On a scale of 1 to 10, how depressed was this guy?
I think his take on the human condition was more realistic. I appreciate this contribution to pessimism and antinatalist thought.
>>1102786
>antinatalist
>thought
W E W
>>1102774
Where does intellect for the wording of these questions come from...
It depends on if his depression was caused by constipation or by his appearance being similar to Martin Van Buren after facial reconstruction. I mean, look at that hair.
>>1102790
>forcing life into unwilling subjects to fulfill your own selfish desires
>>1102818
>forcing life
>unlife has the right to not become life
SHIGGY
JUST
>>1102818
>you can be unwilling to live if you don't exist
wew
Didn't seem depressed.
>>1102913
>you can be willing to live if you don't exist
>>1102913
unwilling as in 'not willing'
>>1102920
exactly, they're both feelings and to feel you need to exist
>>1102922
the first caveman shouldn't have made flint tools because the rock was unwilling to be knapped
>>1102932
>rocks have sentient minds
>>1102932
I would make the distinction that the decision to create a life will ultimately have it's consequences felt by that life, whereas a rock wouldn't have that capacity. Unless you want to ask how we know a rock doesn't have the capacity to experience suffering, which is a different argument
>>1102942
no because they still exist, like come on anon be intellectually honest
>>1102951
he was agreeing with you dumbass
>>1102944
people gain sentience and question their existence. Rocks don't
>>1102946
that makes sense I guess
>>1102969
Yes
But rocks aren't sentient
>>1102973
but if you're sentient and you find out your life is bad or pointless, if that's less true for other things that also exist then what's the special thing about sentience?
>>1102978
What are you even trying to say
>>1102986
if all the things that make antinatalism justified only apply to sentient creatures, that would imply that they're subjective
>>1102944
You are talking about a person who has not yet come into being, not a rock that is already constituted in a particular way which is almost certain to never attain even a rudimentary nervous system. If you could imbue a rock with consciousness so it was aware of the time passing, its own boredom and any disturbances it might undergo so long as it remains then I would also be advising against that. In fact I think its even more immoral to create a sentient Artificial intelligence than it is to create a new human life. At least in the case of human life there is some degree of a naturalistic justification. Whereas creating new forms of sentience is just an odious testament to the insatiable human ego.
>>1102990
Who cares if they're subjective
>>1102990
Are you implying that there's an objective morality?
>>1102990
Yes, subjective to the entirety of the realm of sentient creatures. That's about as non-subjective a form of subjectivity as one can imagine.
>>1103006
no, but anybody who believes in antinatalism certainly is
>>1103011
you can't deprive a non-entity of anything
>>1103018
that means you can't deprive it of pain either dummy
>>1103033
Yes, but you are trapped in a delusional cycle of DNA addiction. I have the same thing because I am after all here, posting this garbage instead of dead in the ground. But one need only look at the thermodynamic parameters of the most basic form of survival to see a fundamental inequitably in a self-aware existence.
>>1103011
>everything's subjective therefore who cares
>>1103059
what do you mean?
>>1103033
>give
What are we giving it?
>deprive it of pain
This is a little easier to answer but intellectually dishonest nonetheless. When we are talking about a negative value or a deficit "need" we don't describe the absence of that deficit as a "deprivation". Pain is not a positive value. Even if it manifests in the form of torture by hot needles. No, you aren't experiencing a hunger or thirst or dirth of energy or anything of the sort but you are experiencing an absence of order, homeostasis that is fundamental to your own existence. All pain is just an incursion of entropy.
Why couldn't Schopenhauer justify the sufferings of animals?
>>1103072
I mean the whole basis of "life" is impudently dancing around like an idiot seeing how long you can defy fundamental universal forces for an ultimately arbitrary period of time. Ergo there is nothing fundamentally righteous about living and life cannot be described as a "gift" "blessing" or anything of the sort. By the same token it can't be referred in such lofty terminology as a "curse" or "malignancy". However what it is aside from any of that an imposition and much of social doctrine is based off of the fundamental idea that it is wrong to foist any sort of imposition on another without their consent. Just because we believe rape is wrong doesn't necessitate that sex is fundamentally unpleasant
>>1103136
Nice fedora, you get that on sale?
>>1103136
holy shit, you need to write a book. This is the best argument for antinatalism I have seen. Cleans up a lot of issues people bring up to discredit benatar
>>1103182
Everything he said was completely correct though. The language may have made it sound fedora-core, but the substance is there
Lots of butthurt natalists ITT
>>1102978
>Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?
>>1102774
I don't know but on the scale of 1 to 10 on how orgasmic reading his writing is it's an 11 desu
>>1102774
In all seriousness though the single easiest refutation of antinatalist thought hasn't even entered this thread.
