Why the god/God concept is broken as a claim. OP/ED

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Why the god/God concept is broken as a claim. OP/ED

Why the god/God concept is broken as a claim, OP ED.

To those who have rightfully left behind the idea of a disembodied super hero in the clouds, this is for the people who still insist the case must be.

There are multiple levels in which, what is merely in reality our projection of our own desires, in which the people who insist such is the case, that do not logically follow. Scientifically is a no brainer for those who have left all sorts of sky daddy claims who have accepted the reality that this is all there is.

BUT for those who still insist there must be some divine "creator" "inventor" or "cause" who has unlimited power, I have yet to see any credible argument, even outside science and merely on a moral level. Outside the lack of evidence, this is albatross that looms large for any human arguing the divine anywhere around the world in every country.

No one likes to be held back by force. Everyone strives to gain resources and questioning how things work is how we better understand the resources we use, it even tells us long term, how to cooperate with each other or dominate a hurdle in our way. Our delusions often get us stuck in our wishful thinking and predilections and if one looks at human history, no matter one's label today, they can look back at the ancient past to something they don't buy personally and say "I cant believe they bought that".

Now, the common concept of a god is that it is the apex, nothing is higher and it is the final "ref" if you are watering him down, or the final "law maker" whom you cant remove from office. In evolution in every species, there is a drive to be on top. Being on top means more resources, and more opportunity to reproduce. That is science however. I want to deal with the simply moral bankruptcy of any god claim.

"I am being oppressed" is the cry from the Muslim, the Jew and the Christian. It is even a battle between Indians in Cashmere. It is the battle between Buddhists in Tibet vs the Buddhists of the communist party in China.

Why do humans cling to a belief that puts them as the subordinate? For the same reason your mom and dad cant do anything wrong, even if they do lots of things wrong in reality. It is why we side to that we are sold and that which brings us comfort, even if what is sold to us is false. God/god belief works, not because invisible friends are real, but humans like the idea of being protected, like we evolved having our parents protect us.

 

OUTSIDE THAT THOUGH, the worst part of god claims is the moral aspect. Once you set up your god as the apex, it cannot fall. In reality all life falls and all humans die. What makes the god/God concept broken isn't just about the lack of scientific evidence. It is the idea that someone else determines our fate and good or bad, we have no say, and this entity, give it any name you want, owes us no explanation. In reality in the civil west that type of thinking does not fly. Our current election in America has both parties questioning and blaspheming both Romney and Obama. I am quite sure neither wants the other to gain absolute power, and I agree.

So how does one mentally square an unmovable apex power with the way we want to live in reality? How does one worship a a God you cant debate with or impeach or remove from office if it fucks up? If a God cannot make mistakes, then the title "all powerful" is a broken concept. But even beyond that immoral considering the fans of such claims say he is our "all powerful" protector.

Yet there has never been one period in human evolution that has not had violence or war or death, not to mention everyone dies. It seems like tons of drama a dictator wants to merely bring attention to themselves. It does not seem like a compassionate plan. When a child gets murdered, they are with God. If a child gets saved God was watching. But children worldwide die by the millions every year by disease, famine, war and crime. It seems a bit inept or malicious.

Skeptics know the real reason bad things happen, this is not a question for them. This is for anyone who claims Jesus, or Allah or Yahweh or even "Karma".

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Hey Mellestad

Hey Mellestad !

I was wondering where you have been.

Glad to see you back on the forum !


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Actually,

mellestad wrote:

Actually, it's even worse than that. This very discussion is counter to everything he professes to believe in. Every time he calls someone a cunt, or a stupid jackass, or whatever horrible thing, he's causing pain and frustration.

 

In all fairness to Manageri, he was getting some ad homs in his direction on here as well.

There was another thread where he and I had a back and forth about subjective/objective morality and he never called me a cunt or a fucktard.

Granted, I was trying to get a better grasp on the anti-natalist position more than I was debating, because I had never heard of anti-natalism and was trying to understand the argument that suffering is terrible for sentients but that sentient life should end.

But, after some googling around and looking into it, I have got a better grasp on the anti-natalist position.

Some excerpts out of Benatar's "Better to have never been" and some blogs showed me exactly what the position is.

Anti-Natalism simply takes the position that it is morally wrong to bring more life into this world and that it is an imposition upon the newborn to do so.

I am not saying that I am for that or against that. But I understand that now.

EDIT : In other words, the anti-natalist position is that the amount of suffering in this world and the amount of pain far exceeds any joy that we will get in this life. The blogs and books that I looked up did not say that they wanted to prevent people from being happy. But in the overall picture, there is more pain than pleasure in this world and it would simply be a prevention of future pain and suffering for everyone to stop having children and those who do have children should educate them on birth control and contraceptives. I didn't see anyone advocating mass murder, but rather for people to stop bringing new life in this world. There were a lot of undertones of veganism as well, in many of the threads that I looked at, but there is no need for me to go into all of that because it has already been stated on here.

The reason that I stated in a previous thread that anti-natalist would probably call me a selfish asshole, is that I view life like this. Like it or not, I am here, so I figure I might as well make the best of it while I am here. Granted, while I am riding a motorcycle or enjoying the sunset or hanging out with my girlfriend, there are wars and suffering all over the world. But, there is nothing that I see that I can really do about that.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
mellestad

mellestad wrote:

harleysportster wrote:
"Respect your elders." Why ? I admire some older people that have gone through things, but I don't automatically just start respecting someone because they are older than me.


 

I can get that one though, at least from a darwinian point of view. Kids are stupid. Adults are usually less stupid, or at least more experienced. Indoctrinating young to obey the old has a net positive survival benefit, and in a society it helps smooth out entry to the adult social system.

I see your point. But I have met quite a number of old people that simply were cruel, ignorant and used the excuse of being "set in their ways" for racism and sexism.

I have also seen it with some of my family that use their age as an excuse to shove theism upon me. In other words " That is the way that it is and you do not question that."

There is this conspiracy theorist nutcase that I have to work with that has even used that on me. He believes that 9/11 was done by the government and the Aurora Colorado shootings were an FBI set up. When I had all of his arguments shredded, his last answer was : " Well, see, you weren't a part of my generation that created social change. We were taught to question things back then. We were---( etc. etc.).

I fail to see how his being older than me automatically means that he is smarter than me nor that his generation was somehow superior to mine ? (shrug)

Not that I am saying you are arguing that. But, that is the feeling I get from a lot of older people : "You missed it. You weren't there. etc."

Granted, some of the older biker bros that were around throughout the 60's counterculture are guys that I listen to closely. They have been riding longer than I have been alive and have seen and done things before I ever mounted a Harley. A lot of them are vets that never could fit into society and I can kind of relate to that, because I realized when I left religion that I didn't want to fit in either. So I choose to be a bit wild and a misfit.

Ok, after the first sentence that I typed, I had no idea that I was going to type anything else, so I'll stop rambling now Smiling

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote: The problem

mellestad wrote:
The problem is, Manageri sees life as a net negative. He's a Debby Downer, as it were.

That's true but that's not the subject. Even if life was 90% on the side of pleasure you still don't have an ethical justification for imposing suffering on others to pay for your existence that serves absolutely no purpose beyond fulfilling the needs it creates itself. How about instead of your debby downer ad hom bullshit you address the actual argument.

Quote:
You can't convince someone like that, that life is worth living. The perspective is based on emotion and you can't argue that down in his case. He's probably not fun at parties.

My life isn't the subject either, I could be Hugh Hefner or whatever your idea of a person with an awesome life is and still get it that I can't torture others for my needless joyride. Saying it's just based on emotion is a pathetic excuse to avoid dealing with the argument.

Quote:
Like the meat eater example. He's assuming that all those pigs you're going to consume have a net negative pain contribution to the Karmic wheel of pain, and that your life is also a net negative. Is that really true? I doubt it. Certainly it wouldn't be true in a small farm environment, with the animals killed in a slaughter house with a modern humane handling program.

You obviously have no clue about what goes on in factory farms and slaughterhouses if you can call any part of that process humane. Whether small farms are better is irrelevant as that's not how our societies produce the overwhelming majority of their animal products. 

Quote:
I can understand using suffering as the arbiter/basis for morality (I've even been down that debate road, with Blake, and I concede he won), but I don't understand taking such a negative bent on it. If suffering is bad, why isn't pleasure and the desire to live good? Were I him, I'd be fine with meat eating as long as the cows had happy lives and died cleanly. Their suffering to pleasure ratio would be a net positive, and therefore a net moral positive. *My* life certainly hasn't been a net negative so far, and my lifestyle isn't something anyone couldn't replicate.

No AN has ever argued pleasure isn't good, the argument is that nonexistent people have no need for it and aren't harmed by the lack of it, so creating happy people for no logical necessity at the cost of creating suffering people is ethically indefensible, it is the very definition of needless suffering.

Desire isn't good, why would being dependant on something be good? Is drug addiction good? Is it good that people who are gonna starve still desire food? Then why the hell would the desire to live be good?

Even if cows were mostly happy the exact same antinatalist argument applies to breeding animals and it is therefore unethical.

Do explain to me how the elephant man can replicate your lifestyle and be just as happy, can't wait to hear this shit. 

Quote:
Manageri's life could have a net moral benefit on his universal scale if he focused on generating positive emotions and experiences in humans and animals. Instead, his viewpoint is fatalistic and defeatist, and he see's no worth in life, human or animal. If he did, he'd be able to re-purpose his life into an engine for good, instead of seeing nothing but woe.

Yeah, when you realize you're in stuck in Auschwitz, maybe it's rational to be a little depressed and start questioning whether you should bring more people into your shithole. Why don't you tell me exactly how bad the conditions have to get on this planet before you start arguing we shouldn't bring more kids into it. 

