pleasureable/positive moments.

I used to meditate for an hour (years ago) and it’s not all that much if you think about it, but I always had to force me to do it, and if ‘just sitting doing nothing’ is so hard and so uncomfortable (and it is!), what exactly does that tell us about our existential baseline? — Zn0n

Yep, great point. "Always becoming, but never being". If life itself was fully positive (and not negative as it actually is), being itself, would be enough. That is not life. That is not our nature.

Though to be fair, it might be because we are so addicted to stimulation through technology (including books), that ‘just sitting doing nothing’ immediately starts a (drug-like) withdrawal.
Theoretically it could be possible to overcome this stimulation-addiction, so that mere presence doesn’t pain you so heavily anymore, but I’m not sure if it is actually possible. — Zn0n

I tend not to think so. It is part of the human condition. I'm also skeptical about the "Noble Savage" trope that if we only lived "in nature" this would cure us. I think that is just lack of actual contact with hunter-gatherers in their own context. However, there may be a case to be made for your earlier understanding of time perception. Time is not commodified into exactness as it has become, so may be less of an issue. One may say that their baseline boredom requires less, technology, but certainly restlessness is part of their daily life as well. You take away their version of entertainment, that surely would also affect them negatively as anyone from a "modern" society.

But, even if it were, that we are so very prone to getting immensely addicted to external stimulation in the first place is telling in itself, and stems from suffering-avoidance for sure. — Zn0n

Yes, very true. It is a feature, not a bug.

This is another important point, I’m not sure if suffering is actually necessary for consciousness, I doubt it is, and it certainly isn’t to the degree that we have to go through.
If consciousness is forced external input onto some “I”, it is inherently unfree, but could theoretically still at least be neutral. So that makes me assume a sadistic creator even more, and I really, really hope I'm wrong with that.

(But ultimately, I found it very hard to go even near the bottom of the matter. How does suffering even work fundamentally, and how is the “I” even created, presumably out of nothing? It looks like logic doesn’t even apply there.) — Zn0n

Suffering, if defined by being always at a deprived state, is indeed necessary, not necessarily to consciousness, but to conscious life, and certainly the human version of it. You gave great examples of it.

*Bangs head against wall*

Overall, much agreement obviously.

One may say that their baseline boredom requires less, technology, but certainly restlessness is part of their daily life as well. You take away their version of entertainment, that surely would also affect them negatively as anyone from a "modern" society. — schopenhauer1

Great point, they certainly have their own forms of entertainment, I haven't seen it from that angle.

*Bangs head against wall* — MSC

Any type of unprovoked ad-hominem is an admission of defeat, so good luck next time!

This thread has at least solidified my impression that anti-natalism is depression + generalisation from samples of one.

This thread has at least solidified my impression that anti-natalism is depression + generalisation from samples of one. — Kenosha Kid

This comment has solidified my impression that you have nothing other than lame insults and weak strawman-generalizations and are therefore demonstrably completely argumentatively helpless.
Good luck next time, you’ll need it.

This comment has solidified my impression that you have nothing other than lame insults and weak strawman-generalizations and are therefore demonstrably completely argumentatively helpless.
Good luck next time, you’ll need it. — Zn0n

Triggered.

I'm going to provide an unorthodox argument for the case of never being born being optimal — schopenhauer1

Would you rather be sleeping?" argument (WYRBS for short) — schopenhauer1

I don't think your WYRBS argument works for the simple reason that sleep is known to be a temporary state of unconsciousness. People prefer to sleep rather than doing something dull and boring only because they know they'll get up from it.

The correct formulation of an antinatalist question is: Would You Rather be Dead? I don't think there'll be many takers to this generous offer.

Triggered. — Kenosha Kid

shill

I don't think your WYRBS argument works for the simple reason that sleep is known to be a temporary state of unconsciousness. People prefer to sleep rather than doing something dull and boring only because they know they'll get up from it. — TheMadFool

So if someone were at the end of their life, and had to choose between 1) getting their foot cut off and dying and 2) sleeping during this time instead and then dying, people wouldn't want to avoid the suffering, even if they don't wake up from it?

