So, perhaps we are indeed natures/the universes best attempt so far, to be able to figure out what and why it is existent. Another reason why we can't vote to end our story, as the antinatalists request, as the universe may never know what or why it is other than through the efforts of a species like us. I am not a panpsychist, but do I think that some kind of emerging panpsychism is happening within the linear time we experience? ....... meh!Nature always creates such opposites. That which is pure chaos and that which is pure order.
Their interaction and dynamic with one another, is the basis for evolution, for the struggle between control and lack thereof — Benj96
We just don't know what effects our actions and our words may have on others, that's why we have to think about our actions and our words deeply and carefully.
Something I don't think antinatalists are very good at. — universeness
So, perhaps we are indeed natures/the universes best attempt so far, to be able to figure out what and why it is existent. Another reason why we can't vote to end our story, as the antinatalists request, as the universe may never know what or why it is other than through the efforts of a species like us. I am not a panpsychist, but do I think that some kind of emerging panpsychism is happening within the linear time we experience? ....... meh! — universeness
But if we birth something human in mind but not in body, something metallic perhaps, then we need to tread carefully, not to assume that because it is different to us in appearance, it is not the same as us in sprit. — Benj96
While the vast majority may live happy lives, the hundreds of millions with lives of unbearable suffering are the sacrifice for this. I think there's a fair argument that this should be discouraged. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Is antinatalism the answer?
Perhaps the lure is the provocative nature of this absurd idea. After all, if everyone believed in antinatalism, we as a human race would be wiped out of the Earth. Too bad for all of our domesticated animals. — ssu
While the vast majority may live happy lives, the hundreds of millions with lives of unbearable suffering are the sacrifice for this. I think there's a fair argument that this should be discouraged. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Go on...
Why ought we discourage that? — Isaac
When the world stops becoming something to complain about… — schopenhauer1
These I don’t get. — schopenhauer1
Perhaps the lure is the provocative nature of this absurd idea. — ssu
if one feels the sacrifice is wrong, then they should discourage it. If one feels the price is worth paying, they ought not. — Down The Rabbit Hole
It has been suggested on here before by pronatalists that because of their miserable lives, antinatalists are looking at the world through excrement-tinted glasses. I can't say this is true of all antinatalists, but I believe this accounts for a significant number. Of-course the opposite is also true - if you're living a pleasant life, the sacrifice is worth it - why would you throw all the wonders we experience away, just because some people suffer. — Down The Rabbit Hole
The execution of that choice is the prime focus of antinatalism, is it not? — universeness
But the point is that the origin of the reproduction choice a human has, had no inherent intent, so any moral question you impose based on the existence of that choice is a purely human construct and has no natural imperative. — universeness
... so surely you see the power of the natural imperative to reproduce as a defence against extinction regardless of any human constructed moral imperative you think has value. — universeness
But you are ignoring the result of your imposed moral imperative. EXTINCTION, which as I have already suggested is contrary to the much more significant natural imperative of reproduction as a defence AGAINST EXTINCTION. Evidenced further because of the existence of asexual reproduction, which as already stated, REMOVES THE CHOICE that antinatalism depends upon. — universeness
It shows that choosing antinatalism would result in extinction and extinction is against the natural imperative. — universeness
It's simply a statement about the concept of morality/immorality being merely a human construct.
Before life became existent there can be no issue of morality. Every happenstance before life in the past 13.8 billion years has no moral aspect to it. So, life in its infancy has no moral aspect to it. Do you think that early hominid species such as Neandertals should not have engaged in reproduction? Did they really have a choice? Most humans can never support antinatalism as it is contrary to the natural imperative to be an existent and continue our species. The alternative is a return to an earlier state of the universe that has already been, and if there was a return to that earlier point, we would just progress to this point again in some variety of what currently is. Antinatalism is therefore utterly futile.
Using our time and effort to reduce all human suffering is the more sensible choice.
Try to think about it a little deeper and you might arrive at the same correct conclusion or stay fogged. Your choice. — universeness
Sure, but not the question of whoever is a fortunate or unfortunate species. — Tzeentch
I don't see how that would inhibit a moral discussion, which is also a human construct. — Tzeentch
There is no natural imperative, other than perhaps instinctual drives, which, again, I do not view as an excuse for immoral action. — Tzeentch
The individual is in no way obliged to care about "the species". It's not even rational for the individual to care, since they have no tangible control over whether the species survives. Nor do they have a stake in it, since they won't be around to witness an extinction if it does take place.