Quote:
Holy hell, he could become go get a degree in psychology and be a marriage counselor. He could spend his evenings teaching poor teenagers to read, and on the weekends he could be an activist for humane slaughter programs. Or he could become a salesman for SSRI medications. For cows. The possibilities are literally endless. There are so many ways one person can have a huge impact on a system of morality based on suffering, and could do so with no net negative moral cost.

It's not my fault the number on the calculator turned up negative, what the fuck am I supposed to do about it, lie and twist the numbers until it ends up positive?


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Actually,

mellestad wrote:

Actually, it's even worse than that. This very discussion is counter to everything he professes to believe in. Every time he calls someone a cunt, or a stupid jackass, or whatever horrible thing, he's causing pain and frustration.

Really, we're not allowed to tell assholes they're assholes? It's kinda necessary if you're gonna argue how they could be less of an asshole.

Quote:
He could be a goddamned moral superhero. Go to a dog shelter and spend the next ten years making sure a rescue dog lives a good life. Sterilization programs for pets. Help someone with a flat tire. Convince someone to be a vegan. Dig a well in a hellhole village in Africa. Lobby for euthanasia reform. Give a stranger a hug! Jesus fucking Christ, what a waste.

Or argue antinatalism. Maybe you should look into that factory farming business if you think you're not wasting absurd amounts of suffering.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

mellestad wrote:

harleysportster wrote:
"Respect your elders." Why ? I admire some older people that have gone through things, but I don't automatically just start respecting someone because they are older than me.


 

I can get that one though, at least from a darwinian point of view. Kids are stupid. Adults are usually less stupid, or at least more experienced. Indoctrinating young to obey the old has a net positive survival benefit, and in a society it helps smooth out entry to the adult social system.

I see your point. But I have met quite a number of old people that simply were cruel, ignorant and used the excuse of being "set in their ways" for racism and sexism.

I have also seen it with some of my family that use their age as an excuse to shove theism upon me. In other words " That is the way that it is and you do not question that."

There is this conspiracy theorist nutcase that I have to work with that has even used that on me. He believes that 9/11 was done by the government and the Aurora Colorado shootings were an FBI set up. When I had all of his arguments shredded, his last answer was : " Well, see, you weren't a part of my generation that created social change. We were taught to question things back then. We were---( etc. etc.).

I fail to see how his being older than me automatically means that he is smarter than me nor that his generation was somehow superior to mine ? (shrug)

Not that I am saying you are arguing that. But, that is the feeling I get from a lot of older people : "You missed it. You weren't there. etc."

Granted, some of the older biker bros that were around throughout the 60's counterculture are guys that I listen to closely. They have been riding longer than I have been alive and have seen and done things before I ever mounted a Harley. A lot of them are vets that never could fit into society and I can kind of relate to that, because I realized when I left religion that I didn't want to fit in either. So I choose to be a bit wild and a misfit.

Ok, after the first sentence that I typed, I had no idea that I was going to type anything else, so I'll stop rambling now Smiling

 

Yea, I'm not saying it's always defensible, just that I understand where it comes from/why it's useful.

 

I doubt I'll be here long, I haven't had time to do the forum circuit like I used to...I was feeling feisty last night though, and decided to stop by. This place is always good for a fight, lol. Speaking of which, I suppose I should read the reply from Manageri. Sigh.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
@Manageri: I don't care

@Manageri: I don't care about the specifics of AN. From my perspective it's a quick argument: If you base your morality on pain/suffering then pleasure/happiness should have equal weight. I would argue that life, in general and on average, has more positive than negative emotions. It has to be, or critters/people wouldn't be motivated to do anything but run around in panicked circles. You can certainly be a positive influence on life without trying too hard. Therefore your moral imperative isn't suicide, it's service to the greater moral good.

 

AN just sounds lazy, to be frank. And hypocritic, at least if you don't self terminate as soon as you arrive at AN. Even *if* AN was logically consistent, and at this point I don't think it is, the argument is a failure because it doesn't pass the reality check: You are not going to convince most humans to self terminate or avoid the primary biological drive of their lives, breeding. Therefor AN is impracticle outside of self termination. The effort spent on espousing the belief is a waste. If you actually valued negation of suffering you'd be better off persuing positive remedies/alternatives like those I listed, not trying to convince everyone to avoid breeding and die.

 

Again, it sounds like it's a good way to convince yourself that it's OK to sit around and avoid anything productive, while feeling morally superior to those around you.

 

(I apologize in advance, I don't have time to go point/counterpoint)

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 Plus of course suffering

 Plus of course suffering and enjoyment are not really opposites.

If my parents spent their savings to put my brother through university instead of me, then I would be sad that they chose him over me, but at the same time happy that he'd get a great education and jump up in life.

If they were opposites then they would cancel each other out, and I'd be left only slightly happy, or slightly sad, or neutral if I felt both in equal amounts. But of course these two do not cancel each other out - I'd be ambivalent over the two contrasting emotions and neither negates the other.

So if I can suffer and enjoy at the same time, then why not pick enjoyment as the objective standard? Maximise this rather than minimise suffering? Surely that's just the optimist's version of Manageri's world view?

 


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:@Manageri: I

mellestad wrote:

@Manageri: I don't care about the specifics of AN.

Then wtf do you care about? Whether we should do the life thing at all is obviously the most important question there is.

Quote:
From my perspective it's a quick argument: If you base your morality on pain/suffering then pleasure/happiness should have equal weight.

Once again no one has argued pleasure has no weight, the argument is about whether it justifies imposing suffering on others etc, I just explained this.

Quote:
I would argue that life, in general and on average, has more positive than negative emotions. It has to be, or critters/people wouldn't be motivated to do anything but run around in panicked circles.

This is idiotic, even people in seriously fucked up circumstances like having had most their body severely burnt can be totally functional and at the same time state they'd really rather not have lived (which btw is different from saying they wanna die right now, a distinction you gloss over). It is also, once again, not the subject. How good or bad the average life is has nothing to do with whether it's justifiable to impose life on others.

Quote:
You can certainly be a positive influence on life without trying too hard. Therefore your moral imperative isn't suicide, it's service to the greater moral good.

Well it's a good thing that AN isn't about suicide then, isn't it? 

Quote:
AN just sounds lazy, to be frank.

Your refusal to deal with the arguments is what's lazy, you don't even understand the philosophy you're "criticizing" as evidenced by this next load of shit:

Quote:
And hypocritic, at least if you don't self terminate as soon as you arrive at AN.

You do know what the word NATALISM refers to? It's about friggin babies, it doesn't have a damn thing to do with killing yourself. Me killing myself isn't gonna stop you breedtards from making more victims, so how the fuck does that solve anything beyond my own circumstance? This is like arguing to a jew who's complaining about being in a concentration camp that he can just kill himself and that'll fix everything, as if that somehow helps the other jews. And you call our thinking lazy? Hilarious.

Quote:
Even *if* AN was logically consistent, and at this point I don't think it is, the argument is a failure because it doesn't pass the reality check:

Yeah and if there's a crusading horde of christians outside my village who've decided they're gonna enslave everyone and all that lovely OT shit, the concept of protecting people from slavery doesn't pass the reality check either, but it sure as hell doesn't mean that isn't the right thing to do. I'm making an argument about what's ethical, whether it's practical at this point in time has fuckall to do with that.

Quote:
You are not going to convince most humans to self terminate or avoid the primary biological drive of their lives, breeding.

The drive is sex, not breeding. Not one time have I looked at a vagina and thought "BABY TIEM YEEEEAAAAH". If you can't figure out how to separate sex from procreation in the year 2012 I'd think twice before I go around accusing others of lazy thinking.

Quote:
Therefor AN is impracticle outside of self termination. The effort spent on espousing the belief is a waste. If you actually valued negation of suffering you'd be better off persuing positive remedies/alternatives like those I listed, not trying to convince everyone to avoid breeding and die.

Right, because preventing a baby from being born without skin and other such lovely occurrences of life isn't worth anything, yeah... 

Quote:
Again, it sounds like it's a good way to convince yourself that it's OK to sit around and avoid anything productive, while feeling morally superior to those around you.

Sorry to break it to ya champ, but on the subject of procreation I am morally superior. If you have a problem with that assertion then you could always address the arguments. 

Quote:
(I apologize in advance, I don't have time to go point/counterpoint)

No need to apologize, just means more floor time for me to demonstrate how bad the opposition to AN is.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 Plus of course suffering and enjoyment are not really opposites.

That's kinda true, just not in the way you think.

Quote:
If my parents spent their savings to put my brother through university instead of me, then I would be sad that they chose him over me, but at the same time happy that he'd get a great education and jump up in life.

If they were opposites then they would cancel each other out, and I'd be left only slightly happy, or slightly sad, or neutral if I felt both in equal amounts. But of course these two do not cancel each other out - I'd be ambivalent over the two contrasting emotions and neither negates the other.

Yeah cos that's a realistic portrayal of the negatives that go on around the globe, right? Not going to college? How about comparing the joy of your borther going to college to being paralyzed from the neck down or something, why don't you tell me exactly how many "I'm goin to college fuck yeah" moments you'd sacrifice to avoid that fate and then reconsider the balance between good and bad in the world.

Quote:
So if I can suffer and enjoy at the same time, then why not pick enjoyment as the objective standard? Maximise this rather than minimise suffering? Surely that's just the optimist's version of Manageri's world view?

Because when it comes to choosing between giving the kid an icecream cone and preventing him from stepping on a rusty nail, the right answer really isn't all that hard. If you think about it honestly you'll figure out the scope of potential suffering is preposterously, exponentially greater than potential happiness, and this is without even considering the asymmetry argument.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 Plus of course suffering and enjoyment are not really opposites.

