Sleeping is essential to life like water. There's a reason the. Brain goes into sleep deprecation debt for months for those who lack adequate sleep. All of us would rather be doing x than y in most cases if given unlimited options. — Bright7

Isn't it ironic that one of the things you would want to replace with trying to sleep is sleep? So that certainly falls under the many things where you would rather replace X activity with sleep itself.

But sleeping as much as I theoretically could would result in a near "work-sleep-work" cycle. And that kind of existence would seem horrible. — Heiko

Why would I feel the need to compensate for the work-time by doing other things (awake) if switching the "superfluous" wake time for sleep would really be ok?
So what do you mean with your question? The real "implicit" judgement or the imagination? — Heiko

The imagination. Clearly just sleeping would result in eventual death if enacted. The point is rather, how much of normal waking days would you not mind replacing with sleep instead of having to do them? If it is neutral or negative, and you switched those out, how much of the day would be that?

There is nothing it is like to be asleep. There is only what it is like to be around sleep (ex. drowsie awareness, warm under the covers, thinking about preferences in a bed, feeling rested). — Nils Loc

There is something called sleep. It exists. "It like to be asleep" would be unconsciousness. Do you have to be aware for "something to be like"? Maybe, but that's not the topic at hand really.

I think these miss the point of the OP. If you rather not be doing something, and in fact rather simply not even be conscious than doing that activity, and this adds up to most of the day, that is indicating a strong preference for not existing for much of the day. Now aggregate this...

Of course, those who are merely conforming do not perceive any of this, their approach to the world is not critical but intuitive, and this means their intuition blinds them to the negative development of reality. There is something very wrong with any thinker who is telling us to forsake thought in exchange for comfort. This is not resistance but resignation, it is functional Nihilism, even if it doesn't adopt the name. Thinkers are better than this, thought is a greater power! — JerseyFlight

Yes, well-stated. With philosophical pessimism, I feel it is similar to the critical stance you mentioned. It is a rebellion against the structural/necessary negatives of being a human animal in the world. There is a sort of default cultural ideology, bolstered by various social and psychological biases for why people vehemently oppose and don't fully consider implications of suffering. The problem is see, you are not self-helping your way to a better, happier you! You cannot implicate the situation itself. You must be Stoic statues, utility maximizers, and zen motorcycle mechanics. You must radically accept the situation like a maniacal Nietzschean hero. You must sit in your comfortable rocking chair in your English garden as an old gent, pondering your accomplishments, with dignified outrage at whatever recent bit of news you read in the news. You must find yourself in the wilderness shouting from a mountain top, or in social endeavors and enterprises. The one thing you can never do is look negatively at the whole system itself. For this, philosophical pessimism is reviled.

This is indeed the dilemma: how does one convince culturated slaves of the evil of slavery? Along comes a man and tells them to adhere to their masters, deep down they have always felt this to be true, when they heed the advice they notice the world makes more sense, their existential angst vanishes, they feel a stronger sense of purpose and they can detect order in the world. All of these things are the products of conformity, they are the result of validating the false truth of what is administered, but this cannot be the way of thinkers. Little does the one who obeys comprehend that his existence is predetermined by a process of production, of the which, he is merely a cog in the wheel. If he never stops to question the system he finds no discontent with it. Let us then praise the preachers of conformity! Let us adhere to their pious ways! After all, there is nothing wrong with the system, the problem cannot be systemic, the fault lies with the individual's inability to re-frame his discontent. "Stand up straight, put on a suite, go out and face the world with confidence, for all is equal and fair, opportunity awaits, banish every negative thought." — JerseyFlight

I will say, your response can be directly applied to how people respond to philosophical pessimism. In other words, when the pessimist casts aspersions on being born and life itself, pointing out the structural deficiencies and negative aspects of that structure, people will turn it around on the questioner. It must be a deficiency in the person seeing the deficiency, but never the system itself. You can call it existential gaslighting.

Should suicide be made more accessible and easy?

