Hi David, I've been dabbling in secular buddhism, evolutionary psychology, and antinatalism on and off over the years and it's cool to see that transhumanism shares common themes and foundations. Are these overlaps recognized in transhumanist circles and if yes, could you recommend readings exploring these common themes, especially in the secular buddhism part?

I have also realized that "hard" antinatalism is impractical so I just left it at that for a long time now but I'm finding that your arguments for transhumanism presents a more practicable alternative. So thanks for holding this AMA and introducing me to this position!

Maybe it would help if you could give illustrative examples of philosophies or concepts based on the idea of progress. Below are two case studies that come to mind:

Case 1 on Compounding Interest:

The money lent by financiers supposedly 'grows' when goods or services are traded with some value added by the borrowers. But what happens when there is no more novelty in the goods and services traded, i.e. you can only add X number of blades to a razor until customers realize they don't need much? Prices of the same goods must go up to keep up with the interest payments or costs must go down to keep margins up and then you'll start having problems. I was really confused back then why governments have a target 'inflation rate', I mean why would governments want prices to go up? It was only after connecting this with unending debt payment that I understood why and something must give when businesses run out of ideas.

Case 2 on Unchanging Human Psyche:

Krishnamurti wrote along the following lines: there is technological progress but there is no 'psychological' progress. While we can't deny the technological progress throughout history, there are aspects of human nature that probably remain the same. Sure, it has become easier to satisfy one's basic needs because of modern conveniences but I don't think it has become easier to understand other people to their core, be at peace with loss, death, aging, and boredom, and be mindful of one's desires. Human need and desire for connection, stability, and purpose, among other things, still remain largely unfulfilled and unchanged throughout human history. I'd like to make the claim that we're still as confused as to the purpose of life as humans did before.

May be applicable if you want to live within a small community. May not be applicable though if you want to scale things up like food production and transport unless you agree to go back to manual labor and to forgo quick and convenient long-distance travel.

I just have some experience in power system and energy system planning so I usually get my sort of superficial knowledge on nuclear technology just from background reading. Haha. I was really shocked to know that only about 4% of energy stored in fuel rods are used.

It's nice that you shared the energy policies by France and Germany, really appreciate it. The German way of 100% RE also have its issues regarding supply intermittency and wastes. Research on both is still under development but at least, incremental implementation of current technology is less risky and provides immediate rewards.

What I appreciate about the German/France mode of thinking where one tries to maintain the current structure of power/energy consumption while the other tries to create a new paradigm is that it is a nice textbook example on how different modes of thinking can affect national (read: a lot of people) policy.

I think the only responsibilities people have is towards the children they created. if you have a child whilst in a broken marriage or poverty that is your responsibility and an unjustifiable burden on the child. — Andrew4Handel

And I think that this is also the point raised by some participants in this thread, that we should pass judgment on a case to case basis. I think this is more easily acceptable than claiming the wrongness of mindful acts leading to procreation, regardless of circumstance, which I currently hold as a worldview stemming from my biased valuation of suffering.

I was not just intending to talk about procreation and antinatalism i was asking how you can defend the notion of consent at all when our parents chose for us to come to exist — Andrew4Handel

Sorry for seeming to digressing in my previous responses, it was not intentional. But if you view "consent" as some sort of assigning responsibility for someone who cannot give consent, it will inevitably lead to a subjective valuation (as I think @Sapientia and @Ciceronianus the White is trying to imply) of whether there is something wrong with the current state of affairs, e.g. what is wrong that life is imposed or what is wrong that there is suffering?

I also don't like nuclear back then but a recent encounter with pro-nuclear articles changed my stance. Below are some recent realizations:

On nuclear waste (vs. wastes in other industries that are not necessarily energy related:

1. The wastes produced aren't as much as I thought it would be. Some wastes are disposable using ordinary landfills and only a small proportion needs long term storage. There are stats out there that a nuclear power plant can only generate so much highly radioactive waste over the course of its life.

2. Other industries also produce wastes, maybe similar or greater in magnitude, that render swaths of land/rives/sea unusable for the next couple of decades. A toxic waste dump in China comes to mind. The narratives though are against nuclear because the effect of nuclear wastes is more "in your face" in case of accidents and mishandling compared to gradual, unnoticeable, and (yet) unsensationalized effects of other wastes in other industries.