The correct formulation of an antinatalist question is: Would You Rather be Dead? I don't think there'll be many takers to this generous offer. — TheMadFool

Well as far as I'm aware there are countless sucessful suicides every few seconds.
What isn't even factored in in these numbers is that most attempts are unsucessful (something like 90% iirc) and there is practically no availability to speak of for peaceful methods, plus constant indoctrination how life is always great and if you disagree for whatever reason you are "mentally ill".
So there is in fact an enormous number of people who really, really want to be dead already.

Any type of unprovoked ad-hominem is an admission of defeat, so good luck next time! — Zn0n

@schopenhauer1

No, it's an admission of incredulity at how transparent you are.

Creating another account to narcissistically agree with yourself is the real admission of defeat. Not that you'll ever believe that because you're already buying into the lies you are telling yourself.

@Zn0n @schopenhauer1

For the record, there isn't good evidence that Zn0n and Schop the same user.

Call it a hunch. Timing and behaviour of the Znon account seems very strange to me. But then maybe all antinatalists just sound strange to me.

It would be hilarious if Zn0n and Schop were the same person. In that case Schop would be carrying on long, drawn out dialogues just between himself in order to convince internet people of anti-natalism... a position which if everyone followed there would be no more human race.

For the record, there isn't good evidence that Zn0n and Schop the same user. — fdrake

Thanks for pointing it out. Would be great if multiple threads wouldn't be deliberately derailed with nonsense like this.
The only similarities between me and him is our position on birth/life and apparently being a target for nasty ad hominems.

So if someone were at the end of their life, and had to choose between 1) getting their foot cut off and dying and 2) sleeping during this time instead and then dying, people wouldn't want to avoid the suffering, even if they don't wake up from it? — Zn0n

First thing to be clear about is that people don't want to, everyone, without exception, loathes, suffering. A certainty there's no point arguing about. The OP wants to make a case for antinatalism on the basis of how people prefer to sleep rather than be awak engaging in dull and boring activities. and the parallel being drawn is crystal clear - sleep is nonexistence and being awake is existence. If one prefers to sleep then, this argument concludes, one must prefer death.

So far so good.

The scenario you describe puts us in the position of having to make a choice: Either have your foot cut off and meet your end OR sleep and meet your maker. I presume what you really want to offer as choices are: be awake and suffer OR sleep and don't suffer. It's quite obvious that the latter is a preferable alternative but, the catch is, for that choice to be always the best, to be awake must always involve suffering, not just suffering but intolerable suffering.

Is this an accurate description of reality?

Is our every waking moment a living hell? This may not be clear to you or maybe it is, who knows? I think it'll become clearer if I copycat your technique by offering you choices of my own and mind you, there's nothing unrealistic about them.

Here are my choices: 1)awake and having the time of your life OR 2) asleep and dead to the world? My scenario, if it does anything, should blow the lid of clear off the antinatalist agenda. The choices available to us aren't limited to live and suffer or die and not. Antinatalists forget that we can live and be happy and if this wasn't true in the past and even if it isn't true in the present, the future is unpredictable - tables may turn, unexpected things may happen.

Well as far as I'm aware there are countless sucessful suicides every few seconds. — Zn0n

You're correct of course and I won't, can't, deny this truth but don't forget how many don't take their own lives.

For the record, there isn't good evidence that Zn0n and Schop the same user. — fdrake

@Zn0n @MSC

For the record, no Zn0n and I are not the same person. I don't know who he/she is, but it's nice to have company for once that understands the arguments. Welcome to the forums Zn0n!

Since some moderators have vouched for you, I will take you at your word and will try to be more charitable with your views. My first impressions of ZnOn will be harder for them to overcome based on their own monological argumentation style. Just so you are aware, I do not see all Antinatalists as members of a death cult, I do see some of them that way though.

Would you agree or disagree with these two statements?

Some Antinatalists have sincerely held beliefs and reasonable arguments to explain those beliefs as well as real moral concerns about the suffering of our species.
Some are insincere and only want to watch the world burn for their own pleasure.

You do see why I was a little suspicious at first though right? The timing of ZnOns account creation and direct interaction with your and only your posts was strange, even if we both agree now that those things are merely coincidental.