If my parents spent their savings to put my brother through university instead of me, then I would be sad that they chose him over me, but at the same time happy that he'd get a great education and jump up in life.

If they were opposites then they would cancel each other out, and I'd be left only slightly happy, or slightly sad, or neutral if I felt both in equal amounts. But of course these two do not cancel each other out - I'd be ambivalent over the two contrasting emotions and neither negates the other.

So if I can suffer and enjoy at the same time, then why not pick enjoyment as the objective standard? Maximise this rather than minimise suffering? Surely that's just the optimist's version of Manageri's world view?

 

 

Well, they are opposites by the arbitrary judgements most people make. Since the decision to base morality on suffering is totally arbitrary, it seems to make sense to line up something on the other side.

 

Not that you need to, but then the alternative is "lack of suffering" which is nothing more than a way to pat yourself on the back for navel gazing, philosophically speaking.

 

I agree with you though, you can choose one, or both, or none. This kind of philosophical morality is all arbitrary. The trick is to consistent once you commit.

 

I just don't know why you'd want to choose this system as your arbitrary basis, you're setting yourself up for misery, and for no purpose. *shrug*

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
@Manageri: So if life is

@Manageri: So if life is pain and woe, and avoiding said woe is the moral imperative, why would you allow yourself to live? Self termination seems like the logical thing to do if you think your life is a net negative...right? Why would you allow yourself to live?

 

Or by living, do you see yourself and heroically throwing yourself on the hand grenade of life, hoping you can convince a "breedtard" to avoid procreation by your noble sacrifice? If that's the case, how is the inavoidable suffering caused by simply existing outweighed by the slender chance your vulgarity-laden tirades would convince someone to accept your point of view?

 

Hypothetically, I would see a philosophy that allows you to "impose life" on a critter when that life is likely to be a net moral positive as an allowable thing. If you value self governance (maybe you don't, I don't know) then, for humans at least, I'd think it might also make more sense to simply decriminalize suicide, that way folks can off themselves as soon as they think they are in too deep. *Most* people are glad they've existed, even if their lives aren't great. So allow them to proceed, and those that don't want to don't have to. Then you're back with a net moral positive again. I don't understand the emphasis put on suffering.

 

I think sex is about sex. Breeding is about breeding. They are not the same, at least not in modern society (although they can be!). Since the advent of birth control, children often happen because they are desired for their own sake.

 

This is just a subjective opinion, not relating to the viewpoints you are advocating, but it doesn't sound like you're arguing for AN because of ethics, it just sounds like you're angry that the world sucks sometimes. That might not be true, but that's what comes across to me when you're communicating. Maybe I'm confusing your stance with your delivery though.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Manageri

Manageri wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 Plus of course suffering and enjoyment are not really opposites.

That's kinda true, just not in the way you think.

Quote:
If my parents spent their savings to put my brother through university instead of me, then I would be sad that they chose him over me, but at the same time happy that he'd get a great education and jump up in life.

If they were opposites then they would cancel each other out, and I'd be left only slightly happy, or slightly sad, or neutral if I felt both in equal amounts. But of course these two do not cancel each other out - I'd be ambivalent over the two contrasting emotions and neither negates the other.

Yeah cos that's a realistic portrayal of the negatives that go on around the globe, right? Not going to college? How about comparing the joy of your borther going to college to being paralyzed from the neck down or something, why don't you tell me exactly how many "I'm goin to college fuck yeah" moments you'd sacrifice to avoid that fate and then reconsider the balance between good and bad in the world.

Quote:
So if I can suffer and enjoy at the same time, then why not pick enjoyment as the objective standard? Maximise this rather than minimise suffering? Surely that's just the optimist's version of Manageri's world view?

Because when it comes to choosing between giving the kid an icecream cone and preventing him from stepping on a rusty nail, the right answer really isn't all that hard. If you think about it honestly you'll figure out the scope of potential suffering is preposterously, exponentially greater than potential happiness, and this is without even considering the asymmetry argument.

 

You're not being fair comparing like for like. And a little bit of happiness can make a lot of suffering bearable. A paralysed man may consider life worthwhile when he kisses his wife. So my question becomes even more relevant, since happiness can offset suffering by disproportionate amounts.

Why not pick enjoyment/happiness as the objective standard? Please answer without ill-judged comparative examples.

 


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:@Manageri:

mellestad wrote:

@Manageri: So if life is pain and woe, and avoiding said woe is the moral imperative, why would you allow yourself to live? Self termination seems like the logical thing to do if you think your life is a net negative...right? Why would you allow yourself to live?

NOT. THE. SUBJECT.

Which one of these words don't you understand? The subject is whether or not you have a right to impose life on others who may or may not have as great a time as you. How many times do I have to repeat this before you address it? It's like injecting someone else with heroin because you think it's really awesome, except that at least in the heroin case the person is already alive and has needs, which can't be said for procreation so it's kind of a whole new dimension of imposition and assholery. 

Quote:
Or by living, do you see yourself and heroically throwing yourself on the hand grenade of life, hoping you can convince a "breedtard" to avoid procreation by your noble sacrifice? If that's the case, how is the inavoidable suffering caused by simply existing outweighed by the slender chance your vulgarity-laden tirades would convince someone to accept your point of view?

I can't help it if someone's such an intellectually dishonest weasel that they use the fact an argument has the word fuck in it as an excuse to avoid having to deal with it. I'm not making any sacrifice, if I had an easy way out I'd propably take it but while I'm stuck here I might as well try to do something about fixing this mess. 

Quote:
Hypothetically, I would see a philosophy that allows you to "impose life" on a critter when that life is likely to be a net moral positive as an allowable thing.

So would I if life was somehow a positive phenomenon, too bad it isn't.

Quote:
If you value self governance (maybe you don't, I don't know) then, for humans at least, I'd think it might also make more sense to simply decriminalize suicide, that way folks can off themselves as soon as they think they are in too deep. *Most* people are glad they've existed, even if their lives aren't great. So allow them to proceed, and those that don't want to don't have to. Then you're back with a net moral positive again. I don't understand the emphasis put on suffering.

The fact someone killed themselves does not erase the fact their life was shit and their asshole parents created a bunch of suffering. If we take this nonsense to it's logical conclusion then the fact that everyone dies eventually and therefore, according to this bullshit, their pain is erased, we have no reason to punish rapists etc since their victims will eventually die. 

Quote:
I think sex is about sex. Breeding is about breeding. They are not the same, at least not in modern society (although they can be!). Since the advent of birth control, children often happen because they are desired for their own sake.

Then maybe you shouldn't call breeding a biological imperative. 

Quote:
This is just a subjective opinion, not relating to the viewpoints you are advocating, but it doesn't sound like you're arguing for AN because of ethics, it just sounds like you're angry that the world sucks sometimes. That might not be true, but that's what comes across to me when you're communicating. Maybe I'm confusing your stance with your delivery though.

Lol, "I could be wrong but it sounds like you slaves are just pissed that you're treated like absolute shit and aren't REALLY making an ethical argument for freeing you".


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

You're not being fair comparing like for like. And a little bit of happiness can make a lot of suffering bearable. A paralysed man may consider life worthwhile when he kisses his wife. So my question becomes even more relevant, since happiness can offset suffering by disproportionate amounts.

Why not pick enjoyment/happiness as the objective standard? Please answer without ill-judged comparative examples.

Why don't you give me the other side of the coin then, what exactly is the equal but opposite pleasure one can experience as a reward for being locked in Josef Fritzl's dungeon for a few decades?


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 You do like your extreme

 You do like your extreme examples don't you?! That is hardly the fate of most people. (nor is rape, being born without skin etc. etc.) These examples are only valid when discussing relevant specific points regarding principles, not as a general modal value of suffering.  -( for the sake of debate, let's not bring animals into it for now - AN for animals is a bit futile)

 

For the record I'm not saying happiness and suffering are equal but opposite - my point is exactly that they are NOT on a linear scale. See my post a few above this saying exactly this.

 

A lot of people may consider that their lives have been mostly suffering-free and generally enjoyable. It seems that most people on this board that have discussed this with you are saying this (though I agree this board is not a representative sample). Even those with a lot of suffering on these boards, of which there are some, find ways to offset this with whatever happiness they can find, and in some cases small amounts of happiness can outweigh large amounts of suffering, as discussed above, and make life worth living for those people.

It's is only your psychology that makes you think suffering is endemic in humanity and outweighs every other thing that brings happiness. I disagree, I think for many people the happiness in their lives outweighs suffering. There's no way to tell (short of polling the entire population) which group is more populous - would group size even matter though - is that a judgement for 'success' of the human experiment?

 

You say suffering is the objective standard, I propose happiness - and you've still not told me why this alternative objective standard is less valid.

 

If you want to say suffering is more important because it hurts more (like it would in Fritzl's basement) then I can say happiness is more important because it's more fun (like being in Angelina Jolie's bedroom) - you're only justifying your judgement based upon the judgement you've already made, which is circular reasoning. Try again.

 

 


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 You do like your extreme examples don't you?! That is hardly the fate of most people. (nor is rape, being born without skin etc. etc.) These examples are only valid when discussing relevant specific points regarding principles, not as a general modal value of suffering.  -( for the sake of debate, let's not bring animals into it for now - AN for animals is a bit futile)

I didn't argue everyone's life remotely resembles Fritzl's daughter's, the point is that you can easily fuck someone's life up so completely that no pleasure can ever compensate. Are you gonna tell me that if the price of creating another person like you who's generally happy is that we also have to create another one of Fritzl's dungeon victims that those are somehow remotely equal? Seriously, tell me how awesome would someone's life have to be in order for you to commit someone else to that dungeon. 