3. Nuclear waste handling seems to be even more rigorous than compared to other wastes. One factor contributing to this is that waste handling is usually included in the 'cost of nuclear' whereas the cost of handling other wastes isn't and there seems to be accountability on who takes care of what. One can only dream of a similar framework for other wastes.

4. Advanced nuclear waste treatment converts highly radioactive waste to solid form which has lesser chances of leeching into the surroundings. I originally imagine nuclear waste as fluids stored in metallic rusting tanks that can seep into groundwater.

5. Radioactive waste seems to be relatively harmless in just about 30-40 years.

6. Ongoing research aims to get the nuclear-electricity conversion process much more efficient (from ~4% to ~96%) which can result in significantly lesser wastes.

On occurrence of catastrophic events:

7. Ongoing research aims at lowering the operating pressure of the boilers/reactors so that a catastrophic spread of radioactive material to a large area in case of accidents can be prevented and more localized.

8. Ongoing research on "safer" forms of nuclear fuel envisions fuels in ceramic pellets that allow mechanisms that prevent the uncontrollable increase in temperature that results in meltdown.

With these developments and given more experience, expertise, and research in the technology, I would be inclined to support nuclear program in our country in 20-30 years time. But for now, I'm not sure if we can afford the risk of a catastrophic event happening anywhere within or even near our vicinity.

Sources: world-nuclear.org (highly biased?) and University of California video on nuclear research (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poPLSgbSO6k)

I don't really get the logic that not procreating does not equate to preventing at least one 'something' to exist once born and suffer. — OglopTo

What's that an argument for? Extermination or time travel? When a person is born, there's a person we need to think about. We could try to address those issues in a sensible manner. — Sapientia

So, there is no someone who is harmed by virtue of coming into existence in and of itself. Merely coming to exist isn't a harm. After coming into existence, a person is subject to harm for a number of reasons, virtually all of them identifiable as people, things, other causal agents, to which the responsibility for harm may be attributed. — Ciceronianus the White

This is the reason why I brought up the issue I quoted above, there are arguments that decouple the following claims: (1) coming to exists isn't a harm in and of itself and (2) the harm done after being born may be attributed to the causal agents. The two statements are coupled, in my view, and the intrinsic harms/suffering experienced after being born, while not a DIRECT cause of existing, are an inherent part of existing and hence it's useless to make the distinction.

Nitpicking on the actual agent that caused the harm on localized life events is only useful if you intend to do something about the causal agent. In the case of inherent harms in life like old age, sickness, loneliness, boredom, and anxiety/sadness about death which can at best be mitigated, coped with, or postponed, I don't think much can be done to "address those issues in a sensible manner". The point is, there's little use in decoupling the mere fact of existing with causal agents causing each particular localized harms.

"'It's okay because some people have it worse!' I believe Benatar argued against this line of thought, if I remember correctly, he said it goes to show how bad life is to have to take comfort in the fact that some people have worse lives."

copy-pasted without permission from some Reddit board

There is no person who we would prevent from suffering harm, — Ciceronianus the White

I'm not sure what you mean by this particular phrase but certainly, when a person is born, it will most certainly consume resources other people in more pressing situations could have used, will need other people to attend to their needs directly or indirectly, get hurt, get sick, get old, and die.

I don't really get the logic that not procreating does not equate to preventing at least one 'something' to exist once born and suffer.

People can't exercise their right to freedom of assembly before they're born, either. This doesn't create a massive ethical problem, it creates nonsense. — Sapientia

Framed from the issue of consent, maybe yes. But framed from the issue of fulfilling one's selfish desires at the expense of suffering of other people, hmm, maybe not.

I don't see how we can have ethics without consent. — Andrew4Handel

Consent may be a component of a majority of ethical problems but maybe it is not the proper word to use in the issue of procreation? Because as @Ciceronianus the White might be implying, it may not be an issue of consent if the other party has no way of giving one.

A matter of wording or framing the problem, I guess, but this should not prevent us from questioning the moral and ethical implications of procreation. I like your other framing better which may not technically equate to consent: "So when one is creating a child one can only be acting for their own sake or own desires."

