But anyway, the degree to which individuals can endure suffering is indeed relative; but unless I am mistaken it is possible to torture any given individual to such an intense degree that they will find their plight utterly unbearable... or even lose their sanity.
I can only estimate that you are either one of very few who can endure any amount of suffering regardless of intensity; or increasing the severity (or duration) will inevitably become unbearable for you.
One of the problems with the youtube antinatalists is that they generalize their ethical system too much. In order to demonstrate that suffering deserves priority they attempt to trivialize or discount positive experience entirely; which is an unproductive and potentially harmful way to approach the problem. I think this is probably why you are so abrasive to them..? ... or one of the reasons.
Benatar's approach was simiarly flawed, in my opinion.
@nolovelost92@nolovelost92 Applying ethical obligation to people who don't exist or who won't imminently exist doesn't make sense. A murderer "murders" countless potential people but we only convict him for one and I think rightly so. I've already explained why a lack of consent isnt enough to call something an imposition. Procreation is a gift, the majority of people appreciate it, and as long as the ones that don't are allowed to return it procreation itself is an ethically neutral act.
@nolovelost92 There's a difference between people who don't exist and people who will. Unless you want to roll with the potential life rhetoric of pro lifers, you have to admit that you haven't spared anyone of anything by not pro creating. The absence of consent doesn't an imposition make. That's like saying babies are atheists. Sure they lack a belief in God, but they aren't capable of having beliefs about God. Giving birth to them doesn't impose a belif on them, indoctrinating them does.
@nolovelost92 That doesn't follow. I don't pollute the earth or use up nonrenewable resources because of the younger people who do exist and because I want and feel obligated to honor their wishes/aspirations that the children they intend to have won't live in a polluted world and have available resources.
@nolovelost92 I don't see how my taking pain meds entails that I support the holocaust. When people resort to those kinds of quantum leaps in logic like you did w/ me, they are usually just trying to make a vicious smear.
Dana, you seem to claim that because YOU have never wanted an out, that we are therefore justified in throwing new innocent people into the lottery of life.
This really betrays how selfish the thinking is behind natalist thinking. You are out of touch with the plight of the elephant man and his right to never have been. We know suicidal people exis, and you need to answer to them before you are justified in continuing to perpetuate the cycle.
@LiamsVlogChannel Why isn't the opposite "logic" just as applicable? Because so many people find life on the whole pleasurable and worthwhile, what gives you the right to decide that NO ONE should have the opportunity to experience life in precisely the same way?
On the topic: I am sure that many of us have had a momentary "I wish I was never born" {I have}. But one thing I have notice about those around me who have suffered the most...they always seemed to live by the mantra "enjoy life while you can, because it is way too short". So why squander such a fleeting gift with the wish you had never had been born?
Commenters, I am not ignoring you. Finally got my pain meds so I'm feeling a bit loopy now. I hope to get to your questions later Saturday or by Sunday at the latest. Thanks for your patience.
@antinatalism1 Last week I had 17 straight hours of continuous excruciating pain and I never once wished I hadn't been born, nor did I once think about offing myself. My predominate thought was why couldn't the oral surgeon prescribe meds for me just because he was at a conference and why wouldn't the dentist prescribe meds for me until he saw me. So my point remains. Why didn't severe pain and suffering raise the question of existence being worthwhile like you antinatlsts say it should?
Hope you make a speedy recovery Dana, I must say I'm overwhelmed at how much controversy this Antinatalist debate is causing.... It seems obvious to me that to aline oneself with antinatalism one must surely be suffering some form of depression. The logic can only make sense to a person who wants to die at least as much as they want to live.
Thats simply not true, I have never suffered depression but I am still an antinatalist.
I simply recognise the inescapable futility of life. Even when things are going great for me, I understand that I'm not actually achieving anything. Instead I am just chasing tails as my DNA tells me to.
I can recognise that were I never born, I would never have had any desires to be deprived of in the first place, meaning I would not miss life.
@LiamsVlogChannel I admit I was generalizing. But I must point out something profound here - I assume that being an antinatalist you believe that you can overcome your genetic 'programming to reproduce and instead choose not to. Right, if so, can you see how you are using your 'free will' to do this? Here's my point. If you have free will, then your picture of life as merely chasing tails as your DNA tells you is hollow reasoning. It would seem, your real reasoning must lie someplace else.
To clarify, I have desires for food, water, sex, entertainment and indeed life. However that does not mean that anything is achieved when I fulfill these desires, except for the fulfillment of the desires themselves. Desires that do not need to exist. In this sense I (like most people) am addicted to life, despite its futility.