Quote:
For the record I'm not saying happiness and suffering are equal but opposite - my point is exactly that they are NOT on a linear scale. See my post a few above this saying exactly this.

And when it comes to the creation of new people the fact they might be happy doesn't mean a goddamn thing as they have no need for that before you create them. 

Quote:
A lot of people may consider that their lives have been mostly suffering-free and generally enjoyable. It seems that most people on this board that have discussed this with you are saying this (though I agree this board is not a representative sample). Even those with a lot of suffering on these boards, of which there are some, find ways to offset this with whatever happiness they can find, and in some cases small amounts of happiness can outweigh large amounts of suffering, as discussed above, and make life worth living for those people.

So what, I don't get to force someone to climb a mountain and accept all those risks just because I found it all worth it in the end.

Quote:
It's is only your psychology that makes you think suffering is endemic in humanity and outweighs every other thing that brings happiness.

Bullshit, I've made a logical argument which you've yet to address. 

Quote:
You say suffering is the objective standard, I propose happiness - and you've still not told me why this alternative objective standard is less valid.

I do take happiness into account, that's why I usually use the term welfare. The point of the asymmetry argument is that you can't use the potential happiness of nonexistent people to justify suffering as there's no need whatsoever to create people as they aren't hurt by their lack of happiness while nonexistent. 

Quote:
If you want to say suffering is more important because it hurts more (like it would in Fritzl's basement) then I can say happiness is more important because it's more fun (like being in Angelina Jolie's bedroom) - you're only justifying your judgement based upon the judgement you've already made, which is circular reasoning. Try again.

Really, you'll trade 20 years in the dungeon for 20 years in the bedroom?


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
@Manageri: It is the

@Manageri: It is the subject, because you're arriving at AN by basing morality on pain=bad, life=pain, therefore life=bad. I'm sorry you hate life, but most humans don't. Your worldview makes huge assumptions that your probable mental illness is universal. I'm telling you it isn't.

 

There are so many totally painless, gentle ways to kill yourself your argument about that is ridiculous. I support voluntary euthenasia, so I've investigated the subject plenty. I'd link to them, but I don't want to wind up in court because you use something I posted to kill yourself.

 

Creating children is a biological imperative for humans, at least for humans without your issues. Most people *want* kids at some point in their lives. Not all, but most. Even gay people want kids.

 

"So would I if life was somehow a positive phenomenon, too bad it isn't." That's the core of this argument. As I said above, I'm sorry you have issues with your brain chemistry and you're depressed. I'm sorry you think your life sucks. I'm not the first person to tell you that's not the case for most people. It isn't even the case for most animals. Maybe it would be good for you to travel...meet people that are living in bad places, it might be enlightening.

 

You're starting with a valid concept for morality:pain=bad. Then you're making an incorrect leap: life=pain. You're using that to create a system of morality that accomplishes exactly the opposite of what you think it does. Are there individual cases where suffering outweighs everything else? Absolutely. Is that the case for most life? No. If it was we'd all lay around complaining about how no-one should have babies and shout at each other like angry teenagers. It isn't. We don't. Following your worldview would be morally monsterous for the bulk of life on this planet.

 

If you were genuinely interested in "fixing this mess" your current tactics have such a horrific return on investement that you'd be better off saving yourself the aggrevation of trying. Taking what you're "stuck with" and making it better than it currently is is such a simple thing in comparison, that I don't know how your morality doesn't force you into trying.

 

I know this is a very emotional subject for you, this is about the core of your identity, and that core is filled with pain. It can't be anything but miserable to argue about it, and I understand that. I'm trying to point out that you're looking at it the wrong way. You're looking at it in a way that is not only incorrect, it's self destructive to you as an individual and it's destructive to whatever society you're interacting with.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Really,

Manageri wrote:

Really, you'll trade 20 years in the dungeon for 20 years in the bedroom?

We're collectivly saying that we'd trade your hypothetical scenario for reality, which is thousands of people living lives they are glad to have versus occasional horror.

 

If every kid had a 50% shot of being locked in the dungeon, I'd agree with you. It isn't so.

 

If I believed as you do, I'd devote my life to fighting against instances where the dungeon scenario takes place, rather than annihilating life. This is a textbook case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

(And on your actual question...it's interesting, but not as part of your argument. If you put the part in the bedroom after the part in the dungeon, I imagine most folks would think their life had been worth living. That's interesting...if it was reversed, then they probably wouldn't. That's assuming the dungeon doesn't destroy their mind, of course.)

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
I'm just not gonna bother

I'm just not gonna bother arguing with you anymore until you address the actual argument.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:I'm just not

Manageri wrote:

I'm just not gonna bother arguing with you anymore until you address the actual argument.

If your hypothesis is true, then it isn't moral. If it's untrue, then it might be moral or it might not, it depends on your system of morality. My arguments have been pointing out why I don't think your hypothesis is correct. I'm not sure how else to address it, you keep asking me to chop at the leaves and I'm going for the roots.

 

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Manageri

mellestad wrote:

Manageri wrote:

I'm just not gonna bother arguing with you anymore until you address the actual argument.

If your hypothesis is true, then it isn't moral. If it's untrue, then it might be moral or it might not, it depends on your system of morality. My arguments have been pointing out why I don't think your hypothesis is correct. I'm not sure how else to address it, you keep asking me to chop at the leaves and I'm going for the roots.

 

I have missed you.  Hope you have some time for us.  And I hope I have some time as the quarter starts pretty soon and my life is going to get busy, too.

I absolutely agree with you. 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Manageri

mellestad wrote:

Manageri wrote:

I'm just not gonna bother arguing with you anymore until you address the actual argument.

If your hypothesis is true, then it isn't moral. If it's untrue, then it might be moral or it might not, it depends on your system of morality. My arguments have been pointing out why I don't think your hypothesis is correct. I'm not sure how else to address it, you keep asking me to chop at the leaves and I'm going for the roots.

I'm asking you to directly address the fucking arguments and you have yet to do so, all you do is pretend antinatalism is about suicide and other such preposterous nonsense.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:mellestad

cj wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Manageri wrote:

I'm just not gonna bother arguing with you anymore until you address the actual argument.

If your hypothesis is true, then it isn't moral. If it's untrue, then it might be moral or it might not, it depends on your system of morality. My arguments have been pointing out why I don't think your hypothesis is correct. I'm not sure how else to address it, you keep asking me to chop at the leaves and I'm going for the roots.

 

I have missed you.  Hope you have some time for us.  And I hope I have some time as the quarter starts pretty soon and my life is going to get busy, too.

I absolutely agree with you. 

 

 

Smiling Thanks cj, I've missed you too.

 

I was dumb and signed up for two classes at once for this fall quarter, and I haven't been in school for a year and a half now. Between family and work and school now was probably a bad time to start arguing on RRS, lol. I imagine that was a stupid thing to do, and I'll regret it. I'll try to keep my toe dipped in the water here though, at least more than I have been.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:mellestad

Manageri wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Manageri wrote:

I'm just not gonna bother arguing with you anymore until you address the actual argument.

If your hypothesis is true, then it isn't moral. If it's untrue, then it might be moral or it might not, it depends on your system of morality. My arguments have been pointing out why I don't think your hypothesis is correct. I'm not sure how else to address it, you keep asking me to chop at the leaves and I'm going for the roots.

I'm asking you to directly address the fucking arguments and you have yet to do so, all you do is pretend antinatalism is about suicide and other such preposterous nonsense.

 

I've tried to address them in every post written directly to you. I'm sorry I'm not communicating clearly enough. The only advice I can give is re-read my last couple of posts in a few days and see if they make more sense.

 

I know you'll think this is insulting or condescending, but I hope you're able to make it past this stage in your life. There's a lot of good things to experience in the world and I hope you find them.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:I have

mellestad wrote:

cj wrote:

I have missed you.  Hope you have some time for us.  And I hope I have some time as the quarter starts pretty soon and my life is going to get busy, too.

I absolutely agree with you. 

Smiling Thanks cj, I've missed you too.

 

I was dumb and signed up for two classes at once for this fall quarter, and I haven't been in school for a year and a half now. Between family and work and school now was probably a bad time to start arguing on RRS, lol. I imagine that was a stupid thing to do, and I'll regret it. I'll try to keep my toe dipped in the water here though, at least more than I have been.

 

Ah, that was me winter and spring terms.  I had an internship that ramped up to 40 hrs per week, and a full class load both terms.  Bad idea.  I just ain't that young anymore.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 Manageri, I would

 Manageri,

 I would estimate (rule of thumb) that more people prefer having been born than not, hence the relatively small numbers of antinatalists in existence.

Now I think your response will probably be something along the lines of "Massive suffering of one individual outweighs minor life agreableness of many" i.e. in a population of 10 individuals, if nine are modestly happy, and one is in extreme agony, then the group as a whole shouldn't have been born.

I actually agree with this. But, what about a population of 100,000, where one is in extreme agony, 95,000 have modestly happy lives, and 5,000 have extremely happy lives - would you buy a lottery ticket then? I believe most people would. 

 

So my point is, how have you measured this, and come to the conclusion that the odds aren't good enough for the experiment to continue? How can you possibly know what the tipping point is when life becomes not worth having in the first place?

At the risk of backtracking to a previous discussion by using a contentious word (but please realise it's in a slightly different context) You seem to be basing your philosophy on subjective experience, by assuming that suffering in the world is large enough to warrant its end - how do you justify this?

 

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote: I know

mellestad wrote:

 

I know this is a very emotional subject for you, this is about the core of your identity, and that core is filled with pain. It can't be anything but miserable to argue about it, and I understand that. I'm trying to point out that you're looking at it the wrong way. You're looking at it in a way that is not only incorrect, it's self destructive to you as an individual and it's destructive to whatever society you're interacting with.