I think it should be. Interested in what you think. — Frank Apisa

I think it is an okay option if thought out all the way through. I am not against it. But as Cioran says, "It is not worth the bother to kill yourself because you always kill yourself too late". That's kind of my thoughts on it. By the time you go ahead with it, the things that led to it have already happened. Also Schopenhauer:

"Suicide may also be regarded as an experiment--a question which man puts to Nature, trying to force her to an answer. The question is this: What change will death produce in a man's existence and in his insight into the nature of things? It is a clumsy experiment to make; for it involves the destruction of the very consciousness which puts the question and awaits the answer".

Thus the relief one feels is never satisfied in the very outcome itself, making a sort of paradox. Rather, suicide is often the longing to never be. But we can never, never be to begin with. Thus, poor Silenus was right, but can never be really acted upon

'you, seed of an evil genius and precarious offspring of hard fortune, whose life is but for a day, why do you compel me to tell you those things of which it is better you should remain ignorant? For he lives with the least worry who knows not his misfortune; but for humans, the best for them is not to be born at all, not to partake of nature's excellence; not to be is best, for both sexes. This should be our choice, if choice we have; and the next to this is, when we are born, to die as soon as we can

My overall idea about what to do about the whole "life" thing is form Communities of Consolation. In this community, one can feel free to gripe all they want, be comforted by others and comfort others. Live life knowing of the situation of our own insatiable dissatisfaction, of our own plight into necessary and contingent suffering. Be aware that we are always in a situation of dealing with this or that (it doesn't matter the cultural, historical, or contingent context, this is ALWAYS a factor).

Here is a question for you Frank. What happened if everyone thought like a Philosophical Pessimist? How would that change how the world operates? Or would it? Would the reality of the situation still be that people would simply slog on in their dealings with and move forward the same the same the same as it ever was.

Edited a bit

Also, comparing your bad choices with people worse off in some technogical way doesnt make the situation better. Relatively speaking, people have to deal with the situations as presented in contingent historical time, space, and circumstances. The problem is dealing ith in the first place. Always dealing with something. Techniques like shaming one for not liking the situation are tawdry post facto bandaids you give to children.

Rather, it is true that much of life is has neutral or negative experiences that can quite easily and if possible, willingly be replaced by sleep (if it was easy to sleep on a whim). Actually, what I find interesting is WYRBS morality transcends all cultural contexts. There is no fact about a culture that leads to ought rather be doing anything. Walmarts and boutique stores dont make my preference any different.

Wish that was a true situation before having choices Id rather not deal with in the first place.

Oh shit, you guys are right! Why didnt I just ponder the wonders of modern technology to get me through! I see the errors of my ways, and now I rather do everything!! Its all changed! Its a whiole new world.

I got out of it a bad argument for antinatalism, or “never being born being optimal”, which you stated before you started playing “would you rather” with sleep. — NOS4A2

Fine, replace it with "Sleep being optimal".. argument still stands in the waking-kind-of-way thing.

I did really read it. I figured the gist of it, beyond the jargon and labelling, was that if you prefer sleep to being awake you would probably prefer non-existence to existence, as if they were in some way comparable. — NOS4A2

Ah, that's what you got out of it- a debate on the ontology of sleep vs. non-existence. Yes we all know they are not the same thing. Doesn't mean that not being conscious the waking-kind-of-way is not the gist here.

I love sleep, but sleep is so much better after a fulfilling day. So I do not think trading being awake for being asleep is very wise, because one requires the other. And I do not think sleep is in anyway comparable to non-existence. — NOS4A2

You didn't really read the OP. It wasn't about fulfilling things switching out with sleep. And you didn't read the as-predicted rebuttals, because I can already predict your response to this post. I didn't say sleep was non-existence. It certainly isn't waking life though, by definition. Think harder.

The animal I am remains alert - alive. And the reasonable man that I am more-or-less continually reaffirms his choices - as choices, even if nothing else. In these I retain (I think) freedom and thus wish to sleep only when in a state of greater inconvenience. — tim wood

I am not sure what you mean exactly. Why is reaffirming choices that are neutral to tedious so good anyways? I am not sure what is so holy about the act of reaffirming lukewarm to negative experiences. Yay reaffirming! (in a wimpering tone)..