Also, Im not convinced many people really do have strong desires for children and i reckon its mostly societal contidioning. I desire sex, sure, but not kids.
@LiamsVlogChannel I see where you're coming from and agree that people often have kids for the wrong reasons. But I don't agree with your expectation that we must 'achieve' something in order to make life worth while. Look, to permanently end life - that is not for me nor anyone to decide. You could argue - who am I to bring another person into the world? Well, if I didn't think there was the smallest of chances that this new person could experience true joy, I wouldn't - and nor should anyone.
Life essentially creates a mess, and then only cleans up half the mess. There is no pinnacle humanity is working towards except for the elimination of all the messes created by being here in the first place. In this sence, we are merely chasing tails, working towards a goal that is not only unachievable but also unecessary, since it would be just as good to not exist.
@LiamsVlogChannel Where does this idea that life is all about goals and achievement come from? It seems as much a result of social conditioning as the desire to have children - if not more.
Life is all about fulfilling desires. Thats all we do. On a basic level we desire food and water, then shelter, then companionship and so on.
Sentient life can be boiled down to: we have a desire, we try to do something about it.
Also the things we desire have no purpose outside of our human needs, for example theres nothing inherently valuable about food. It only has value because we get hungry. In this sense we are just chasing desires set out by both out DNA and society.
@LiamsVlogChannel Anyone who thinks that life is only about fulfilling desires has clearly not lived and should in no way be qualified to pass judgement on lifes real value. You know what a 'self-fulfilling prophecies' is right? The fact is, if you believe life is an unnecessary wast of time and suffering, then it'll probably turn out that way for you - which ultimately makes you right about being an antinatalist. The scary thing is, is that it's up to you.
In that case, please name one thing that humans do, that makes sense without it referring to human desires.
It cant be eating, because that only happens because of our desire for food. It cant be lovemaking, as that only happens because of our desire for companionship. Indeed, I cannot think of a single thing we do, that satisfies anything other than desires created by our very existance.
@LiamsVlogChannel True, any action is born from desire - even the desire to be free of desire is yet more desire. But Life is not desire. To answer your question, and I'm sure you'll agree, we come into existence without any desire to do so. It seems that the very act of existing is beyond desire. It is because of the serendipitous nature of existence that we cannot judge it. It's value is unquantifiable. To end life on grounds that it is of no value is thus irrational.
@HeroinChurch You can spew all the emotionally charged hyperbole that the 500 chrctr limit will allow, the fact of the matter is that existence is a prior condition to value and autonomy. Even if procreation could coherently be described as an imposition, it can't be described as unethical because you can't act ethically toward something that doesn't exist, you can only act ethically toward things that do. Making suicide illegal is an imposition, procreation is not.
@HeroinChurch You can spew all the emotionally charged hyperbole that the 500 chrctr limit will allow, the fact of the matter is that existence is a prior condition to value and autonomy. Even if procreation could coherently be described as an imposition, it can't be described as unethical because you can't act ethically toward something that doesn't exist, you can only act ethically toward things that do. Making suicide illegal is an imposition, procreation is not.
@HeroinChurch Why do you feel incline to insult people? If you dislike life stop giving excuses to your YT audience, and embark on your departure. It is your choice. If you are going to impose yourself, on the world, at least make valid arguments without the drama! The slop you serve, in the name of mentation, is a fraudulent battle to oppose a sanguine disposition! The only cesspool that is immediately evident is the shared contents of your mind unless you wise up..unlikely.
@HeroinChurch I'm not sure I understand your comment completely, but I did recognize a logical error in it right away. You speak of "imposing a consciousness." But it's impossible to impose anything on something that doesn't exist (e.g. the unborn). You can only impose something on that which does exist. So your entire argument rests on a logical blunder. As for the world being "trivial and repetitive," speak for yourself. You haven't described an objective condition of the world.
@DanaGarrett ''But it's impossible to impose anything on something that doesn't exist.''
The energy/matter from which are bodies are created was dormant for billions of years, unmolested by deprivational states and the experience of being a mortal creature who can suffer, until our parents 'played god' and summoned us forth into this insane and deeply troubled world.
@DerivedEnergy Oh, say you think that dormant energy/matter has a RIGHT not to have life imposed upon it. LOL! What other rights does dormant energy/matter have? Do rocks have a right not to be fashioned into a patio? Since dormant energy/matter has no sentience, it cannot experience harm. And as they say, "No harm, no foul."