I'm not sure if this is what one might call a tautology. It's inherent in the problem that you cannot require consent from someone or something who cannot give one. It does not make the situation unreasonable, it just is the nature of the problem.

The more important question is how to react in the face of such a challenge.

I read an exchange on reddit a few days ago on consent where analogies with deciding for the fate of kids and dead bodies were cited. The bottomline is that those in power eventually have to impose what they think is right to those who cannot decide for themselves. The question then is, what gives anyone the right to decide for something or someone who is unable to give consent? My initial guess is that majority of the default decisions come from the unchecked collective human experience passed from generation to generation.

For me, awareness was the necessary first step to trying to make some sort of sense about life. It's still difficult to deal with the realities of life at times, but then again, that's part of reality for me for now.

I'm inclined towards having Buddhist [and related] ideas though I haven't really done any decent reading on the matter.

Life is war. I prefer this war in its sublimated manifestations. I fight for a life of love, creativity, pleasure. This might require moments of hatred, destruction, and pain. Sometimes the ugly has to step in for a moment to maintain the usually beautiful. — visit0r

As they say, nature is violent in its indifference.
Sharing a quote/speech I encountered earlier this week because, why not? :)

The Story of My Life

By Clarence Darrow

I am inclined to believe that the most satisfactory part of life is the time spent in sleep, when one is utterly oblivious to existence; next best is when one is so absorbed in activities that one is altogether unmindful of self.

I am satisfied that no one with a moderate amount of intelligence can tolerate life, if he looks it squarely in the face, without welcoming whatever soothes and solaces, and makes one forget.

Nothing is so cruel, so wanton, so unfeeling as Nature; she moves with the weight of a glacier carrying everything before her. In the eyes of Nature, neither man nor any of the other animals mean anything whatever. The rock-ribbed mountains, the tempestuous sea, the scorching desert, the myriad weeds and insects and wild beasts that infest the earth, and the noblest man, are all one. Each and all are helpless against the cruelty and immutability of the resistless processes of Nature.

Whichever way man may look upon the earth, he is oppressed with the suffering incident to life. It would almost seem as though the earth had been created with malignity and hatred. If we look at what we are pleased to call the lower animals, we behold a universal carnage. We speak of the seemingly peaceful woods, but we need only look beneath the surface to be horrified by the misery of that underworld. Hidden in the grass and watching for its prey is the crawling snake which swiftly darts upon the toad or mouse and gradually swallows it alive; the hapless animal is crushed by the jaws and covered with slime, to be slowly digested in furnishing a meal. The snake knows nothing about sin or pain inflicted upon another; he automatically grabs insects and mice and frogs to preserve his life. The spider carefully weaves his web to catch the unwary fly, winds him into the fatal net until paralyzed and helpless, then drinks his blood and leaves him an empty shell. The hawk swoops down and snatches a chicken and carries it to its nest to feed its young. The wolf pounces on the lamb and tears it to shreds. The cat watches at the hole of the mouse until the mouse cautiously comes out, then with seeming fiendish glee he plays with it until tired of the game, then crunches it to death in his jaws. The beasts of the jungle roam by day and night to find their prey; the lion is endowed with strength of limb and fang to destroy and devour almost any animal that it can surprise or overtake. There is no place in the woods or air or sea where all life is not a carnage of death in terror and agony. Each animal is a hunter, and in turn is hunted, by day and night. No landscape is so beautiful or day so balmy but the cry of suffering and sacrifice rends the air. When night settles down over the earth the slaughter is not abated. Some creatures see best at night, and the outcry of the dying and terrified is always on the wind. Almost all animals meet death by violence and through the most agonizing pain. With the whole animal creation there is nothing like a peaceful death. Nowhere in nature is there the slightest evidence of kindness, of consideration, or a feeling for the suffering and the weak, except in the narrow circle of brief family life.

Man furnishes no exception to the rule. He seems to add the treachery and deceit that the other animals in the main do not practice, to all the other cruelties that move his life. Man has made himself master of the animal world and he uses his power to serve only his own ends. Man, at least, kills helpless animals for the pleasure of killing, alone.