That is, even if I cannot keep things always aboil, I try to keep them warm or at least above ambient temperature. — tim wood

This I don't get other than another version of as predicted this:

the pragmatic everyday types that think that reading and doing menial tasks can be "Zen-like" — schopenhauer1

To which I said:

I think are both glossing over the fact that much of the time, sleep can either be switched out or is downright more preferable than the X task at hand. — schopenhauer1

But this is precisely why the argument is so strange. Prior to existence, the person does not have any freedoms anyway. Therefore, if the argument is turned back around the position is that we must respect people's freedoms and by doing so, we put them in a situation in which they are never people (for they do not exist) and can never have any freedoms. — TVCL

Will a state of affairs occur in which someone will suffer if born? If yes (Schopenahuer), if probably yes (most Western notions of contingent suffering), then this can be prevented. Preventing suffering is GOOD! No one needs be around for this to be true about the state of affairs where bad could have happened but did not.

Will a state of affairs occur in which someone will not get benefits (like happiness)? If yes, this will be prevented. This is not good nor bad unless someone actually existed for this to be a deprivation.

You can try to disagree with the first argument, but actually it does line up with our common moral intuitions. We generally DO feel bad if people are suffering. We generally DON'T feel bad for the missed good experiences of the people who were never born to begin with.

Thus not procreating is a sort of win/win on both sides of that argument.

I don’t believe some legislator knows how to run my business better than I do. — NOS4A2

But your employer knows what's best for your health better than what the general scientific consensus is? Do they have that right?

Passionate or not, In my mind it’s a poor ethos that benefits no one but the one espousing it. I say this because no anti-natalist can point to a single person who benefits from it, lest he points to himself. These “others” you purport to be helping do not exist. So how can you, and why would you, claim that you are in some way refusing to force and cause them suffering? It’s an ethos that cannot serve anyone outside of your own imaginings. — NOS4A2

Putting the cart before horse. In your view, we need to cause suffering to others in the first place in order for anything to be done about it. That is ridiculous but actually explains your other poor ethos. For example, one can take measures to prevent others from getting sick. They aren't sick yet, but we can anticipate them getting sick. In fact, we don't even know an actual person who will be the beneficiary of who might get sick, but we know that, X person (doesn't have to exist in actuality yet) can be prevented from getting sick if 1, 2, 3 measures are taken. C'mon, you know this.

May I ask you to justify this? Why is not suffering good, yet being in a state which one enjoys merely neutral? — TVCL

It is basically the ground of the ethics. It is taken that suffering should not be unnecessarily forced on another person. At some point, there is a ground. Usually I would say it appeals to ones emotion or intuitive sense of morality, compassion, etc. One usually does not want to force suffering on others unnecessarily. The question should be put the other way around. What is the justification for forcing unnecessary suffering for others? The person wasn't suffering in the first place to need anything further (meaning, or otherwise purportedly higher "goods" that come out of forcing others to suffer). And again, the element of force is in there. There is a difference between oneself willingly making oneself suffer to have "meaning" and forcing others to suffering because YOU think it will give them meaning. I hope you see the distinction and the implications.

Firstly, comparing being to non-being appears to be a difficult comparison to make because if one were to posit "it would have been better for me to not have existed" we could ask: in what sense would it be better for "me" if no "me" existed for it to apply to? We can translate the same reasoning to the question of whether it would have been better for "that person" to have existed or not... — TVCL

No, so that's why Benatar wrote his whole book, to unpack all that misunderstanding.

Never existing prevents negative experiences, which is good whether an actual person is a benefit of this.

Never existing prevents positive experiences, which is not bad (or good) because there needs to be an actual person who exists for the deprivation of positive experiences to be a negative.

He also discusses intuitions like not really feeling bad for non-existing beings, but usually empathizing for people born who are suffering, etc.

