I voted no just so everyone is aware.

This is an easy trap for the vast majority of people, who, in order to escape pain and anguish, drown themselves in oceans of "good" sensations, immediate, instantaneous sensations. But I do not dare to say that the strongest are immune, because it only takes a press of this button, in a completely conscious person, to remove it from its virtues and morals, making it become an empty shell. Therefore, the choice must be cut - "No" is the only answer possible -.

Good man.

To anyone that votes yes, I ask you, why? No judgements.

Can I vary the amounts of stimulation? ‘Cause like... orgasmic bliss all the time sounds kind of debilitating, but a small trickle of “everything’s fine, relax and don’t stress out” would be great.

I’d like to always feel at least slightly on the positive side of things, but for HOW MUCH positive to still go up and down in response to other things.

For no other reason than it seems irresponsible to just trust you to take care of everything else that concerns me about the world and retire into perpetual orgasmic bliss.

sure, why not. I'll give you a dial instead of a button haha

I voted yes because having all my physiological needs taken care of for pressing a button every once in a while is too good of a deal to pass on.

@schopenhauer1 Your turn buddy! What will you pick?

I voted yes because — praxis

would be great. — Pfhorrest

This is an easy trap for the vast majority of people — Gus Lamarch

It really is an easy trap. My prey has yet to take the bait though. I personally see the human experience as so much more meaningful than seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. Far too binary for me and there is something to be said for the endeavour of struggling against the harsh universe for your joy.

As an aside for everyone; it would probably be best to take this offer with the caretaker option. When the rats had control of the button, they forgot to eat, sleep and have sex. When this experiment was performed on humans, they tended to fall in love with the experimenter.

What about your goals and ambitions in life? You'd likely forget about those in favour of the button. Would you really want to lose everything that makes you, you? I mean, I know you wouldn't care after you had the button but do you care about those things now? Does your potential not matter to you? Does your dignity matter? I'd literally probably have to wipe your ass and bathe you like a child.

I tend to see pleasure the way dukkha does here:

I think also there's a mischaraterisation about what pleasure actually is. Seems to me the Cyrenaic (note: I've never actually read any Cyrenaic work) sees pleasure as something far more valuable or positive, or 'pleasurable' than it actually is. A kind of pollyannaism about pleasure. Take the example above, where I've written "lack of nice mouth sensations". You might argue here that "ok, the lack of nice mouth sensations is a kind of suffering we are motivated by and strive away from. But those nice mouth sensations we experience (due to striving away from it's lack, and not as the Cyreanic says; because we positively strived towards it) are actually intrinsically good."

But I'm not so sure. If the taste sensation is actually positively pleasurable (over and above a cessation of suffering, or a kind of 'flow' distraction from suffering) and therefore good, shouldn't you want to constantly sense it? I like the taste of orange juice, but I wouldn't want to constantly experience the taste. Or take bodily sensations. I know for sure if given the choice I would want to never experience bodily suffering/pains again, but would I want to constantly experience bodily pleasures? Would I want to constantly orgasm? And if not, what does that say about how pleasurable the actual sensation is? People who orgasm like 100 times a day live in hell it seems. Note that pleasure is also extremely short lived. An orgasm is like 3 seconds, one only gets 'lost in the music' for a single song, at best. Food only tastes good until it's swallowed. A heroin rush fades pretty quickly into a sort of secure numbness, which eventually becomes sickness. — dukkha

That being said.. that's how I'd feel about the machine.. However, I have said before that a utopia would be one where you can dial in as much pain and pleasure as you want. So if this included every aspect of life, and was not just a really advanced sex toy.. Sure, I'm for it. However, the ultimate version of a utopia may be not existing at all or being completely filled (what does that look like?) that one doesn't want for want ever- pleasure, or the need to move away from pain. The closest that comes is actually sleep or not existing at all really.

I personally see the human experience as so much more meaningful than seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. Far too binary for me and there is something to be said for the endeavour of struggling against the harsh universe for your joy. — MSC

I regard it a complete disregard for human intellectual and physical evolution. If we have something different from animals, it is the fact that we can fight our instincts at all times. However, people - for the most part - get carried away by the wave of the dionysian. Bah! If you want endless sensations, be then irrational animals and leave your vacant places as former humans to those who are really worthwhile.

It really is an easy trap. My prey has yet to take the bait though. — MSC

Hm, interesting. May I know who they prey is?

Hm, interesting. May I know who they prey is? — Gus Lamarch

Gee it's me, the evil antinatalist.. I sense trolling :roll:

I'm not trolling you. This is a sincere question. I'm just trying to provide some light humour so we all know that we are friends in this discussion and I do actually value your input. Also I don't believe in evil. So I'd never call you such a thing.

Gee it's me, the evil antinatalist.. — schopenhauer1

Oh, ok.

I sense trolling — schopenhauer1

Not on my regard.

Also I've been drinking, so there is that. Not trolling though or at least it isn't my intent but I'm sorry if you feel like it is.

At the heart of this, I just want to ask what you think would be a better use of your time. Trying to convince people not to procreate, or convincing neuroscientists to set you up with the dial? I'll accept your answer either way as your answer and this will be the last you hear of it as I didn't originally come onto this forum with the intent of only talking about antinatalism. I have discussions on Truth and falsehoods to post after this.

I'd just take it as a compliment that you've inspired me to think about your views more.