It is simply this:
Though it is true that sentient creatures are collectively able to (though highly unlikely to) agree that reproduction might be """worse""" than the alternative and ultimately cause more harm than good, it is highly unfair to the children and adolescents of the present generation to impose an antinatalist measure in which humanity fades from existence, because living in the crumbling infrastructure of humanity's remains would be so miserable, and the remaining people, dwindling to zero, would likely forget the initial goal of forced antinatalism, and civilization would inevitably spring back up.
Moreover, antinatalism doesn't prevent or """fix""" the """problem""" of sentient life on other planets. Dead matter will meme&gene its way into living matter whether antinatalists like it or not. Pre-sentient life will reproduce like robots whether antinatalists like it or not.
Suddenly concluding that rewinding evolution is a good idea while you're at like 0.7 on the Kardashev scale will only guarantee your species an agonizing demise from which they'll probably spring back up anyway.
>>1103494
TL;DR version.
Life may be miserable, but life will find a way to keep existing.
>>1102818
>implying good and bad exist
>implying you shouldn't indulge your selfish desires
>>1103494
ethics exist in abstraction. We are currently doing a lot of morally questionable things to maintain our infrastructure. The question is really if an idealistic controlled reduction of the population to null is a noble goal. The practical issues are secondary. Furthermore antinatalism can also be seen as a personal system of ethics. Some people just like to engage with others to prove to themselves they are not accepting their personal ethics in bad faith rather than to outline some sort of utopia everyone should be working towards.
>>1103136
>However what it is aside from any of that an imposition and much of social doctrine is based off of the fundamental idea that it is wrong to foist any sort of imposition on another without their consent. Just because we believe rape is wrong doesn't necessitate that sex is fundamentally unpleasant
How is it an imposition? There is nothing to impose anything on before someone is born. That's like saying that, by collecting the materials & putting them in the right places to form a house, you are imposing "househood" on the house. No, you're not. There are, indeed, plenty of things to impose on said house once it is built. But beforehand? Sure, you may be imposing "househood" on the wood, the glass, the doorhandles, the locks, et cetera, but you're not imposing anything on a house that has yet to be built.
>>1103576
So if I get off on killing people I should be allowed to do that?
>>1103648
>badrhetoric.txt
>>1103654
No.
>>1103657
Not an argument.
>>1103660
okay then I guess people shouldn't be allowed to create new people either. Nobody can die who is not born first you see.
>>1103672
precisely my point. if you prefer
>notevenwrong.pdf
>>1103681
Wow kek start arguing anytime
>>1103692
Most of this thread has been me BTFO breeders. I'm the one waiting for convincing rebuttals here
>>1103725
Still not an argument
>>1103729
The arguments are up a little ways my attention deficit amigo
>>1103648
>there is nothing to impose anyone on before someone is born
If your actions create new consciousness, you are knowingly imposing that consciousness on the hypothetical constituency of elements which allows it to exist. What you are saying is tantamount to the idea that any crime committed without the victim being aware of it should be morally sanctioned.
>>1103749
>If your actions create new consciousness, you are knowingly imposing that consciousness on the hypothetical constituency of elements which allows it to exist.
Sure, if you change the definition of "imposing". We started with the basic assumption that to impose something on a person without their consent is wrong. I'm fine with that. Now you're talking about imposing something on a "hypothetical constituency of elements"? Is the "knowingly" part even correct, considering how many pregnancies end in miscarriage? It's pure poetry. Either the basic assumption (that to impose something on someone without their consent is wrong) is incomplete, or what you're saying is.
>>1103749
How is he saying that at all?
>>1103795
people are aware that ejaculation into a vagina creates a baby. But the more ingenuous the circumstances of the birth the more heinous it becomes. The absolute quintessence is the idea "I am going to have a child to carry my legacy." Its the most honest and the most offensive sort of procreation.
But insofar as everyone is aware how babies are made they do not have the luxury to plead ignorance when a child comes into being. And from a moral standpoint the only relevant argument is if the ability for the now "hypothetical" entity to consent is important. not its particular temporal state
(unless of course we adopt the Buddhist idea that souls are languishing in samsara waiting to be given a human vessel to expunge their bad karma)
>>1103618
There is nothing wrong with anything you said. Keep it up.
What we're doing as a species is unsustainable, but the alternatives are usually unattainable.
>>1103823
Well, you've stumped me. I wasn't really considering having kids anyway, I was just interested in conversation. Thanks for being concise & polite overall.
The way I see it, is that procreating doesn't inherently cause more negative than positive, and is therefor immoral, but that in most causes it does and if a person wants to be a parent for benevolent reasons, then that person should adopt and lessen the pain that others have caused. Only if there were no orphans and people wanted to be parents for selfless reason then would natalism be justifiable.
>>1102774
he somehow reminds me of mr.fucking invincible
>>1103494
So what you're saying is we need Reapers?