Secondly, there is an assumption about force. True enough, the unborn do not consent to be born, but is there an assumption that freedom is so paramount that it trumps birth? Even if freedom is held to this standard, in what sense would one be free to "do" anything if they were not first born? Therefore, we might be "forced" to be alive at birth, but this would be the necessary precondition to all other freedoms. — TVCL

Correct, you answered your own question. Your absurd circularity would thus make it that "We MUST birth others (and thus force others) for them to have other freedoms". This is putting the cart before the horse. In the case of birth, it is the opportunity to prevent all harm and all force upon another. Once born, harm and force will inevitably impinge upon that new person. Thus I make a distinction between the inter-worldly decision to prevent birth and the intra-worldly decisions that the new person will make that will inevitably be comprises of various forces and harms and negotiations in social settings, etc.

That nullifies the purpose of any human life at all. All who do and have ever lived were children born capable of suffering. By what standard does this fact alone make it better that they were never born to begin with? — TVCL

Your assumption is that people should be brought into existence at all. Antinatalists would argue that this is false. Due to reasons of suffering and/or forcing others unnecessarily, one can make an argument that the moral or best course of action (depending on if deontological or utilitarian) is to prevent birth from occurring whenever one can.

David Benatar makes an argument, for example, that preventing birth prevents any harm (which is good), and also prevents benefits (which is neither good nor bad).

In a Schopenhauerian argument, one may argue that suffering is not just contingent on circumstances, but necessary to being alive at all. The pendulum swings from angst, boredom on one side, and perpetual goal-seeking, enterprise pursuing, repetitious acts of survival, comfort-seeking, and entertainment on the other. This just indicates an overall dissatisfaction with being, a frustration of not achieving goals, or getting bored once achieving goals, etc. It leads to the absurdity that one needs to emotionally invest in ones endeavors so as not to be a rock that just spins around a star all day.

When I see a fish lie on a rock all day, or a cat/dog sleep for 18 hours, there is more wisdom and understanding in that, than all the pursuits of every human desperately trying to invest themselves in this or that project that they think they must force other humans to pursue as well.

And if policies is what one requires to guide him through life, quitting his job should be the least of his concerns. Cheers. — NOS4A2

The policy would be for the manager in this case.. But I guess other employees not screwing each other over either. It's like you live in a dream world where everyone takes the responsible action. If that was the case, you're right, no need for government.. Shades of Locke and definitely Hobbes here.

Sure, if you prevent life you prevent any difficulties that come with it. — NOS4A2

You should have ended it there

But I still think pretending one is being ethical in doing so is a disguise for self-concern and personal failures. The anti-natalist is literally helping no one but himself while pretending he is. In that sense it is not so ethical as it is deceitful. — NOS4A2

Why would an antinatalist put so much energy into proving it, if it was selfish? This isn't just a personal lifestyle choice, it's a whole ethos and largely very passionate one. Even on its face you are incorrect.

You are backpeddling and now without justification.. Don't force others, don't cause harm to others unnecessarily.. I explained inter-wordly affairs and intra-worldly affairs. I gave justifications for why your own ethos actually only applies at one level and not another. You seem perturbed by this and cast ad homs at antinatalists. Not a great rebuttal.

The difference is you only offer it to “potential children”, beings that cannot be found on any plane of existence. Let’s see if you can extend that sentiment to flesh and blood human beings. — NOS4A2

So I've mentioned before how birth is the only case where one can perfectly not cause harm and force. The simple act of NOT doing something (negative ethics) would allow this. However, once born, things change. People are now in the world. Prior to birth, it is inter-worldly considerations (birth and life), where once in the world, its intra-worldly affairs. This means a) there will ALWAYS be some violation of negative ethics. Thus any form of deontological ethics and utilitarianism in intraworldly affairs would have to be mitigated against what forms of violation are considered more valuable or lead to greater outcomes than others. Of course, this mitigation and negotiation of ethical dillemmas could have been avoided altogether if one prevented it at the inter-wordly consideration level.