Since some moderators have vouched for you, I will take you at your word and will try to be more charitable with your views. — MSC

Well thank you, I'm glad that a newbie has accepted me as me and not some other in a forum I have contributed 4.3 thousand comments to :razz: . It just so happens you came in at the rare time where another poster is posting similar antinatalist views to mine, and is very articulate about it. I hope they stay. I've seen posters in the past who had some really good insights but then only contributed briefly and didn't stay. But anyways, I'm glad you are willing to be more charitable.

You do see why I was a little suspicious at first though right? The timing of ZnOns account creation and direct interaction with your and only your posts was strange, even if we both agree now that those things are merely coincidental. — MSC

Yes, I see how you came in when there was a new poster that happened to have the same views as mine. What do you want me to say. I'm happy to see some people who have similar views. Many posters here have people fawn over each other's views, and reiterate it, strengthen them, get the slight boost from having someone agree and elucidate more on your own views. I usually don't get much of that, so it's a nice change.

Some are insincere and only want to watch the world burn for their own pleasure. — MSC

I'm not so sure about this. I think most antinatalists are quite sincere. I think there can be a distinction made between antinatalists who are more passive (probably my views) vs. ones who get on board with things like "the benevolent world exploder" argument.

In the 1958 article where R. N. Smart introduced the term ‘negative utilitarianism’ he argued against it, stating that negative utilitarianism would entail that a ruler who is able to instantly and painlessly destroy the human race, "a benevolent world-exploder," would have a duty to do so.[25] This is the most famous argument against negative utilitarianism,[7] and it is directed against sufficiently strong versions of negative utilitarianism.[26] Many authors have endorsed this argument,[27] and some have presented counterarguments against it. — Wikipedia

That would be just as bad as positive utilitarian arguments that suggest that if it is for "the greater good" then creating pain for an individual, when this does not need to happen for the individual, is acceptable. So those brands, I would not identify with that only based on negative utilitarianism. Though my views are based on not creating unnecessary harm/suffering, it always recognizes the locus of ethics at the level of individual. This is ethics at the margins, not on a whole. Potential parents that do not procreate, prevent that future individual from suffering. That is the level I am talking about, not whole populations as that quickly turns into not recognizing the individual, and using them as a means to an ends, which is bad for any cause.

I'm not so sure about this. I think most antinatalists are quite sincere. I think there can be a distinction made between antinatalists who are more passive (probably my views) vs. ones who get on board with things like "the benevolent world exploder" argument. — schopenhauer1

You said most, not all. I do agree with the most statement, however I'm curious as to which Antinatalists you think don't belong to this majority of antinatalists that you find to be sincere? What could someone identifying themselves as antinatalist, do or say that could make you disagree with that particular individuals take on the matter? I only ask because there have been plenty of times where I have face palmed because someone has been poorly arguing for a claim I'd normally agree with. Kind of like how people who believe in god, don't always agree with another individuals argument for the existence of god. For example I remember watching a Joe Rogan Podcast with a philosopher who was poorly arguing for my beliefs in philosophy of mind. I just wanted him to stop talking the whole time, even though we agreed with the same claim.

Well thank you, I'm glad that a newbie has accepted me as me and not some other in a forum I have contributed 4.3 thousand comments to — schopenhauer1

Newbie to the forum, not philosophy or these types of debates. Quantity of writing doesn't factor into your status to me. I'm sure there have been plenty of individuals here whom have contributed a lot of comments with no real qualitative substance. Not saying this is you but I've yet to read all 4k of your comments haha.