I would like to point out though :

Some of these anti-natalist bloggers and websites seem to be reasonably happy people and not angry people . (Maybe I am just playing devil's advocate here, but I am just saying).

I noticed there was a movement called VHEMT (Voluntary Human Extermination Movement) that states : Every person has a right to a good parent, a good life etc. (I guess you could call VHEMT Anti-Natalist, since they say the only solution is for everyone to stop making babies).

I am not taking the Anti-Natalist position here but let's look at this :

While on a planet of 7 billion people, I DO think we should take a look at overpopulation (though I see no real solution to it) and the fact that many people in places like India, China and much of the third world are indeed having difficulties.

I think it is wrong for Catholic missionaries to tell a bunch of starving Ethiopians they will feed them, so long as they convert to christianity and tells them that contraceptives are not ok.

I mean, that charlatan Mother Teresa, travelled all the way to Ireland at one point to tell the Irish government not to legalize divorce, and preached against abortion and contraceptives in a place like Calcutta, where I think it would have been a lot smarter to encourage people to use contraceptives and they should have been passed out by missionaries to people in general.

Many children in places like Ethiopia for instance, are born with HIV and into horrible conditions. I don't think people should be encouraged to have children in such places. Sorry. Just my opinion. At least, not until we get some sort of humanitarian existence into those countries that makes life better. Just like I don't think that irresponsible people here in the states and much of the civilized world should have them. There are people out there that have five and six kids, by different women, that they have no intention of taking care of those children and don't care about them. I mean c'mon, slap on a condom like I do or take birth control pills.

Now granted, I am not arguing that the world should end. I am not arguing in favor of human life ending. But I do think that we need to do something about the state of overpopulation and I don't know how to solve that.

I disagree with some of the bloggers that I have encountered that state : " They are neither pro-choice nor pro-life but pro-death. Because to take the pro-choice stance is to involve giving someone the option of bringing life into this world"

I don't think we should force people to have abortions, anymore than I think we should force people to have children. But I do think that more social programs out there should focus on the idea of children. Rather than just talking about safe sex for health reasons, they should also include a lot of information about the responsibilities of bringing children into the world.

If I were to fuck up and get some girl pregnant, and she wanted the kid. Then, I believe that I would have no choice but to realize that it is my responsibility to ensure that child has a good life. That child did not ask to be born, that child is born as a direct result of my actions. Therefore, it would be MY responsibility to do the right thing for that child.

I can't believe I typed all of this. Smiling

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
One more thing

One more thing (like famous tv detective Lieutenant Columbo was noted for saying).

I logged into one of these Anti-Natalist websites and made the argument that I was typing above (pretty much verbatim) and I concluded it with : "Why not encourage people to not have children, educate them on what having children means, push for more education on contraceptives and safe sex (don't know about anyone else but I am not giving up sex), push for more education on all the implications of having children and why not push for getting the population under control ?

The responses I got (I would provide the link, but the whole thing got deleted) more or less said that even if we could discourage irresponsible people to stop breeding, and even if we could encourage people in very poverty stricken countries to stop having children (none of this which is going to happen of course) that the human race would just turn around and make a mess out of the whole thing all over again.

I was asked to provide evidence that they would not (the AN evidence being "look at human history&quotEye-wink and I really could think of no way to refute that.

However, as of right now, I am not convinced that there is some sort of middle of the road solution to the problems of suffering. (Call me a naive, dumbass with his head in the clouds).

Surely there has to be some way of solving the world's problems other than just ending it. I don't know. There is very little I can do about the world's problems.

I am not deluded enough to think that my dumbass self is going to make a difference.

I can only hope that as science and technology progresses, we as people will progress to a better future (hopefully !)

I would provide a link to the post and the comments, but it got deleted for some reason. Why I don't know.

Coffee is making me talkative this morning.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4435
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:One

harleysportster wrote:

One more thing (like famous tv detective Lieutenant Columbo was noted for saying).

I logged into one of these Anti-Natalist websites and made the argument that I was typing above (pretty much verbatim) and I concluded it with : "Why not encourage people to not have children, educate them on what having children means, push for more education on contraceptives and safe sex (don't know about anyone else but I am not giving up sex), push for more education on all the implications of having children and why not push for getting the population under control ?

The responses I got (I would provide the link, but the whole thing got deleted) more or less said that even if we could discourage irresponsible people to stop breeding, and even if we could encourage people in very poverty stricken countries to stop having children (none of this which is going to happen of course) that the human race would just turn around and make a mess out of the whole thing all over again.

I was asked to provide evidence that they would not (the AN evidence being "look at human history&quotEye-wink and I really could think of no way to refute that.

However, as of right now, I am not convinced that there is some sort of middle of the road solution to the problems of suffering. (Call me a naive, dumbass with his head in the clouds).

Surely there has to be some way of solving the world's problems other than just ending it. I don't know. There is very little I can do about the world's problems.

I am not deluded enough to think that my dumbass self is going to make a difference.

I can only hope that as science and technology progresses, we as people will progress to a better future (hopefully !)

I would provide a link to the post and the comments, but it got deleted for some reason. Why I don't know.

Coffee is making me talkative this morning.

Yet there is a direct correlation with development and declining birth rates. As countries become modernized people voluntarily stop having as many kids and also enjoy more comfortable lives. The US for example has birth rates below replacement rates, the only reason our population continues to grow is the number of immigrants we have.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate

I always thought the logical solution to overpopulation fears is to modernize the third world. It makes sense that when you have education and birth control available that fewer people will have kids. Of course, modernization faces its own challenges, specifically in regards to the resources needed to maintain a developed society like energy. 

The mistake that many AN types make is to equivocate a child born in a developed country with one born in a third world shithole. If an American decides to have a kid, that kid is going to generally have a pretty good life. There is unlikely to be starvation issues or any serious poverty. Nor is it going to have any negative effect on people over in Somalia. If someone in Somalia has a kid their life is probably going to be extremely uncomfortable and lack of food or extreme poverty are very likely problems. So if everyone in the developed world stopped having kids, is that going to somehow improve things in Somalia? Of course not. It makes far more sense to put efforts into providing people in third world countries the ability to choose whether or not to have kids through education and the availability of birth control options rather than worry about whether or not people in developed countries have kids.

Unfortunately, many of the people who take active roles in providing aid in third world countries tend to be religious fundamentalists. I have never heard of a christian mission that provides condoms, which would probably go a long way towards restraining population growth and reducing overcrowding in impoverished areas.  

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:So

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

So my point is, how have you measured this, and come to the conclusion that the odds aren't good enough for the experiment to continue? How can you possibly know what the tipping point is when life becomes not worth having in the first place?

It really isn't about odds, you don't have the right to impose 100% pointless risk on someone else no matter how small the downside risk is, that's just fucking idiotic. I already explained this but you people refuse to directly deal with anything I point out. I'm still waiting for a straight answer to the question of what kind of life would make up for someone else being sent to Fritzl's dungeon, among other things. I've made the argument why asking people whether they're happy is irrelevant several times and neither of you has addressed it once, here's a few examples:

"Even if life was 90% on the side of pleasure you still don't have an ethical justification for imposing suffering on others to pay for your existence that serves absolutely no purpose beyond fulfilling the needs it creates itself."

"No AN has ever argued pleasure isn't good, the argument is that nonexistent people have no need for it and aren't harmed by the lack of it, so creating happy people for no logical necessity at the cost of creating suffering people is ethically indefensible, it is the very definition of needless suffering."

"And when it comes to the creation of new people the fact they might be happy doesn't mean a goddamn thing as they have no need for that before you create them. "

"The point of the asymmetry argument is that you can't use the potential happiness of nonexistent people to justify suffering as there's no need whatsoever to create people as they aren't hurt by their lack of happiness while nonexistent."

How many more times do I have to make the same damn argument before you address it?


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:The

Beyond Saving wrote:

The mistake that many AN types make is to equivocate a child born in a developed country with one born in a third world shithole. If an American decides to have a kid, that kid is going to generally have a pretty good life. There is unlikely to be starvation issues or any serious poverty. Nor is it going to have any negative effect on people over in Somalia. If someone in Somalia has a kid their life is probably going to be extremely uncomfortable and lack of food or extreme poverty are very likely problems. So if everyone in the developed world stopped having kids, is that going to somehow improve things in Somalia? Of course not. It makes far more sense to put efforts into providing people in third world countries the ability to choose whether or not to have kids through education and the availability of birth control options rather than worry about whether or not people in developed countries have kids.

Which antinatalist is arguing only some parts of the world should stop breeding?


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Yet

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yet there is a direct correlation with development and declining birth rates. As countries become modernized people voluntarily stop having as many kids and also enjoy more comfortable lives. The US for example has birth rates below replacement rates, the only reason our population continues to grow is the number of immigrants we have.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate

I always thought the logical solution to overpopulation fears is to modernize the third world. It makes sense that when you have education and birth control available that fewer people will have kids. Of course, modernization faces its own challenges, specifically in regards to the resources needed to maintain a developed society like energy. 

I am in total agreement with you there,

Beyond Saving wrote:

 It makes far more sense to put efforts into providing people in third world countries the ability to choose whether or not to have kids through education and the availability of birth control options rather than worry about whether or not people in developed countries have kids.

Unfortunately, many of the people who take active roles in providing aid in third world countries tend to be religious fundamentalists. I have never heard of a christian mission that provides condoms, which would probably go a long way towards restraining population growth and reducing overcrowding in impoverished areas.  

I am in agreement with you there as well.

I misstyped earlier when I say I was not convinced there was a solution. I meant to type I was not convinced there was NO solution. I was typing faster than I thought.