My point being is that to live "in the world", you have to bite the bullet somewhere. Community and individuals go hand-in-hand. You are arbitrarily picking a line when you say "this" and not "that". What happens if you KNEW for a fact people's well-being would be increased by more community oriented policies. Would that change your mind? I am not saying this is a case of we don't know.. but all the info is there, and you yourself agree it indeed brings about positive well-being and its done equally at all levels of society.

If you cannot find the strength and courage to alter your situation, I can understand why you wish you were never born to begin with. But things can change. — NOS4A2

Things can change is so vague. As I've said previously:

The logical conclusion to any form of extreme individualism is that death is a preferable outcome than being forced to give up some money to pay for public goods. I don't even know what to say to that. — schopenhauer1

But the answer is that in a world where "de facto" people can't just leave their job on a whim, or without causing much disruption, the better outcome is to have a policy that allows for maximum freedom without affecting people's personal health unnecessarily. Good day.

If you feel unsafe at work you can refuse to work there. It’s that easy. — NOS4A2

Ugh, if life just fit your "liberty" model so easily.. You don't recognize de facto unfreedoms, so we probably have nothing more to say to each other. If you don't recognize how de facto situations lead to "not really freedom" situations, I can't help you.

In the interview with George Friedman I cited earlier, he makes the claim that the myth of the individual is comparatively recent, coming into it's own after Nixon as part of the neoconservative economic reforms of the following twenty years.

If that's the case then perhaps these myths are not as fixed as it might seem. Will the failure of the myth of individualism see the rise of a more communally oriented United States? — Banno

Civic duty was supposed to be a part of the the whole freedom thing, and that is inherently community-oriented. But, it's going to take more than just the more liberal party winning the executive branch to do that. There is a large contingent of people who have the narrative that freedom is tied up in complete individualism. Rather, freedom often needs to be bolstered at a community-level. Freedom from and freedom to "what" is the real question? The way people answer that often will contradict themselves. The freedom to not wear a mask, might be another's freedom to not get sick.

The logical conclusion to any form of extreme individualism is that death is a preferable outcome than being forced to give up some money to pay for public goods. I don't even know what to say to that.

I think the opposite is the case: the overvalued (and abstract) notions of community are acted out at the expense of individual freedom and liberty. And the fact that all communities are composed of individuals makes any denial of individuals rights and freedoms all the more dangerous. — NOS4A2

Interesting, as I agree partially with the idea that parents/communities think that their abstract reasons to have a child make it okay to actually birth that child into existence, despite the negative consequences for that particular child, and despite that the child is being forced into existence by means/decisions other than its own. It's also interesting to note, just because the child does not have the means to have a say in the decision, it does not mean the default position is then "forcing a new person into existence is then okay (due to common notions, ideology, tradition, or that someone else wants that child forced into existence, so it must be okay)." Anyways, keep making the antinatalist case, unintentionally NOS!

Once born though, don't people have some duties and responsibilities to each other? I would say ethically-speaking, doing the least amount of harm to the most people is a good rule of thumb to go by when dealing with a disease with some knowns (that it can be deadly or cause severe illness to some people and some unknowns (how it affects certain individuals).

By NOT taking precautions as a leader, by spreading conspiracy theories, by not following the latest science, you are in fact DENYING people's individual right not to be made sick by others in the community. By not unifying people in a time of a large health crisis, you are in fact creating divisions that will lead to the whole systems downfall anyways, the very system intended to protect individual freedoms. We made individual sacrifices in WW2 in order to protect a greater global freedom and the community in general. Things are not as simple as "individual freedom vs. community". Individualism to the extreme often means less freedom in the end, not more. The freedom not to fight Nazism or Fascism could have led to the downfall of more "freer" liberal democracies in general.

Let's take an example. A company is allowed certain leeway in how it handles its employees. Let's call that "individual freedom of the employer". That manager decides that due to his preference to manage in person, he wants all workers to come into the office, exposing them to the virus at a higher likelihood. Now, this is not a job that needs to be in any location. It can be done from anywhere, but the manager has the freedom to do what he wants with his workers. The employee can quit, get fired, or go into the office. What about the employees freedom to do his job without being exposed to the virus? That doesn't matter? Again, this is a case of individual freedom actually being ENHANCED by thinking of the larger community- putting the community's interests before one's own in a time of crisis.