What could someone identifying themselves as antinatalist, do or say that could make you disagree with that particular individuals take on the matter? — MSC

What I said here I guess:

In the 1958 article where R. N. Smart introduced the term ‘negative utilitarianism’ he argued against it, stating that negative utilitarianism would entail that a ruler who is able to instantly and painlessly destroy the human race, "a benevolent world-exploder," would have a duty to do so.[25] This is the most famous argument against negative utilitarianism,[7] and it is directed against sufficiently strong versions of negative utilitarianism.[26] Many authors have endorsed this argument,[27] and some have presented counterarguments against it.
— Wikipedia

That would be just as bad as positive utilitarian arguments that suggest that if it is for "the greater good" then creating pain for an individual, when this does not need to happen for the individual, is acceptable. So those brands, I would not identify with that only based on negative utilitarianism. Though my views are based on not creating unnecessary harm/suffering, it always recognizes the locus of ethics at the level of individual. This is ethics at the margins, not on a whole. Potential parents that do not procreate, prevent that future individual from suffering. That is the level I am talking about, not whole populations as that quickly turns into not recognizing the individual, and using them as a means to an ends, which is bad for any cause. — schopenhauer1

Newbie to the forum, not philosophy or these types of debates. Quantity of writing doesn't factor into your status to me. I'm sure there have been plenty of individuals here whom have contributed a lot of comments with no real qualitative substance. Not saying this is you but I've yet to read all 4k of your comments haha. — MSC

No, I wasn't saying "bow to me for my many posts", but that it was rather brazen of you to just join the forum, and then accuse a member who has been here for many years that they are doing nefarious, sock-puppet activities on the forum.

First thing to be clear about is that people don't want to, everyone, without exception, loathes, suffering. A certainty there's no point arguing about. The OP wants to make a case for antinatalism on the basis of how people prefer to sleep rather than be awak engaging in dull and boring activities. and the parallel being drawn is crystal clear - sleep is nonexistence and being awake is existence. If one prefers to sleep then, this argument concludes, one must prefer death. — TheMadFool

I’m not sure if that’s the intended message or parallel, but since death is simply the end of life, and Antinatalists are against birth – the start of life, they are of course against its forced end as well – death.

I think more accurate would be to characterize Antinatalists as in favour of absence of imposed existence (short nonexistence), not because nonexistence is inherently good, but because suffering is inherently bad, and the only avoidance of all kinds of sufferings is not to be forced to exist.

At the same time nothing is lost because the craving for what we refer to as "good experience" is suffering too.


And I see the starting post is as a way to start getting aware of how much of life really is bad or neutral and how few moments are something we actually would consciously chose to experience.
I don’t think one needs or should force an analogy of sleep=nonexistence and being awake=existence.

So far so good.

The scenario you describe puts us in the position of having to make a choice: — TheMadFool

The post was to present a scenario where one wouldn't wake up from sleep again but still avoid suffering, even though you claimed nobody would do that.

Either have your foot cut off and meet your end OR sleep and meet your maker. I presume what you really want to offer as choices are: be awake and suffer OR sleep and don't suffer. It's quite obvious that the latter is a preferable alternative but, the catch is, for that choice to be always the best, to be awake must always involve suffering, not just suffering but intolerable suffering.

Is this an accurate description of reality? — TheMadFool

The everyday experience of most people isn't something to be excited about, but it probably isn't something to immensely fear either. But that doesn't mean that most people won't or aren't suffering severely. Immense suffering doesn't need to be your baseline to be bad, every single instance of it is one too much.

Also the degree of how much you actually suffer varies from human to human and is dependent on your circumstances and age (and a lot more of course). I think a lot of over 80-year-olds aren't particularly excited about their future experiences.
And every infant is in pretty much in constant agony as far as I'm aware, that's all they ever communicate.

But I honestly think you are very privileged if you seriously believe that immense suffering is something abstract as it can literally happen at any moment. You may have been spared until now but this is not too common.
For many it is very real, so real in fact that they overcome the strongest instinct humans have and go against their own survival instinct and manage to somehow kill themselves, while having many obstacles in their way (external and internal ones) while still fearing death, pain and uncertainity as much as everyone else, or even more so.



But even more fundamentally, this post by @dukkha makes an excellent point of how pleasure is just the avoidance of suffering, meaning life isn’t the carrot and the stick, but doesn’t even have a carrot, it’s in fact only beating with the stick (suffering) and temporary absence of the stick (pleasure).