I think the advent of modernization will probably reduce population. After all, my girlfriend and I simply do not want the responsibility of kids and just don't see any reason to have them.

On the thread that I typed on, it was a VHEMT person that stated : "Even if population were to be reduced, humans would just fuck it all up all over again." Can't say the person doesn't kind of have a point in one way. But, I think technological advancements that are rapidly finding cures to horrific diseases, finding ways to make people walk that were crippled, finding ways to cure cancer, might give us some hope for the future if population were brought under control.

I know that some of the AN posters think that is just wishful thinking and they may be right. But, like it or not. I am here. I exist. I was born. I might as well make the best of it and do the best that I can while I have it. I am well aware of the fact that while I am riding on a Harley, having a brew with the bros or going to the movies with my girlfriend that millions of people are suffering all over. But, what can I DO about it ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Anti-Natalist Books

There are two books that a lot of Anti-Natalist reccomend. One is called : Better to have never existed by David Benatar and one was called : The Conspiracy Against the Human Race by Thomas Liggoti.

I was told on that thread that those two books would effectively debunk any arguments that I might have for saying the human race must continue.

I did not see any Amazon.com viewers arguing against them (I guess the only readers thus far are AN supporters).

But I must admit, that it makes me curious as to how ALL arguments against the continued existence of humanity could be debunked.

I'll probably read them (if my library has them) just to see what case they might have built and what they are basing it on.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

mellestad wrote:

 

I know this is a very emotional subject for you, this is about the core of your identity, and that core is filled with pain. It can't be anything but miserable to argue about it, and I understand that. I'm trying to point out that you're looking at it the wrong way. You're looking at it in a way that is not only incorrect, it's self destructive to you as an individual and it's destructive to whatever society you're interacting with.

I would like to point out though :

Some of these anti-natalist bloggers and websites seem to be reasonably happy people and not angry people . (Maybe I am just playing devil's advocate here, but I am just saying).

I noticed there was a movement called VHEMT (Voluntary Human Extermination Movement) that states : Every person has a right to a good parent, a good life etc. (I guess you could call VHEMT Anti-Natalist, since they say the only solution is for everyone to stop making babies).

I am not taking the Anti-Natalist position here but let's look at this :

While on a planet of 7 billion people, I DO think we should take a look at overpopulation (though I see no real solution to it) and the fact that many people in places like India, China and much of the third world are indeed having difficulties.

I think it is wrong for Catholic missionaries to tell a bunch of starving Ethiopians they will feed them, so long as they convert to christianity and tells them that contraceptives are not ok.

I mean, that charlatan Mother Teresa, travelled all the way to Ireland at one point to tell the Irish government not to legalize divorce, and preached against abortion and contraceptives in a place like Calcutta, where I think it would have been a lot smarter to encourage people to use contraceptives and they should have been passed out by missionaries to people in general.

Many children in places like Ethiopia for instance, are born with HIV and into horrible conditions. I don't think people should be encouraged to have children in such places. Sorry. Just my opinion. At least, not until we get some sort of humanitarian existence into those countries that makes life better. Just like I don't think that irresponsible people here in the states and much of the civilized world should have them. There are people out there that have five and six kids, by different women, that they have no intention of taking care of those children and don't care about them. I mean c'mon, slap on a condom like I do or take birth control pills.

Now granted, I am not arguing that the world should end. I am not arguing in favor of human life ending. But I do think that we need to do something about the state of overpopulation and I don't know how to solve that.

I disagree with some of the bloggers that I have encountered that state : " They are neither pro-choice nor pro-life but pro-death. Because to take the pro-choice stance is to involve giving someone the option of bringing life into this world"

I don't think we should force people to have abortions, anymore than I think we should force people to have children. But I do think that more social programs out there should focus on the idea of children. Rather than just talking about safe sex for health reasons, they should also include a lot of information about the responsibilities of bringing children into the world.

If I were to fuck up and get some girl pregnant, and she wanted the kid. Then, I believe that I would have no choice but to realize that it is my responsibility to ensure that child has a good life. That child did not ask to be born, that child is born as a direct result of my actions. Therefore, it would be MY responsibility to do the right thing for that child.

I can't believe I typed all of this. Smiling

 

I'm sure their motivations are all over the place, I'm just gathering this from my interaction with this specific bloke.

 

I agree that population control is a good thing, but that is a pragmatic approach to an issue of resource usage, it isn't a philosophical position that comments on the moral right to create life, which is what AN is. I imagine any overlap between people advocating population control and AN people is purely coincidental. So you might get the same goals, but the reasoning behind them is totally different.

So, I agree with you.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:One

harleysportster wrote:

One more thing (like famous tv detective Lieutenant Columbo was noted for saying).

I logged into one of these Anti-Natalist websites and made the argument that I was typing above (pretty much verbatim) and I concluded it with : "Why not encourage people to not have children, educate them on what having children means, push for more education on contraceptives and safe sex (don't know about anyone else but I am not giving up sex), push for more education on all the implications of having children and why not push for getting the population under control ?

The responses I got (I would provide the link, but the whole thing got deleted) more or less said that even if we could discourage irresponsible people to stop breeding, and even if we could encourage people in very poverty stricken countries to stop having children (none of this which is going to happen of course) that the human race would just turn around and make a mess out of the whole thing all over again.

I was asked to provide evidence that they would not (the AN evidence being "look at human history&quotEye-wink and I really could think of no way to refute that.

However, as of right now, I am not convinced that there is some sort of middle of the road solution to the problems of suffering. (Call me a naive, dumbass with his head in the clouds).

Surely there has to be some way of solving the world's problems other than just ending it. I don't know. There is very little I can do about the world's problems.

I am not deluded enough to think that my dumbass self is going to make a difference.

I can only hope that as science and technology progresses, we as people will progress to a better future (hopefully !)

I would provide a link to the post and the comments, but it got deleted for some reason. Why I don't know.

Coffee is making me talkative this morning.

 

I think the evidence to refute that is the same evidence they are using. Human life is improving, not getting worse. We live longer, in better conditions, than we ever have as a species. That's true for the whole human race, not just the first world. Maybe I'm an optimist, but I can see a future where human populations stabilize for most of the planet like they already have for first world nations. And even the people who aren't living in rich nations are still, on average, living lives that they were glad to have, so as long as it doesn't get a lot worse I'd say we're already on the positive side of the moral equation.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4435
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote: I'm still

Manageri wrote:

 I'm still waiting for a straight answer to the question of what kind of life would make up for someone else being sent to Fritzl's dungeon, among other things. 

Whether or not I decide to have a kid has absolutely no bearing on whether a nutjob like Fritzl has a kid and tortures that kid for decades. Me deciding not to have a kid does not in any way save Elisabeth from the torture she experienced, me deciding to have a kid would not in any way cause something similar to happen to someone else. 

I would agree that it is a horrible thing to have a kid with the intent of locking them in a dungeon and torturing them. If I had a kid, I would treat them significantly better. 

 

Manageri wrote:

Which antinatalist is arguing only some parts of the world should stop breeding?

Exactly my point, they don't, they argue everyone should stop breeding. I agree that someone like Fritzl should not breed, but that does not mean all breeding is inherently evil or bad. You point at people like Fritzl or areas of the world that really suck to be born in and then declare that because life sucks for those kids, no person should have kids. If I had a child, the odds of me locking them in the basement and torturing them are precisely 0%. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Manageri

Manageri wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

So my point is, how have you measured this, and come to the conclusion that the odds aren't good enough for the experiment to continue? How can you possibly know what the tipping point is when life becomes not worth having in the first place?

It really isn't about odds, you don't have the right to impose 100% pointless risk on someone else no matter how small the downside risk is, that's just fucking idiotic. I already explained this but you people refuse to directly deal with anything I point out. I'm still waiting for a straight answer to the question of what kind of life would make up for someone else being sent to Fritzl's dungeon, among other things. I've made the argument why asking people whether they're happy is irrelevant several times and neither of you has addressed it once, here's a few examples:

"Even if life was 90% on the side of pleasure you still don't have an ethical justification for imposing suffering on others to pay for your existence that serves absolutely no purpose beyond fulfilling the needs it creates itself."

"No AN has ever argued pleasure isn't good, the argument is that nonexistent people have no need for it and aren't harmed by the lack of it, so creating happy people for no logical necessity at the cost of creating suffering people is ethically indefensible, it is the very definition of needless suffering."

"And when it comes to the creation of new people the fact they might be happy doesn't mean a goddamn thing as they have no need for that before you create them. "

"The point of the asymmetry argument is that you can't use the potential happiness of nonexistent people to justify suffering as there's no need whatsoever to create people as they aren't hurt by their lack of happiness while nonexistent."

How many more times do I have to make the same damn argument before you address it?

 

The argument that has been used every time is to question why you place disproportinate value on suffering. This line of reasoning could just as easily lead to requiring you to birth as many children/puppies/kittens as possible, assuming you are able to care for them and keep them happy.

 

There is no "logical" necessity to avoid pain and suffering, or care about it, from an ethics point of view. It's all subjective and arbitrary, so we're questioning the subjective, arbitrary emphasis on suffering and the subjective, arbitrary minimalization of happiness and desire for life.

This could just as easily read: desire for life=good, life almost always desires to exist, therefore creating life=almost always good. That would make just as much sense as the whole AN movement, and you wouldn't even need to care about suffering and happiness. Then you'd be ehtically bound to have fifty kids and start a puppy mill.

 

"Logically" the only problem I have with your ethical system is why you don't kill yourself. If avoidence of suffering is the paramount concern in your morality, and if you are certain to experience suffering if you continue living, and if non-existence precludes the ability to suffer, your only ethically sound path is suicide in a way that causes less suffering than the remaining suffering you'll experience if you live out your lifespan.

