In my view, procreation that leads to a life of mostly suffering is wrong, and procreation that leads to a life of mostly pleasure is right. — Down The Rabbit Hole
So with a deadly pandemic raging, causing pain and misery to millions of people, upending society, causing fear of making wrong decisions- where to go, what is safe to do, weighing options, making potentially wrong decisions that lead to pain and possibly death. Add this to the many other and already tried and true ways we suffer, compounding the other forms. Governments imploding into their own reenactnent of Greco Roman.cycle of democracy and tyranny. Pain is easily forgetten until one actually endures it. Then what? Be thankful you are no longer being tortured by a disease ravaging your body? How does this not lend cause to abstaining from procreation? — schopenhauer1
How could you know? Sure there are indicators but that's all they are. An alleged well-off child could be born with a debilitating defect or have an accident that will be with them their entire life. An alleged poor or unfortunate child can end up being a genius or win the lottery or something. You never know. Just Google "rich people born poor", for a few examples. It's rare, no doubt. But it happens. — Outlander
Furthermore, why is "procreation that leads to a life of mostly pleasure" right? Is there some religious basis for this? A "soul" being rewarded with the pleasures of this world? If not, many would liken all of us, rich or poor, to little more than slightly-advanced animals living a meaningless existence of chasing shiny objects. — Outlander
Regardless, who are you to "gamble" with a life, be it divine or animalistic. Just someone who can- simply because you can at that moment. What meaning is there at all from that standpoint? — Outlander
How does this not lend cause to abstaining from procreation? — schopenhauer1
However, it's not as simple as that. Buddhism has one other belief critical to this discussion viz. that only humans are capable of attaining nirvana - those living in lower realms (hell) overwhelmed by intense suffering and those of the higher realms (heaven) hypnotized by the rapturous delight. Ergo, in order to ensure more people have a shot at attaining nirvana, we should have/make more children. In other words, antinatalism doesn't square with Buddhism. Ending on the wrong note! Ouch! My ears! And Eyes! And Mind!
Paradox! — TheMadFool
There's no thrills or excitement, no fear of death or injury or failure sure, which of course means, no passion. It would quickly become difficult to distinguish one's own existence from that of a vegetable growing in a garden. — Outlander
Regardless, who are you to "gamble" with a life, be it divine or animalistic. Just someone who can- simply because you can at that moment. What meaning is there at all from that standpoint? — Outlander
Well, the procreated tend to support their appearance upon the scene.I appreciate that I have had a shot at the deal.
My child is a man now. I don't know what he will choose. The future belongs to him. — Valentinus
The pessimistic outcome is essentially that of antinatalism. The optimistic outcome is the use of advanced technology to eliminate suffering and to achieve artificial immortality. In either case, suffering will be eliminated once and for all. But it is just a question of how much imagination and determination we have as a species. For my part, I fully support the optimistic outcome :smile: — Alvin Capello
Why propose these pussy half measures? Surely the logic of your position demands that all sentience should be ended immediately by any means necessary?
(If you construct a slippery slope argument, there is no valid reason not to slither all the way to its bottom.) — apokrisis
How does this not lend cause to abstaining from procreation?
But then you are okay with using people to try to get to some technological utopia? People are thus fodder for the "aggregate utilitarian mill" of getting some advanced technology in some far off distant future? — schopenhauer1
"You need to suffer to not be bored" — schopenhauer1
I object to them for preaching. But, really, you are preaching too. — Jack Cummins
On the other hand, refusing to procreate alleviates zero suffering, helps no one, does nothing to innovate beyond our current circumstances, so one shouldn’t expect any cookies for it. — NOS4A2
The idea is not going to change people's behavior. — Valentinus
Nevertheless, we can still work towards a technological utopia on non-utilitarian grounds. — Alvin Capello
How does this not lend cause to abstaining from procreation? — schopenhauer1
You need to be able to suffer or otherwise have the possibility of failure, misfortune, or loss to have any sense of passion or life of purpose. Naturally we all work to avoid these things but after accepting their inevitability we learn to cope with them better when they do arise.
Why is gambling, playing a video game, skydiving, or riding a roller coaster exciting and not boring? Because each has a danger, some minor, some major, that invigorates us and is a departure from the normal routine. — Outlander
People are really horny. Under the threat of inevitable and impending doom, fucking is as good an option as any. Consequence: invasion of the babies. — Merkwurdichliebe
Nevertheless, we can still work towards a technological utopia on non-utilitarian grounds. — Alvin Capello
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.