For man himself there is little joy. Every child that is born upon the earth arrives through the agony of the mother. From childhood on, the life is full of pain and disappointment and sorrow. From beginning to end it is the prey of disease and misery; not a child is born that is not subject to disease. Parents, family, friends, and acquaintances, one after another die, and leave us bereft. The noble and the ignoble life meets the same fate. Nature knows nothing about right and wrong, good and evil, pleasure and pain; she simply acts. She creates a beautiful woman, and places a cancer on her cheek. She may create an idealist, and kill him with a germ. She creates a fine mind, and then burdens it with a deformed body. And she will create a fine body, apparently for no use whatever. She may destroy the most wonderful life when its work has just commenced. She may scatter tubercular germs broadcast throughout the world. She seemingly works with no method, plan or purpose. She knows no mercy nor goodness. Nothing is so cruel and abandoned as Nature. To call her tender or charitable is a travesty upon words and a stultification of intellect. No one can suggest these obvious facts without being told that he is not competent to judge Nature and the God behind Nature. If we must not judge God as evil, then we cannot judge God as good. In all the other affairs of life, man never hesitates to classify and judge, but when it comes to passing on life, and the responsibility of life, he is told that it must be good, although the opinion beggars reason and intelligence and is a denial of both.

Intellectually, I am satisfied that life is a serious burden, which no thinking, humane person would wantonly inflict on some one else.

I don't call an association of people a burden. If we didn't associate with other people, we would have a much harder time. — Agustino

How do you view it then when you ask favors of other people, demanding some or much of their time that they'd rather spend on something else?

How do you feel that your consumption of material goods is possibly result of the exploitation of people?

I have a feeling that you'd say that this is simply the natural order of things; that I should trust on the ability of people to fend for themselves; that they can rise above the suffering inherent in the system; and eventually perpetuate the system for another iteration, because why not? Nothing in particular and the universe doesn't care anyways.

Suffering as Rewarding in and of itself — Agustino

How about the people who succumbed to despair (and disrepair) and failed to rise above their suffering? Where's the suffering-reward or cost-benefit duality in that? Are they simply collateral damage for other people to self-realize?

Reality is more complicated than the Sisyphus story though. Whether you interpret the boulder as one's dreams or just basic striving for survival as per @Cavacava, Sisyphus cannot move the boulder up the mountain alone. He must burden other people to do so, consenting or not, who at the same time, are also preoccupied with rolling their own boulders up the mountain. When he gets his boulder to the top and see it roll down again, can you still imagine Sisyphus happy to repeat the process all over again?

You desperately shout why, and it laughs asking you why not? — Agustino

And I answer back, "Not in my own backyard."

The reward and the suffering are not two different things - they are one. — Agustino

My brain may need to reconfigure before I get this. May take some time. Haha.

With that logic, you're implying that self-realization and fulfillment is the ultimate reward and that NOT ONLY the suffering one has been through BUT ALSO the suffering one has inflicted on other people, directly or indirectly, is worth it. As you said earlier, we have differing assessment, and for me, the cost is not worth the supposed reward.

and out of fear and trembling cannot bear to bring it to your own lips and sip it in a single gulp, as if it were nothing - you are cowardly. FEAR rules you. — Agustino

Well, you can say it that way. A gentler way of putting it is that I empathize with the suffering that my hypothetical offspring will inevitably suffer. I'll try to endure all the suffering that will come to me personally but I cannot willfully subject another person to the same fate -- to suffer to realize himself, his suffering to feed his soul and the souls of other people, to repeat the cycle for generations to come?

I have the power not to subject one more person to suffering by not having kids. You can say that it's just another scapegoat to shy away from additional commitment and responsibility, to feel good for doing nothing. This is also partly true because why bother paying the cost (at other people's expense at that) if the benefits don't measure up to it?

It's simple. Don't engage in risky things. Be patient. Build your resources and your life slowly. Only have children when you can afford to completely take care of them. Etc. Nobody said you should be an idiot and max out your risk. — Agustino

Sure, but no matter how risk-averse or prepared one is, there is 99.9999% certainty that one's offspring will experience pain/suffering. And for people who put significant weight on suffering more than the 'blessings' or 'joy' it could bring to other people, it may not be worth the costs.

Also, there's the issue of using other people for one's own gains or as a means to one's happiness, which I find somehow wrong.