Here are my choices: 1)awake and having the time of your life — TheMadFool

What does that euphemism actually mean - “having the time of your life”?
That you suffer through craving something and get a release for that suffering, until you are bored again? Like being pained and obsessed by a craving to visit some special place and then finally after many months you were actually able to visit that place and get your problem that life imposed onto you temporarily fulfilled (=release of suffering), until the next craving will be forced upon you?

You can only "enjoy" something if you suffer through a craving for it, f.e. the more you crave food, the "better" it will taste. And without any craving whatsoever the same food won't taste good at all.
The "pleasure" you may(!) get is always a release of your own suffering, and if the suffering is particularly great, you may(!) get a big release, thinking you profited, when in reality, you went from -5 to -0.5 again.
The same applies to thirst and drinking, constipation and going to the toilet, the urge for sex and an orgasm etc. Dukkhas' post I linked explains it really well.

OR 2) asleep and dead to the world? — TheMadFool

Something tells me this is meant to be an obvious “that would be totally bad”-option, but I really can’t see it. Wherein lies the harm in being unconscious?
There is no harm whatsoever if you aren’t conscious/suffering, you don’t miss out anything if you aren’t pained by a craving for what you then think you will miss out on.

My scenario, if it does anything, should blow the lid of clear off the antinatalist agenda. — TheMadFool

The antinatalist “agenda” (disphemism) is to end suffering. It is the most important thing you could possibly solve.

The choices available to us aren't limited to live and suffer or die and not. — TheMadFool

We don’t have any choice, since we have to exist and were forced into this life. You are exactly one moment of immense suffering away from being actively suicidal, because being suicidal isn’t a choice either. It’s just another suffering-avoidance mechanism.

Antinatalists forget that we can live and be happy — TheMadFool

No you can’t live and be happy. You can suffer (and be a bit unaware of its exact extent) and then get a temporary release off that suffering and call it "happiness", but that’s it.

and if this wasn't true in the past and even if it isn't true in the present, the future is unpredictable - tables may turn, unexpected things may happen.. — TheMadFool

Yes concentration camps may return rather sooner than later, another argument for Antinatalism.
You don't need the bandaid (paradise) if you aren't stabbing people in the first place (dragging them into life).

Well as far as I'm aware there are countless sucessful suicides every few seconds. — Zn0n


You're correct of course and I won't, can't, deny this truth but don't forget how many don't take their own lives. — TheMadFool

None of those who don’t take their life would have missed out anything if they didn’t come to be, so their existence is completely irrelevant to that equation, but what is actually important is that uncountable numbers of real victims would have been spared immense suffering/torture if they wouldn’t have been dragged into life.

Also (temporarily) happy people don’t make up for torture victims. That was what I’m asking in my previous post. How many torture victims do you think are justified for someone elses’ temporary happiness?
(And how can you even be happy in such a brutal world in the first place, but that's another topic.)
Every single of those victims of life is one too much, and it’s all for absolutely nothing, because the ones that don’t want to kill themselves (assuming they could, which is very unlikely btw) couldn’t have missed anything whatsoever.

but that it was rather brazen of you to just join the forum, and then accuse a member who has been here for many years that they are doing nefarious, sock-puppet activities on the forum. — schopenhauer1

If it gets you talking and taking me seriously, then I'll say it. It was a sincerely held concern and I would have done it whether you had been here for five years or five minutes. The accusation itself was investigative in nature. If you had started flaming and insulting me in a highly emotionally charged way where you were protesting too much then I may have had a point.

I wouldn't worry about that though. It is in the past now and I've already apologised. The IP addresses don't match and I didn't know enough about you to really say either way.

I wouldn't worry about that though. It is in the past now and I've already apologised. The IP addresses don't match and I didn't know enough about you to really say either way. — MSC

Again, coming in with guns blazin.. But it was also discounting the fact that two people can have the same views on something controversial, and not recognizing the individual nuances in people with similar views.

I think more accurate would be to characterize Antinatalists as in favour of absence of imposed existence (short nonexistence), not because nonexistence is inherently good, but because suffering is inherently bad, and the only avoidance of all kinds of sufferings is not to be forced to exist. — Zn0n

Yep, good way to phrase it.