 

If you *do* put value on happiness (or whatever metric balances out against suffering) then the question is what's the equation? Once we have that equation we can figure out whether the average human/critter life born into a specific circumstance is morally defensible or not. We could also figure out if your ethical energy would be better spent focusing on pushing AN philosophy, or eliminating suffering, or encouraging the counterweight to suffering.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Whether

Beyond Saving wrote:

Whether or not I decide to have a kid has absolutely no bearing on whether a nutjob like Fritzl has a kid and tortures that kid for decades. Me deciding not to have a kid does not in any way save Elisabeth from the torture she experienced, me deciding to have a kid would not in any way cause something similar to happen to someone else. 

I would agree that it is a horrible thing to have a kid with the intent of locking them in a dungeon and torturing them. If I had a kid, I would treat them significantly better.

You're saying life should go on so you're accepting the STATISTICAL FACT that shit like that will happen. You need to explain why you have the right to commit that imposition, just like we're expected to give a good enough reason for every other risk we take with someone else's welfare. Also, you ultimately have little control over what would happen to your kid so for all you know some Fritzlesque asshole would kidnap and torture them. Living in a relatively nonshitty country and having parents who aren't complete fucking lunatics doesn't in any way guarantee happiness. 

Quote:
Manageri wrote:

Which antinatalist is arguing only some parts of the world should stop breeding?

 

Exactly my point, they don't, they argue everyone should stop breeding. I agree that someone like Fritzl should not breed, but that does not mean all breeding is inherently evil or bad. You point at people like Fritzl or areas of the world that really suck to be born in and then declare that because life sucks for those kids, no person should have kids. If I had a child, the odds of me locking them in the basement and torturing them are precisely 0%.

It'd be nice if you just addressed the arguments I actually make instead of making up these retarded strawmen.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:You're saying

Manageri wrote:

You're saying life should go on so you're accepting the STATISTICAL FACT that shit like that will happen. You need to explain why you have the right to commit that imposition, just like we're expected to give a good enough reason for every other risk we take with someone else's welfare.

 

So every time I get in an automobile, whether passenger or driver, there is a fairly high risk involved of my dying and an even higher risk of being permanently disabled in an accident.  So automobiles are bad.  Got it.  There is a risk walking down the street.  Sitting at home and typing on my computer, there could be a thunderstorm and I could be electrocuted as well as my computer getting fried.  A meteor or airplane could fall on my house.  LIFE IS RISKY!!!  O. M. G.

 

Manageri wrote:

Also, you ultimately have little control over what would happen to your kid so for all you know some Fritzlesque asshole would kidnap and torture them. Living in a relatively nonshitty country and having parents who aren't complete fucking lunatics doesn't in any way guarantee happiness. 

 

You are correct, living in those conditions doesn't guarantee happiness.  Nothing and no one guarantees happiness - except you.  You can guarantee happiness for yourself.  No one else.  I could not and can not guarantee happiness for my children who are all adults now, or for my husband who I still love even after 27 years, or for anyone else.  Including you.  You are responsible for your happiness.  How very zen of me.  I can only control my own self and how content and happy I am with my own life.

So try to explain to me again, why, if we can only control our own state of emotional well being, we should all stop having children?  Or all humans should die?  Or whatever point you are trying to make.  Other than you are determined to be as unhappy as you can and to make as many people around you unhappy as you can, I have yet to understand what your point is.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:  I

mellestad wrote:

 

 I imagine any overlap between people advocating population control and AN people is purely coincidental. So you might get the same goals, but the reasoning behind them is totally different.

 

So your saying there is a major difference between those in favor of population control and AN ? That any similiarities are merely coincidental ? I know I have been speculating all over the place on this board, but thiss subject is all very new to me and I find it fascinating for some reason.

I had never heard of anti-natalism until this thread started.

Alot of Anti-Natalists also claim to subscribe to something called Efilism. I can't find any web searches that turn up anything on that.

Anybody ever heard of Efilism ?

They say there is a dfference between Efilism and Anti-Natalism, but no one has given me a context on it.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: So try to explain

cj wrote:

 

So try to explain to me again, why, if we can only control our own state of emotional well being, we should all stop having children?  Or all humans should die?  Or whatever point you are trying to make.  Other than you are determined to be as unhappy as you can and to make as many people around you unhappy as you can, I have yet to understand what your point is.

 

From what I have been able to gather on my Internet searches (don't know why I got so interested in learning all about this, but I guess I had never heard of the idea that solving human problems was by ending human life by the position of a person that states their concern for well being of sentients) the Anti-Natalist position is that it is immoral and wrong for people to conceive new life and bring it into this world.

Even if the child were to receive the best educations, schools, and loving parents, it does not protect it from things like cancer, rape, murder, robbery, death by fire or any other innumerable factors that may arise.

Therefore, the AN's take the position that if all life were to cease to exist (ALL life, not just us humans) there would be no more suffering and that there is much more suffering in the world than there is any small amount of pleasure.

One AN poster on a website that I looked at put it like this : "Sit in your la-la land, bring babies into the world, gobble your hamburgers and think everything is ok, while billions are currently suffering and billions more will suffer if we keep breeding."

There is more to it than that, but that seems to be Anti-Natalism in a nutshell.

However, there is this term called Efilism (which the AN's say take it a bit further on some web pages) but my google search has not really turned up any good explanations of what Efilism is.

Nor has it given me any info about the asymmetry argument ( a term that I saw on a lot of Anti-Natalist web blogs)

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:So every time I get

cj wrote:

So every time I get in an automobile, whether passenger or driver, there is a fairly high risk involved of my dying and an even higher risk of being permanently disabled in an accident.  So automobiles are bad.  Got it.  There is a risk walking down the street.  Sitting at home and typing on my computer, there could be a thunderstorm and I could be electrocuted as well as my computer getting fried.  A meteor or airplane could fall on my house.  LIFE IS RISKY!!!  O. M. G.

Yeah, and when you impose that risk on someone else you better have a good goddamn reason or you're a fucking asshole. You really don't get it that it's different to accept risk for yourself than it is to impose it on others?

Quote:
Manageri wrote:

Also, you ultimately have little control over what would happen to your kid so for all you know some Fritzlesque asshole would kidnap and torture them. Living in a relatively nonshitty country and having parents who aren't complete fucking lunatics doesn't in any way guarantee happiness. 

 

You are correct, living in those conditions doesn't guarantee happiness.  Nothing and no one guarantees happiness - except you. You can guarantee happiness for yourself.  No one else.

Cool, so guess we don't have to lock good ol' Josef up after all since his daughter can just fart a rainbow and magically make herself happy or however your preposterous delusion works, so a few decades of rape is just all right. How do I cast this happiness spell on myself cos it does sound pretty awesome.

This is so fucking preposterous I can't believe an adult wrote this.

 

Quote:
I could not and can not guarantee happiness for my children who are all adults now

And you don't think that means you need to think really hard about whether you have the right to impose life on them? What would you have done if one of them had been born with some condition that makes their life miserable? How are you gonna fix that mess you made? Pretend they can magically make themselves happy so if they're miserable it's all their fault and you're not responsible?

 

Quote:
So try to explain to me again, why, if we can only control our own state of emotional well being, we should all stop having children?  Or all humans should die?  Or whatever point you are trying to make.

How about you scroll up and respond to one of the arguments?

Quote:
Other than you are determined to be as unhappy as you can and to make as many people around you unhappy as you can, I have yet to understand what your point is.

Yea I wake up every day and shock myself in the balls just so I start the day off as bad as possible, for reals. Fuck this nonsense.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Nor

harleysportster wrote:

Nor has it given me any info about the asymmetry argument ( a term that I saw on a lot of Anti-Natalist web blogs)

That's one of Benatar's arguments, he presents it more formally but it's basically what I've been posting here about how there's absolutely no necessity to bring someone into the world because remaining nonexistent doesn't harm them even if their life would have been awesome, whereas there's an obvious necessity to not bring someone into the world whose existence would be shit.

Quote:
However, there is this term called Efilism (which the AN's say take it a bit further on some web pages) but my google search has not really turned up any good explanations of what Efilism is.

That's just something Gary made up to make it clear he isn't just arguing against human reproduction, but that he considers ending the whole sentient life game just as important (efil = life backwards). Most antinatalists agree with that anyway but you can technically be an AN and not give a shit about what happens to the animals.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Manageri

Manageri wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

Nor has it given me any info about the asymmetry argument ( a term that I saw on a lot of Anti-Natalist web blogs)

That's one of Benatar's arguments, he presents it more formally but it's basically what I've been posting here about how there's absolutely no necessity to bring someone into the world because remaining nonexistent doesn't harm them even if their life would have been awesome, whereas there's an obvious necessity to not bring someone into the world whose existence would be shit.

Quote:
However, there is this term called Efilism (which the AN's say take it a bit further on some web pages) but my google search has not really turned up any good explanations of what Efilism is.

That's just something Gary made up to make it clear he isn't just arguing against human reproduction, but that he considers ending the whole sentient life game just as important (efil = life backwards). Most antinatalists agree with that anyway but you can technically be an AN and not give a shit about what happens to the animals.

Ahh. Now, I see. I know that Gary has a whole five part series on efilism, but I couldn't tell much of a difference between efilism and his original position that existence was an imposition.

The only difference I saw in Gary's efilism vids and anti-natalist vids was that he went more in depth about the history of the universe. More or less he expounds on the fact that we are comprised of a bunch of exploding stars, the human race is a failed fuck-up byproduct, and that was about it. I didn't see the major difference between it and AN.