(Y) [Now that you mention it, I think we had a similar conversation before. Though I'm starting to notice that you refrain from giving your personal stance and inclinations regarding this matter. :)]

The biological drive to procreate rarely takes cost into consideration. It is the driving force of nature itself. I think it is very close in meaning to Schopenhauer's 'will'. — Wayfarer

Do you then suggest that people go with the flow and refrain from rationalising nature?

Right. I'm also an engineer by training, clearly we're not making the same assessment. — Agustino

Haha, I see. Maybe we're putting different weights on suffering vs. blessings and different risk valuations.

The question then would be, is there a correct way of weighing the costs and benefits? I have a feeling though that in the end, it's another one of those unanswerable questions out there: the only answers that we can arrive at are highly subjective that depends on one's experiences and perceptions. :(

I don't care that it achieves nothing in the grand scheme of things. — Agustino

But in the here and now, and in the immediate future, having children and pursuing one's "passions" has its costs, e.g. adding to other people's worries, eating resources, etc.

My training in engineering prompts me to weigh in the costs and benefits. It just seems to me that paying for one's personal happiness with these costs is not a fair bargain.

Nothing. — Agustino

As I see it, life can be sufficiently fascinating on the local level so that "ultimate futility" can be abstractly true and yet not terribly relevant. — visit0r

The urge to procreate is a biological drive, actually the fundamental biological drive. — Wayfarer

And at what cost?

Having to bother other people and add to their problems and suffering, directly or indirectly...
Consuming resources that other people could have used instead...

Are these costs acceptable to pursue nothing in particular or satisfy one's fascination or biological drive?

Woah! Interesting Trump trivia!

Having ruled out suicide for a number of reasons, all that is left for me for now is to get by and endure. It's still difficult for me to accept but nothing really 'needs to get done', aside from the trivial things in everyday life and at work that needs to get done that allows me, and hopefully others too, to live with a little less hassle and suffering in the foreseeable future. And also, to kill some time. It's gets fun sometimes during good and lean times but it also gets really really depressing and hopeless when trying to meet expectations and deadlines.

And to the response of because we exist in the past we are likely to still exist I can use the standard objections against the induction of science what logic is there to say something which has been always true in the past will still be true in the future — Ephrium

If we are just talking about possibilities, then there are a lot of different possible scenarios, known and unknown. However, some scenarios are more probable of happening than others. Based on experience, you will continue to exist tomorrow, unless something out of the ordinary happens.

So I guess the bottomline is that experience gives us some sort of assurance that we'll continue to exist the following day. It's just how the way things have worked so far. And like most of science, we just happen to observe that this is how things work; we don't really know why existence "chose" to work the way we observe it.

But now that I consider it further, we don't really know the mechanism behind "continued existence", more so explain why we continue to experience such phenomenon.

As you said, work is a given so it really is a burden not to think positively or at least indifferently to work or one passing work to others. So I guess we really have no choice on how to view work.

At the moment, I think of work as tasks I have to get over with. I'm usually pressuring myself because I don't want to disappoint and I don't want to lose face and deemed worthless. Its easy to get overwhelmed and to break down with this mind set especially when the going gets tough. The weight of seeing the Pointlessness of your efforts (capital P) easily compounds the mental and physical demand.

I would really like to retire already if only I have the finances. I think I would still work but I would have the liberty to choose which work I'll accept and which work I'll reject and only whenever I feel like it. Some characteristics of ideal work for me would be (1) challenging independent work where reliance on other people, in terms of social interaction, is minimized; I'm thinking of research or design work, (2) work with tangible outputs and results, and (3) a setup where I have someone who will do the mundane tasks for me, some sort of a hybrid between a manager, secretary, and a personal assistant, who takes care of all the bureaucratic paperwork and marketing and daily chores that I wouldn't want to do. This or some mindless, low-risk work like housekeeping.

I actually previously entertained the thought that the 'higher ups' knew what they were doing when they designed the 8-hour + travel + lunch time work day, 5-day work week: it provided the right amount of distraction for essentially all of your waking hour, with enough stress and anxiety leftover that you wouldn't have enough remaining energy to use your brain for about anything else but leisure during the weekends and holidays.