Additionally, even if one were to care, ends do not justify means. — Tzeentch
Extinction is nothing more than an excuse to give in to instinctual drives. No individual reproduces because they are afraid the species might go extinct otherwise. They reproduce because they want to - because it satisfies some instinctual need.
That's not a basis for moral decision-making. — Tzeentch
I don't care about Neandertals, or reducing human suffering. — Tzeentch
I care about the morality of individual human actions (which is the only rational way to approach morality - individuals and their individual choices). In this case the choice of individuals to reproduce. If that choice cannot make moral sense in their individual context, it will not make sense in any wider context. — Tzeentch
Where is your evidence that if antinatalism was applied, it would be successful in the extinction of the immorality it is supposed to prevent? Intelligent life would simply continue elsewhere or reform elsewhere. You can't guarantee your fake immorality concern wont return again, and again and again. Your invalid immorality excuse is just your poor reasoning for a solution which won't work and is futile and is just based on your own ability to find balance in your own life. — universeness
. Many humans still suffer horrendously from generation to generation but we have improved things since the days of the first cities, Jericho, Uruk, Ur etc. So I would say to the antinatalists that before we vote for our own extinction. GIVE US A F****** CHANCE! Say another few million years (which is less than the dinos had) before you offer us antinatalism again. — universeness
The attention I am paying to 'his argument,' is simply shaking your little room. If you want to help him then make your points or concentrate on wiping the slabbers from your own mouth. — universeness
Antinatalism will probably still fixate on their future problems while ignoring the immense progress we have made and will continue to make at ever accelerating rates. — Benj96
Your death in certain circumstances will be the action that will improve the lives of millions, permanently. But you will never be credited. In fact, your memory will be despised, as the circumstances mean that you will have to seem to be the traitor, the judas, the evil one. You will be forever damned. No one will ever know that you were in fact the saviour. Would you do it? no martyrdom, no credit, no memorial other than as one who is hated and utterly damned? — universeness
Not at all. You’re simply missing his points and/or ignoring them. He’s doing a fine job. Can’t help if you’re like a child with fingers in his ears. — schopenhauer1
It does not inhibit a moral discussion but your antinatalism solution ignores and hand waves away the very powerful natural imperative for continuation of the human species and the natural imperative to continue all species, including those produced asexually. All you are trying to do is squirm past that point by hand waving it away because you know its fact and it is strong evidence against the validity of an antinatalist viewpoint. — universeness
You can't guarantee your fake immorality concern wont return again, and again and again. — universeness
Give me an example of another species that has made itself extinct through the choice of all of its members to stop reproducing, ... — universeness
These are just your irrational opinions — universeness
Human morality guides instinct. — universeness
Are images in your head of 'dirty evil human instincts,' the basis of your antinatalism? — universeness
Human suffering is put forward by antinatalists as the main reason for their adherence to it. — universeness
Can you really not see the contradiction? — universeness
It would be sad to imagine helping others and nobody appreciating it. People like to be appreciated for the good things they do. — Benj96
I know that's a very 'no shit Sherlock,' observation to make, but I do think it's important to think deeply when faced with such irrational and impractical people as antinatalists.
I think they may be just people who are crying out for help and recognition. — universeness
I'm handwaving it, because there is no reason whatsoever for an individual to feel any natural imperative. I don't feel any natural imperative. — Tzeentch
Simultaneously seeing that people using this "natural imperative" are using an irrational "end justify the means" argument (I explained why it is irrational) to excuse their individual actions. — Tzeentch
You can't guarantee your fake immorality concern wont return again, and again and again.