It's all about enshrining narratives. It is ironic that the sacrifices and community-oriented nature of WWII are seen as patriotic, yet by some of the same people, will not be applied in any other realm of time, space, and governance. It is also interesting how the idealized post-war years of the late 40s-70s were run by mainly moderate to liberal policies with upwards of 90% tax rate for wealthy.

Thus the narratives of sacrifice and community are only revered when crystallized in nostalgic times and never to be actually implemented in the present. The narrative of individualism at all costs and opposed to government-mandated community action reigns supreme at all times for some folks. Why then and not now? People need to have something to rebel against? Even if it is themselves and their fellow citizens they are rebelling against in the bigger picture? Narrative of individualism and falsely associating it with a form of "freedom" is too ingrained for many people, even though their own narrative of exceptions in the past that worked say otherwise (WWII, post-war moderate-liberal consensus, etc.).

Neologisms stabilize in order to better communicate concepts in shorthand. Interestingly, in groups, neologisms could be dogwhistles in order to have other people in the group understand implications that are not at face-value to those not in the group.

I think people need to learn how to communicate more constructively in general. This forum would do better from it. So much communication here reminds me of a cliched movie of overly privileged private school educated school boys trying to one-up each other in quips, innuendo, and put downs. It's quite exhausting when one just wants a constructive conversation. People don't know how to handle disagreement well.

One can argue perhaps against the necessity of Kripke.. I was just putting it out there. For example, even if I am essentially me in some way that can never be repeated, all possible worlds arguments fail as, the contingency of causality is what is necessary for a particular person to even be brought about. So though essential qualities can exist in all possible worlds, those essential qualities are contingent on time, space, and causality playing out a certain way. There was never a possible world, let's say (other than this contingent one), where my DNA would have come about, as one second later, there would be someone else born, not me.

However, the all possible worlds argument obtains in an abstract thought experiment way if we were to designate (rigidly) what it is that obtains in all possible worlds. So I still think it's useful.

What relevance is that? — Banno

That's your argument it seems.

Prove to me he meant for a rigid designator to point to a completely open or empty set.

I keep bringing this up when people ask “would you rather not have been born”? There is no situation in which I get to choose between existing and not existing, because that would require me existing to choose. — khaled

That is an implication you picked up on.

But still, when are you most truly you? At birth? At death? Somewhere in between even? — apokrisis

My arguments are not about how to identify identity. Rather, it is a sort of claim of causality. There could never be a situation where "you" were born otherwise as some other being. As stated in my last post. Yes, once born, I recognize and believe in the idea of contingency. One could do this, but did that instead, or this circumstance instead of that circumstance lead to different outcome which affects identity.

Are you sure about this? Many children are born highly developed - Mozart, Picasso, child geniuses etc. — EnPassant

And this means?

I think what you’re trying to get at is the relationship of consciousness and experience. The “you” you’re referring to is essentially this, a particular consciousness experiencing a particular environment with particular DNA. If I’m right, then I agree with you. But it depends on what you mean by being a different being. If you’re asking whether or not a being could be born of different parents, in different circumstances, location, time, etc. with different DNA than you, yet retain your consciousness, the answer is no. Your consciousness (and therefore your identity) is entirely dependent on your DNA and your environment. — Pinprick

Yes, you often misconstrue my antinatalist arguments, but this is a good representation of what I mean.

However, if you mean could I, literally, with the exact same DNA and consciousness have been born in a different time and under different circumstances, then the answer is yes, theoretically. — Pinprick

Yes, there could not have been a you with a different set of circumstances. You would not be you.


So my main point is that this development of blurry identity is only going to happen once. There is no you except you. You could not have been another being. Your interaction and genes are yours. That combination would could not have been something else. Unlike contingencies of different outcomes in a life, that life itself could not have been contingently different, without not being you anymore.