(However,  now that you mention it, Gary did mention that there would be no way to sterilize insects and bugs, unlike sterilizing chickens and cows that are produced in slaughterhouses. So I guess that is where the efilism argument maybe takes AN "a little further" as one blogger put it. )

In one of the Efilism videos, I guess the strongest inclusion of animals was the argument that if you allowed all of the slaughterhouses and meat factories to end, it would ultimately stop the billions of future cows and chickens and other animals that would be born into that.

Much like the argument that if life were to continue in humanity, would we want to run the risk of allowing our future generations to wake up in a worldwide Iran 2075 scenario ?

So efilism and AN are pretty much the same thing. I get it now. Thanks for clearing that up.

I got to admit, this has been an educational discussion for me, if nothing else. I had no idea these ideas and concepts even existed before this thread and the previous one where it was mentioned about ending sentient life.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Therefore, the AN's take the position that if all life were to cease to exist (ALL life, not just us humans) there would be no more suffering and that there is much more suffering in the world than there is any small amount of pleasure.

 

And, "all suffering in the world is caused by clinging."  I suppose one answer is as good as another.  Kill everyone because they are all clinging too much.  Makes no sense to me however you put it.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote: That's just

Manageri wrote:

 That's just something Gary made up to make it clear he isn't just arguing against human reproduction, but that he considers ending the whole sentient life game just as important (efil = life backwards). Most antinatalists agree with that anyway but you can technically be an AN and not give a shit about what happens to the animals.

Yeah, based upon some of the blogs and videos that I have seen since this whole topic came up, most Anti-Natalists seem to be Vegan and pro-animal rights.

Although, their arguments are based upon the horrific cruelty upon animals, not just by humans but other animals as well.

IOW. Most animal rights groups have a tendency to paint the plight of animals being what they are because of people (PETA being the first group that comes to mind) due to hunting, fishing, slaughterhouses,killing for clothing etc.

Alot of the Anti-Natalists bloggers that I saw talked about the cruelty within the animal kingdom as well as the cruelty visited upon animals by people. Therefore, the conclusion was that ALL sentients needed to more or less breed out.

I think one person even said that to humanely put an end to slaughterhouses buy destroying them all would prevent the future of billions of slaughterhouse offspring.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:harleysportster

cj wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

Therefore, the AN's take the position that if all life were to cease to exist (ALL life, not just us humans) there would be no more suffering and that there is much more suffering in the world than there is any small amount of pleasure.

 

And, "all suffering in the world is caused by clinging."  I suppose one answer is as good as another.  Kill everyone because they are all clinging too much.  Makes no sense to me however you put it.

 

Hey ! The Cartoon Cat on a motorcycle doesn't make the news. He just reports it Smiling

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote: cj wrote: So

Manageri wrote:

cj wrote:

So every time I get in an automobile, whether passenger or driver, there is a fairly high risk involved of my dying and an even higher risk of being permanently disabled in an accident.  So automobiles are bad.  Got it.  There is a risk walking down the street.  Sitting at home and typing on my computer, there could be a thunderstorm and I could be electrocuted as well as my computer getting fried.  A meteor or airplane could fall on my house.  LIFE IS RISKY!!!  O. M. G.

Yeah, and when you impose that risk on someone else you better have a good goddamn reason or you're a fucking asshole. You really don't get it that it's different to accept risk for yourself than it is to impose it on others?

 

No one can prevent imposing some risk on others.  It is risky to care.  It is risky to live.  And if you try to die and don't quite make it, that, too, is a risk.  Maybe I don't get it because I accepted the risk long ago.  And so I don't see why it is being an asshole for me to want to live and want to see my grandson grow up and make his own life.  He, btw, is a very cheerful person for a teenager.  Though I don't know if he has gotten to the stage of trying to figure out the whichness of the why.  We all go through that stage - some of us come out of it okay, some of us come out of it a little wacky. 

 

Manageri wrote:

cj wrote:
Manageri wrote:

Also, you ultimately have little control over what would happen to your kid so for all you know some Fritzlesque asshole would kidnap and torture them. Living in a relatively nonshitty country and having parents who aren't complete fucking lunatics doesn't in any way guarantee happiness. 

 

You are correct, living in those conditions doesn't guarantee happiness.  Nothing and no one guarantees happiness - except you. You can guarantee happiness for yourself.  No one else.

Cool, so guess we don't have to lock good ol' Josef up after all since his daughter can just fart a rainbow and magically make herself happy or however your preposterous delusion works, so a few decades of rape is just all right. How do I cast this happiness spell on myself cos it does sound pretty awesome.

This is so fucking preposterous I can't believe an adult wrote this.

 

We are back to choices.  Shit may happen, but your reponse to the shit is your choice.  You can be an angry jerk about it or you can make a choice to respond in some other fashion.  Josef's daughter has made her choice as well.  Last I heard, she was making a life for herself and her children, getting some therapy, finding some happiness where she can.  And, last I heard, she loved her children, even though they were the product of incest, very much. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/whatever-became-of-elisabeth-fritzl-1924645.html wrote:

Last month, the near perpetual news blackout imposed by Elisabeth on herself and her family was broken by Josef Fritzl's sister-in-law, a woman who chooses to identify herself only as Christine R. Her description of Elisabeth's everyday life two years on from her escape revealed that it was astonishingly normal.

"Elisabeth likes to go shopping a lot," Christine R said, "She couldn't do that while she was locked in the cellar for those 24 years. She loves jeans with glitter pockets and she passed her driving test without difficulty. Now she's looking for a car. The kids are all going to school and working hard," she added. Christine R said Elisabeth was without any financial worries because the Austrian authorities had provided her with the €60,000 (£54,000) in child allowance that she was denied during her time in the cellar. "Felix, the smallest one, has got a PlayStation," she added.

 

Let's see, according to this article, she has a relationship with one of her body guards.  No financial worries.  She is rebuilding her relationship with her mother.  She is seeing the therapist less and less.  Her children are working on being normal siblings.  She has her driver's license.  She has her own home.  None of this makes up for her life in the cellar.  But she is making choices to live and be as happy as she is able.  Her choice.  Not yours.  Not mine.  Hers.

 

Mangeri wrote:

cj wrote:
I could not and can not guarantee happiness for my children who are all adults now

And you don't think that means you need to think really hard about whether you have the right to impose life on them? What would you have done if one of them had been born with some condition that makes their life miserable? How are you gonna fix that mess you made? Pretend they can magically make themselves happy so if they're miserable it's all their fault and you're not responsible?

 

I have/had responsibility for being the best parent I could be.  No one is a perfect parent, but that doesn't mean we are all terrible awful.  It just means we have to work at being a good parent.  And for your information, two of them do have genetic conditions that should make their lives miserable --- but it doesn't seem to be so.  They enjoy what they can, deal with what they must, and generally seem to be content and happy.  No one is ecstatically happy every moment of every day.  Our lives are what we make of them and we either are content - with moments of ecstatic happiness and moments of sadness and anger - or we are miserable.  It is called "rumination" - dwell on the bad stuff and you will wind yourself into a nasty miserable knot.  You can unwind - but you have to make the choice.

 

Mangeri wrote:

cj wrote:
So try to explain to me again, why, if we can only control our own state of emotional well being, we should all stop having children?  Or all humans should die?  Or whatever point you are trying to make.

How about you scroll up and respond to one of the arguments?

 

I would respond if there was something to respond to that made any sense.  Harleysportster's posts make a little more sense than you do, but there still isn't anything I would call an argument.  Just some whining about how awful it all is.  That isn't an argument.

 

Mangeri wrote:

cj wrote:
Other than you are determined to be as unhappy as you can and to make as many people around you unhappy as you can, I have yet to understand what your point is.

Yea I wake up every day and shock myself in the balls just so I start the day off as bad as possible, for reals. Fuck this nonsense.

 

I don't know -- maybe shocking your balls would tickle and you could start the day with a laugh. 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Manageri wrote:

 That's just something Gary made up to make it clear he isn't just arguing against human reproduction, but that he considers ending the whole sentient life game just as important (efil = life backwards). Most antinatalists agree with that anyway but you can technically be an AN and not give a shit about what happens to the animals.

Yeah, based upon some of the blogs and videos that I have seen since this whole topic came up, most Anti-Natalists seem to be Vegan and pro-animal rights.

Although, their arguments are based upon the horrific cruelty upon animals, not just by humans but other animals as well.

IOW. Most animal rights groups have a tendency to paint the plight of animals being what they are because of people (PETA being the first group that comes to mind) due to hunting, fishing, slaughterhouses,killing for clothing etc.

Alot of the Anti-Natalists bloggers that I saw talked about the cruelty within the animal kingdom as well as the cruelty visited upon animals by people. Therefore, the conclusion was that ALL sentients needed to more or less breed out.

I think one person even said that to humanely put an end to slaughterhouses buy destroying them all would prevent the future of billions of slaughterhouse offspring.

 

So very, very naive.  Yes, that would stop those animals already at the slaughterhouse from being turned into chops and steaks.  And prices would go up.  Which would encourage the ranchers to increase breeding so as to have more animals to send to the rebuilt slaughterhouses so as to make a big profit -- you have just made Beyond Saving very happy.  Let him know when, and he will make a killing on the commodities market.

So now where do we go?  Um, a virus that attacks mammals? and birds? and reptiles? and fish? and insects? that would kill them ALLLLLLLLLllllllllllll...........

It is a very bad, very over used sci-fi plot.  Ray Bradbury - There will come soft rains or The City or The Visitor, perhaps.  You know, one of the post-apocalyptic books.  I read Harlan Ellison - A Boy and His Dog and Andre Norton - Star Man's Son and Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle - The Mote in God's Eye and a bunch more when I was younger.

I know, I know, you just report, you don't make the news.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.