— universeness
I don't need to guarantee anything. The only thing I'm concerned with is the morality of the act of reproducing. — Tzeentch
Morality is about individuals and individual choices. I can point to many individuals who made the conscious decision not to reproduce, thus disproving - yes, disproving - any allusions to the existence of a "natural imperative" that we are somehow all magically subjected to. — Tzeentch
Clearly this is not the case. Humans have many instincts, violent ones, sexual ones, etc. that are clearly not moral. — Tzeentch
No, really what I'm doing is applying a very common moral principle - do not impose on others - consistently, and I view your position as special pleading to excuse your inconsistency. — Tzeentch
No I can't, because clearly you're responding to some generalized idea you have about antinatalism, and not reading what I am typing to you. — Tzeentch
1). People with a fundamentally good intention (to address suffering, to find an ultimate ethical/moral solution for suffering). — Benj96
In this way it is a paradoxic cycle alternating from subjectivity (concept of an ideal), to the implications of that ideal if it was objective (actually the case). In which case the intent (ideal) violates its own existence if it were to be real (objective). — Benj96
They only articulate a pointless contradictory principle and flounder helplessly by fixating on it. One needs to identify their ability to act (their agency, the fact that their life can and does matter, and they can make a positive differenve against suffering) rather than just talk about sufferings inability to be abolished entirely. — Benj96
Being someone who exists (but has an ideal of not existing) signals serious concern to me for their wellbeing. Because to me it sounds like a state of helplessness and impotency - inability to reconcile their purpose (core ideal) with the fact that they exist as a person. So the only other option is to project the need for non existence onto others (in other words make it everyone elses problem). — Benj96
In short, a last ditch effort to cope by denying the fact that they're severely depressed/utterly miserable and have little joy left to feel. — Benj96
Which of course suggests that suffering is all that is on offer for newborns or any joys will be irrelevent because of the sufferings you will experience. Again, totally irrational thinking. — universeness
So is asexual reproduction, in your mind, irrational, as well as 'unfortunate?' — universeness
So, you have no interest in consequentials then? Even if those consequentials mean that the original goal of your protest remains unfulfilled and the issue is never solved because it returns again and again, ad infinitum? — universeness
I have no idea what is in your head that connects the natural imperative to reproduce with the word 'magic.' — universeness
In what way is the human potential for random, controllable, suppressible, immoral thought an aspect of humanity that warrants antinatalism and the extinction of our species? — universeness
I find the very few, different flavours of antinatalism, typed about on this thread to be equal only in how irrational they are. — universeness
You choose to ignore the fact that obtaining such consent is not possible and that simply means, by default, we must not reproduce and anything that reproduces asexually now or after our extinction is just unfortunate. It that basically you position? Is that the antinatalism you want to sell to everyone? Which includes people like me? What estimate do you place on your chances of success?
Do you in fact need the buzz you get from the incredulity you receive? — universeness
So is asexual reproduction, in your mind, irrational, as well as 'unfortunate?' — universeness
So, you have no interest in consequentials then? Even if those consequentials mean that the original goal of your protest remains unfulfilled and the issue is never solved because it returns again and again, ad infinitum? — universeness
I can point to such people as well and their decision is not normally an antinatalist one and is more likely to be an economic or lifestyle choice or even a 'not until the world becomes a better place,' or 'the world is overpopulated' choice which is also not necessarily based on an antinatalist viewpoint. — universeness
In what way is the human potential for random, controllable, suppressible, immoral thought an aspect of humanity that warrants antinatalism and the extinction of our species? — universeness
But you are trying to constantly impose your antinatalism on others, consistently! — universeness
You are choosing to ignore the fact that obtaining such consent is not possible ... — universeness
But the antinatalist Tzeentch has just posted that he does not care about reducing human suffering so does your number 1 here apply to his/her flavour of antinatalism? — universeness
It certainly seems that way but perhaps some of them do get an actual buzz out of the incredulous responses they get. Attention seekers? — universeness
Yes, that is part of his central ethical argument. It's deontological, not consequential. Unnecessarily imposing on others for X reason, is wrong he is saying. Thus, obviously, imposing on many people EVEN in the hopes of preventing unnecessary impositions would by logic, also be wrong. — schopenhauer1
That's because there is no "natural imperative to reproduce" in HUMANS. We are a creature that has "reasons" that are shaped by a multitude of things, and are generally shaped by the general culture around us and simply personal preferences- anything from not wanting to miss out, to simply boredom with life, loneliness, and a host of other non-instinctual reasons. — schopenhauer1
Huh? Not even the argument. Another red herring. — schopenhauer1
Assertion that adds nothing to the argument. Rhetorical filler. — schopenhauer1
A truth isn't how successful it sells to an audience. People often don't see "truth" at all, and certainly not right away. — schopenhauer1
I hope the anti-life posters appreciate the olive branch you offer them.
I would just still watch who you invite into your world. — universeness
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.