By the way, I think it probably best that you know that I do in fact have a child with another one due in February. Just so you are informed as to where my biases lie. It may mean I am incapable of seeing natalism as immoral in the broad sense. That doesn't mean I don't agree in a more narrow sense. I'd consider it highly immoral for paedophiles to procreate because your predictions of suffering there would be completely on point in my eyes.

When this experiment was performed on humans, they tended to fall in love with the experimenter. — MSC

Says much about the emotive condition of humans, not that this is a surprise.

So my definition of necessary suffering is being deprived, usually based on things related to survival, comfort, entertainment. If somehow, we lived in a world where we didn't have "needs" because we were perpetually fulfilled at all times (again I don't know what that world really looks like except some sort of imaginary blissful being or more simply being in a nothing-like nirvana state), then sure that might be a world worth being born into.

I certainly don't think people should be born, to be used basically, so that there might be such a future state. I also don't subscribe to the notion that this world of pure fulfillment is somehow devoid of what it "really" means to be human. This whole trope about creating people so that they can suffer, so they can overcome the suffering is callous and cruel to cause for a future individual. Let sleeping dogs lie. Don't create drama/pain so that you can watch a person navigate through it in some social/societal/historically contexted setting/institutions.

As far as pleasure, again find it to be suspect. To say pleasure is "intrinsically good" is to not recognize that it is only relatively good in comparison to the netural/bad states. It is only "good" if temporary and usually loses its luster. So if in your supposed scenario there is a way to never lose the luster, maybe there is something there. That is not our universe though. And again, if we "need" the pleasure, then there is some residual "necessary suffering" of being unfulfilled, so there's that whole thing, thus reverting back to some nirvana or death-like state being actually the most utopian/fuliflled state. Either way, even if this world could exist, it certainly isn't this one. And to belabor the point, I don't see this universe as a magical journey to feel the heartaches, the pains, and foibles so we can be more "human" in some Nietzschan/maniacal fashion.. I think the Eternal Return scenario where you'd keep coming back to suffer as a human struggling again again, is hellish and immoral to want for others certainly.

I brought this up to my wife the other day, who's very spiritual, and I figured she would recoil in horror from the idea. Nope. I still can't make heads or tails of it. I lean somewhat spiritual but I wouldn't have a thing to do with such a device (so I tell myself). Knowing myself, I would eventually succumb, but the thought of becoming a Louts Eater is just terrifying. It would be soul murder.

I always admired Chmeee in the Ringworld series for his reaction to getting hit with the tasp (aka "pleasure button") for the first time and his disgust when he saw Louis had succumbed. It's stupid to admire a fictional character, but the character Chmeee and his sense of duty, loyalty, and integrity resonate strongly with me. If there is a "good life" to live, those qualities are essential.

Pleasure is not the end goal. Equilibrium is. Most of us might not be aware of this revelation -- but upon examination, this is truly what peace is about. Equilibrium after a painful experience is what our mind wants, not necessarily pleasure. We are happiest when we have equilibrium, which pleasure cannot provide.

Free pleasure is worthless pleasure, just like farcebook and twatter bring you. It does nothing for your life. If there is no reason for the pleasure then it is senseless to have it.

It's stupid to admire a fictional character, but the character Chmeee and his sense of duty, loyalty, and integrity resonate strongly with me. If there is a "good life" to live, those qualities are essential. — RogueAI

Is it stupid to admire a fictional character? I admire loads! Even if I don't always admire the writer of that character *Cough*JKRowling*Cough*.

What you said really resonates with me and also matches surprisingly well with the Inspiration for this post. which I think you'd enjoy reading simply for it's parallels to your own words.

Free pleasure is worthless pleasure, just like farcebook and twatter bring you. It does nothing for your life. If there is no reason for the pleasure then it is senseless to have it. — Sir2u

Sir, I love you. I'm gonna be borrowing those terms. Watch the Social Dilemma on Netflix. You. Will. Love. It!

Sure, will do! ETA: That was a great article: open-mouthed horror. Yeah, that about sums up my reaction. How did the Greeks feel about the Lotus Eaters? Surely they philosophized about it.

Pleasure is not the end goal. Equilibrium is. Most of us might not be aware of this revelation -- but upon examination, this is truly what peace is about. Equilibrium after a painful experience is what our mind wants, not necessarily pleasure. We are happiest when we have equilibrium, which pleasure cannot provide. — Caldwell

What does equilibrium mean to you? I'm not disagreeing. I do see what you are saying, I don't necessarily want pleasure when I feel pain, I just want the pain to be gone. Just feeling balanced is a worthwhile reprieve from some forms of suffering. The forms of suffering and pain that harm me. So pain in my legs while I am exercising is a good thing and in the long run is beneficial, not harmful.

Your thought experiment is based on septal stimulation and there’s no evidence that it’s as addictive as you now suggest. Even though I admittedly have poor impulse control and the stimulation may be a challenge to deal with initially, eventually habituation would liberate and I’d be left with a free ass wiper.

Your thought experiment is based on septal stimulation and there’s no evidence that it’s as addictive as you now suggest.

People get addicted to gambling, of all things. You don't think they would get addicted to something that brings them constant pleasure to the nth degree? I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who didn't fall prey to it. I spent 20 years fighting booze, which made me feel kind-of-good. I would be no match for "the button".