At the same time nothing is lost because the craving for what we refer to as "good experience" is suffering too. — Zn0n

Yep. Deprivation of good, does not matter unless there is someone that actually exists to be deprived. Only once a person exists, does being deprived of good experience become an issue, it is can be argued that it is thus doubly good to prevent that (inevitable) deprivation.

And I see the starting post is as a way to start getting aware of how much of life really is bad or neutral and how few moments are something we actually would consciously chose to experience.
I don’t think one needs or should force an analogy of sleep=nonexistence and being awake=existence. — Zn0n

Yes! Thank you for recognizing that. Are people purposely taking the analogy literally as to make red herring side-tracks? Much of the day could be replaced with sleep is the point. If one looks at all the neutral or negative things that might easily and readily be replaced with sleep instead, one might find that there are only handful of any "fulfilling" things that are left throughout the day. Much of it is grinding gears or autopilot experience- all things where sleep would be easily more desired or at least if replaced by sleep, people would have no objections with.

What does that euphemism actually mean - “having the time of your life”?
That you suffer through craving something and get a release for that suffering, until you are bored again? Like being pained and obsessed by a craving to visit some special place and then finally after many months you were actually able to visit that place and get your problem that life imposed onto you temporarily fulfilled (=release of suffering), until the next craving will be forced upon you?

You can only "enjoy" something if you suffer through a craving for it, f.e. the more you crave food, the "better" it will taste. And without any craving whatsoever the same food won't taste good at all.
The "pleasure" you may(!) get is always a release of your own suffering, and if the suffering is particularly great, you may(!) get a big release, thinking you profited, when in reality, you went from -5 to -0.5 again.
The same applies to thirst and drinking, constipation and going to the toilet, the urge for sex and an orgasm etc. Dukkhas' post I linked explains it really well. — Zn0n

:up:

Something tells me this is meant to be an obvious “that would be totally bad”-option, but I really can’t see it. Wherein lies the harm in being unconscious?
There is no harm whatsoever if you aren’t conscious/suffering, you don’t miss out anything if you aren’t pained by a craving for what you then think you will miss out on. — Zn0n

Yep.

We don’t have any choice, since we have to exist and were forced into this life. — Zn0n

Yes, people confuse inter-worldly matters (e.g. being born) with intra-worldly matters (things people do once already born). Antinatalism deals with inter-worldly matters. These terms are from Julio Cabrera for reference.

Yes concentration camps may return rather sooner than later, another argument for Antinatalism.
You don't need the bandaid (paradise) if you aren't stabbing people in the first place (dragging them into life). — Zn0n

Yep.

the only avoidance of all kinds of sufferings is not to be forced to exist — Zn0n

Don't forget happiness in your equation unless you want to end up dividing by zero, mathematically speaking.

The post was to present a scenario where one wouldn't wake up from sleep again but still avoid suffering, even though you claimed nobody would do that — Zn0n

Whatever scenario an antinatalist will invent, it always boils down to life is suffering and so, you know what. Old wine in a new bottle, mate.

Sorry, I couldn't read through your post in entirety but I'll offer you one argument that should settle the issue once and for all. I don't deny that there's suffering in life but, you also can't deny that there's happiness in life too. Now, you'll have to bring up the matter of asymmetry - specifically Benatar's asymmetry - suffering exceeds happiness and so, antinatalism is the way to go. At this point, we need to understand what suffering is, essentially its purpose. Notice that all forms of suffering are like canaries in coal mines - they serve to warn us of impending...wait for it...death. Cut your finger and it hurts; the cut is like an alarm going off warning of the possibility of infection, followed by septicemia, followed by...wait for it...death. The same logic applies to mental anguish - it's again an alarm set off by,...wait for it...impending death but this time in the psychological domain. In short suffering, whether physical or mental, are all unpleasant because they presage...wait for it...death. Antinatalists have misunderstood the meaning of pain - it's a harbinger of death and that's why we find it unpleasant and that's why to recommend nonexistence because of pain is like recommending weight gain (death) to a person who avoids high calorie diets (pain) because it makes him fat (death).

Don't forget happiness in your equation unless you want to end up dividing by zero, mathematically speaking. — TheMadFool

"Dividing by zero" is a major error in mathematics. You are trying to color my statement that comes down to empty void doesn't crave "happiness" (the release of suffering) as such an error, while you are the one actually doing it.