People could be much more dangerous if allowed to be idle for long periods of time.

Nothing much that I seriously considered recently.

Usually, I think of the tediousness of daily life and seeming insignificance and meaninglessness of it all especially when I'm overwhelmed with so much urgent things-to-do, usually work related.

The narrative I like better is that the masses is tired of the status quo: any change is better than no change; it's also much more exciting.

Thanks. I was really quite "upset" earlier but thankfully, things got a little bit more manageable lately. So if I may add to the list:

- having mood swings and emotional outbursts just like that then recovering after watching some drama series (like what's wrong with me? hahaha...)

- "getting over" then partly regretting what you have done during your outburst; feeling quite worried that you'll inevitably let loose some steam some future time you least expected and you no longer have an idea what harm you could do by then

- realizing that after all that has happened, nobody knew the depths of sadness that you've been through, and nobody else would probably know; life goes on, the world does not seem to care, and by the way, you have to better get ready for work tomorrow as if nothing just happened!

GUILT, HELPLESSNESS, HATE

- for enjoying modern day comforts knowing that these are built upon the immense suffering of countless generations before us and the continued suffering of marginalized people in some not-so-remote place

- for the very being of your existence means that you have to burden other people at work to ask favors, at your leisure time for other people to entertain you, and eventually when you get disabled for other people to look after you

- for thinking badly of your work that puts food on the table; of your colleagues for burdening you with tedious work then eventually try to convince yourself that somehow it's just part of their job and the system;

- for believing that other people are fellow sufferers but feel completely powerless to comfort them; for having to go to vacation and have to see stories of suffering play at the back of your mind for each stranger that you encounter

- for failing to be a bottomless source of joy to others in this world of selfishness; because you too are human; and when people fault you for your moment of weakness, you doubt whether it was your fault all along

- for not even being strong enough to keep your own troubles and weakness to yourself that you risk showing a crack that may cause worry or fear to people around you

- for feeling hopeless as you watch in the sidelines as you imagine close acquaintance's kids have to suffer and eventually perpetuate the cycle of suffering when they grow old


#badday #badweek

One reason homes cost so much

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcbjWGj3jBk

Argument: Not enough housing units are built to accommodate new families/couples/individuals.

Proposed Solution: Build adequate housing units. Easier said than done though.

Sorry if it comes to you like that. What I intended to convey with that reaction to BC's confession is that of interest -- what it feels like to be in such a condition that would merit such long-term anti-depressant dependence.

I'm also 26 and experienced a rut and the accompanying romantic view of suicide just last year. Looking back, it was an interesting starting point that allowed me to inquire deeper on the nature of the human condition and the 'meaning of it all'.

I've been on antidepressants and or anti-anxiety meds for a long time--30 years, just about. — Bitter Crank

:-O

I have always liked the idea though, of another crucified soul telling you to cheer up. — Wosret

:D

Find out what is before you make a decision about what seems. — Thorongil

Can you give a clue? : )

Some stories on ageing from East Asia that I recalled after reading the OP:

101 East - Ageing Japan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8wdLWUEnzI

101 East - Hong Kong: Aged and Abandoned
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmDBixQZ_Io

People and Power - South Korea: Suicide Nation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFD61MzDiHI

I'm not really sure how to feel about ageing. Try as I might to accept that ageing is inherently part of life, I can't help myself from viewing this as a tragedy of sorts.

One can opt to try to be self sufficient by fending for oneself -- toiling during one's prime or toiling harder after retirement -- or swallowing one's pride and 'burden' others in the community. A proper mindset can only go so far when the practicalities of daily life kicks in. As it stands now, not everyone can afford a happily ever after.

Sorry for my usual pessimistic ramblings. I guess I'm just trying to say that you're not alone, goodluck, and I'm pretty sure that you'll manage in one way or another. : )

Why are we here? What is the purpose behind human struggle?

What does fine art do for you? — Bitter Crank

I have a preference for good sentimental songs and instrumental music and dark/tragic fiction. When I listen/watch, I feel like connecting to the inner world of the composer/author in one way or another. It feels like he/she is conveying to the world his/her deepest frustrations and how he/she have chosen to deal with it.

It sort of tells me "you are not alone".

Thanks! I hope so too. : )