It is true Schopenhauer was an idealist of sorts. That is to say, he thought that Will which is the ground of existence, takes on form in a sort of "illusion" of the individual mind which projects space, time, and causality, which creates a sort of fake "representation". The mind is simply Will trying to strive to find some sort of resolution, that it doesn't get in the existence of the illusory representation. That's not necessarily my position, but I do find Schop's idea of Will as a striving principle in human motivations useful.

I also want to add, that the implication is that there is no being born "as something else". You could only have been born as you.

Could someone here tell me if/why Satanism would continue to exist without Christianity? Or would the Satanist churches collapse without their raison d'etre? Are there any sects of Satanism that have some ideological substance to them, beyond just Ayn Randism/Humanism/Atheism? — gurk

It's probably a modern invention. You need the characters for the foil itself to exist.

Satan, just means "adversary" in Hebrew and first shows up in Job- a pretty old Hebrew text even for Biblical works, most scholars think. He seems to be literally an "adversary" in the form of a prosecutor who convinces the godhead to test his adherent's worth. He is possibly an explanation for why unnecessary evil happens to good people in ancient Hebrew society. It should be noted that this text shows how in early Judaism, there seemed to be notions of a "council of angels" or "heavenly council" (probably originally various lower gods), which God presided over.

Satan's association with some sort of "fallen angel" occurs in ancient Judea around 2nd century BCE during the Second Temple Period. Here, the story comes from Enoch 1 where there are "The Watchers" who are a contingent of angels who watch humans and want to show them various skills and eventually have sex with some of the human women and have giants, etc. etc. These angels are eventually cast down to an underworld and are basically seen as the cause of evil in the world. It was some apocalyptic Jewish sects' response (like Dead Sea Scroll sect) to constant evil in the world and injustice, even to the pious. The previous ancient Satan is combined with this more elaborate angeology, and we thus get a more robust version.

Judaism eventually turns away from more escoteric emphasis on angels in everyday practice, but retain it through kabbalistic practices reserved only for the most scholarly men. It probably also remained in common folklore that was not "official".

Christianity, stemming from more apocalyptic traditions of Judaism, and having a home in similar stories in pagan religions that bolstered its appeal, lived on more openly in the traditions and thus "hell and brimstone" and such is quite emphasized in traditional forms of Christianity.

"Robert *****" is not the name of the DNA, or the name of anything constant in this world, let alone across all possible worlds. — unenlightened

Yet there is something that is the same in all possible worlds. Perhaps it is something like the DNA.

If one is physically hungry, it's more rational to go to the kitchen and make some food than it is to bemoan the chronic need to eat which nobody chose, and nobody can do anything about. — Hippyhead

Needing and wanting and all the underlying desires that go into that. All the work needed to sustain. There are literally billions and billions of interactions of the economy, all based on our demands to sustain things like "going to the kitchen to get some food".

In your scenario where birth is acceptable, people are meant to play the need and want game, to overcome challenges necessary to sustain needs and wants, etc. You think this is okay to force someone else into. The outcome for my scenario where no one is born, is that no one is forced to play the "overcome challenges" game. No one is alive to care if they are deprived of some "good" that supposedly comes from it either. Win/win.

My argument is that it's not rational to declare "life equals suffering" until all these constructive remedies have been explored. — Hippyhead

I have thousands of posts on here discussing just that. I call it necessary suffering (the dissatisfaction of the human animal,, becoming but rarely being) with contingent suffering (the suffering based on circumstances of time/place, but is also inevitable nonetheless).

Necessary and contingent suffering can be avoided by simply not having new people. Once born, for those who understand the situation rather than simply live it out without this understanding, may find consolation in community. Thus that was part of my solution that there is catharsis in understanding the situation with others of likemind, if one sees the picture this way.

Just because we are born, doesn't mean that everything about life must be acceptable. It is simply the case that we are born and must live it out or not. By living it out, we are not accepting, but dealing with the situation and making do. This life is not a paradise or utopia. We can imagine a universe that is, even knowing it doesn't exist.