But apart from that, we can't have a debate if you just completely ignore all my refutations of your claims and then just repeat your already refuted claims. That's just trying to waste my time.

Whatever scenario an antinatalist will invent, it always boils down to life is suffering and so, you know what. Old wine in a new bottle, mate. — TheMadFool

Antinatalists don't have to "invent" scenarios, but delusional suffering-apologists have to invent impossible alleged future utopias where suffering doesn't exist anymore to try to "justify" torture in the past in the present and in the future as well.

But as ridiculously ironic as that is, it's beside the point, that life literally is suffering.
Life is having imposed a targeted state upon you and a reality state that differentiates from that target state.The bigger the difference between them, the more suffering.
That's all life is, was and unfortunately - will be, desperately trying to solve problems life created and imposed in the first place.
That people long ago already saw that doesn't make it any less true, but in fact more sad, that humans after all that time are still in utter denial for the most part.

Sorry, I couldn't read through your post in entirety — TheMadFool

And that's the exact line where I stopped.
You "couldn't" read further my refutations of your claims but could write something more intended for me to invest time to debunk (that you then wont read as well I assume).

"Dividing by zero" is a major error in mathematics. You are trying to color my statement that comes down to empty void doesn't crave "happiness" (the release of suffering) as such an error, while you are the one actually doing it — Zn0n

I acknowledged the existence of suffering in the world and also that, comparatively speaking, it's greater in severity than any happiness that can possibly experienced by any one of us. Please keep this in mind as it'll become important later on.

The best argument antinatalists have to offer is one that proceeds from the statement that suffering is far in excess of happiness and I've admitted that this is a fact.

At this point let's put suffering under the microscope. It's, all said and done, the cornerstone of the statement that there's more suffering than happiness in the world, the key premise in the best antinatalist argument.

Suffering comes in two varieties, physical pain and mental anguish (depression). Physical pain, as all antinatalists will agree, is an unavoidable part of living but why stop the inquiry into pain there? It's a convenient spot to close the investigation, convenient for antinatalists that is. I insist that we reopen this case and make further inquiries into suffering, physcial and mental.

First question to ask is this: What is the function of pain, what purpose does it serve?

Physiologists will be more than willing to inform antinatalists that pain is an unpleasant sensation which serves the purpose of letting a person know that the body has been injured and requires attention to prevent it snowballing out of control and leading to death. Also note how we we reflexively pull away when we touch something hot. The principle at work here is prevention is better than cure and a stitch in time saves nine. The bottom line is that our physical pain sensory apparatus is an alarm system that's designed to alert us to minor and major injuries that might lead to catastrophic failure (death) if not attended to.

Mental anguish too has the same function - it raises the alarm when there's a threat of, or actual, harm to our mental well-being with the specter of death looming ominously over the one who is so suffering.

All in all, suffering, whether physical pain or mental anguish, are simply warnings of impending death and that's exactly the reason why it's unpleasant and people avoid it.

If a person were a king then, suffering is a messenger who brings bad tidings, news of a coming disaster, death. The purpose of the messenger's bad news (suffering) is to provide an opportunity for the monarch to put in place measures to avoid the disaster, death. For the ruler to then decide to let the disaster, death, happen (antinatalism) because the messenger conveyed bad news (suffering) is to miss the point of the bad-news-delivering messenger's purpose (as a warning mechanism) entirely. Oddly, it reminds me of Jesus - the savior who was branded a rabble-rousing heretic by Jews and their overlords, the Romans.

I acknowledged the existence of suffering in the world and also that, comparatively speaking, it's greater in severity than any happiness that can possibly experienced by any one of us — TheMadFool

Everybody is forced to acknowledge the existence of suffering, there is no choice in that, but to the contrary it’s against everyones’ choice by definition.

A bit on semantics:
Please be more specific what exactly you are speaking about when you talk about “happiness”, because the word strikes me as a bit fuzzy.
F.e. what part of being pained by hunger, appetite and boredom and then having eaten a big meal and being temporarily released of that pain of hunger, appetite and boredom is actually “happiness”? The few seconds of taste before you swallow? Or the being satiated after being hungry? All of it?

You could use “pleasure” instead as it covers more of what you are most likely referring to, and just using “happiness” weakens your own point, because suffering includes all types of badness, but "happiness" not all types of alleged “goodness”. Why it’s alleged “goodness” and not actual “goodness” did I describe in more depth in my response to you here.

The best argument antinatalists have to offer is one that proceeds from the statement that suffering is far in excess of happiness and I've admitted that this is a fact.” — TheMadFool

Hard disagreement here, this argument isn’t even in the top 10 by any stretch of imagination.
What you described is yet another reason while life is asymmetric and stacked against you from the very start, but there are even way better arguments. I provided two at the end of this post, please respond to them.

First question to ask is this: What is the function of pain, what purpose does it serve?

Physiologists will be more than willing to inform antinatalists that pain is an unpleasant sensation which serves the purpose of letting a person know that the body has been injured and requires attention to prevent it snowballing out of control and leading to death. — TheMadFool

What your doing here is claiming inherent bad (suffering) were actually good, because part of that bad happens to -sometimes- serve a function inside the bad system of life.
But Antinatalists question the alleged necessity of the bad system of life itself, and point out that it’s bad because you can’t possibly improve -absence of suffering-, by forcing it into suffering.
You are basically committing an ought-is-fallacy here among others.

To apply this line of thinking:
Brutal group-rape is bad but serves a function, namely the release of the urge to brutally rape of the multiple rapists. (Also there is only one victim.) So brutal-group-rape is now a good thing.

I hope you see now how blatantly evil this line of thinking is.
I find this to be a good test, if your line of reason could be used to allegedly “justify” the torture of innocents it needs to be discarded immediately.


Now how about you responding to these two arguments:

• Do you agree with “forcing people into painful and deadly situations is wrong”?
  If so – congratulations you are now an Antinatalist, if not, you have no argument against someone forcing you into a painful and deadly situation.
  
  
• You are constantly referring to how “happiness” has to be taken into account.
  Being deprived of “happiness” is suffering, as you certainly wouldn’t want a life without any “happiness”, so the experience of “happiness” is the release of the suffering of the painful craving of happiness.
  
  Empty void isn’t suffering a deprivation of happiness obviously, so
  Why do you think it were a good idea, to create and multiply the problem of craving happiness, especially if the absence of creating the problem solves it as perfectly as it could possibly be solved?
  
  There is no band-aid (temporary release of the craving for happiness) needed if you don’t put a knife into someones chest (unnecessarily creating the suffering that is the craving of “happiness”) in the first place.

To apply this line of thinking:
Brutal group-rape is bad but serves a function, namely the release of the urge to brutally rape of the multiple rapists. (Also there is only one victim.) So brutal-group-rape is now a good thing. — Zn0n

You're making a mistake here. The pleasure of raping is not the same as the pain of being raped. You should be, like a good antinatalist, focusing on the suffering of the rape victim, no? The suffering experienced by the victim being raped is good because it informs the victim that something horrible is happening. Without this suffering, n one would know if they're being raped, no? Is this the preferable situation, to not know you're being raped?

I refer you now to the argument I made previously about what the function of pain/suffering is. The more fallacious than twisted, but both, logic of antinatalists would have us all be raped because being raped is painful. We suffer in life ergo, we should all prefer not to live proclaims antinatalists but they fail to see that we suffer precisely because we don't want not to exist. By the same token then antinatalists should be moving mountains to ensure that everyone gets raped.

An antinatalist on life:

We suffer in existence. Ergo, we shouldn't want to exist.

BUT...we suffer in existence precisely because we don't want to not exist. Suffering is unequivocal proof that we don't want to not exist. That means the antinatalist argument is a contradiction viz. We don't want to not exist (that's why we suffer). Ergo, we should not exist.. Said differently, we should do exactly that which we don't want to do This last statement is important for what follows.

By the same logic,

We suffer in being raped. Ergo, the antinatalist should say, we should all get raped. After all, we should do exactly that which we don't want to do