"But it's impossible to impose anything on something that doesn't exist"
You are right. He should have said: Imposing consciousness on to matter and energy that could care less about consciousness or the pleasure or suffering such a state of matter and energy causes.
Hope this clarifies the imposition. An imposition that matters once the matter and energy has been configured into conscious matter and energy.
@DanaGarrett The person being imposed upon DOES EXIST if a woman procreates. The person doesn't exist only if the aforementioned woman DOESN'T PROCREATE.
You guys can't use non-existence to validate your argument because you would create existence.
You are the one making the logical blunder. There is at least one attribute you can force on the nonexistant, namely existance (and all that come with it therefore)
This line of reasoning seems to claim that since these people dont exist yet, we can do whatever we want to them and its all justified. Unfortunately for you, your actions will directly lead to that childs life. Therefore you caused it, you are responsible and in the absence of consent it is an imposition.
@LiamsVlogChannel Sorry, but when you are talking about existence being an attribute, you are committing a generally recognized blunder--one that has been recognized ever since Kant showed that existence is not a predicate in his refutation of St Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God. You might want to look that up.
Also you say 'You haven't described an objective condition of the world'. What does this mean, and why is it relevant?
Just because suffering is subjective doesnt make it any more justified. You wouldnt look at people in concentration camps and say, oh its okay, their pain is only subjective. We know suffering sucks, and we know procreating leads to suffering.
You have yet to say what you think we humans are actually achieving by being here, to balance all the pain.
@LiamsVlogChannel "You wouldnt look at people in concentration camps" You anti-natalists really need to stop referring to concentration camps. I looked up the studies on this. Studies of the holocaust do NOT show that the majority of holocaust victims attempted suicide. Some of the studies show that there was not even an increase above average attempted suicide rates. So concentration camps are a problem for your position since the victims still found life worthwhile despite their suffering.
@LiamsVlogChannel "You have yet to say what you think we humans are actually achieving by being here, to balance all the pain." Why do human beings have to "achieve" anything? As for balance, human beings VALUE their pleasures and loves more than their pain and suffering. It counts more to them. Consequently, because of this valuation for most humans pain and suffering run a deficit. If not, suicide rates would be out the roof.
But anyway, the degree to which individuals can endure suffering is indeed relative; but unless I am mistaken it is possible to torture any given individual to such an intense degree that they will find their plight utterly unbearable... or even lose their sanity.
I can only estimate that you are either one of very few who can endure any amount of suffering regardless of intensity; or increasing the severity (or duration) will inevitably become unbearable for you.
IdaMiaDot 1 month ago
One of the problems with the youtube antinatalists is that they generalize their ethical system too much. In order to demonstrate that suffering deserves priority they attempt to trivialize or discount positive experience entirely; which is an unproductive and potentially harmful way to approach the problem. I think this is probably why you are so abrasive to them..? ... or one of the reasons.
Benatar's approach was simiarly flawed, in my opinion.
IdaMiaDot 1 month ago
Comment removed
IdaMiaDot 1 month ago
@nolovelost92 @nolovelost92 Applying ethical obligation to people who don't exist or who won't imminently exist doesn't make sense. A murderer "murders" countless potential people but we only convict him for one and I think rightly so. I've already explained why a lack of consent isnt enough to call something an imposition. Procreation is a gift, the majority of people appreciate it, and as long as the ones that don't are allowed to return it procreation itself is an ethically neutral act.
DrOman5596 5 months ago
@nolovelost92 There's a difference between people who don't exist and people who will. Unless you want to roll with the potential life rhetoric of pro lifers, you have to admit that you haven't spared anyone of anything by not pro creating. The absence of consent doesn't an imposition make. That's like saying babies are atheists. Sure they lack a belief in God, but they aren't capable of having beliefs about God. Giving birth to them doesn't impose a belif on them, indoctrinating them does.
DrOman5596 5 months ago
This video is so retarded its retarded
japanezeboi 5 months ago
@nolovelost92 That doesn't follow. I don't pollute the earth or use up nonrenewable resources because of the younger people who do exist and because I want and feel obligated to honor their wishes/aspirations that the children they intend to have won't live in a polluted world and have available resources.
DanaGarrett 5 months ago
@nolovelost92 I don't see how my taking pain meds entails that I support the holocaust. When people resort to those kinds of quantum leaps in logic like you did w/ me, they are usually just trying to make a vicious smear.
DanaGarrett 5 months ago
Dana, you seem to claim that because YOU have never wanted an out, that we are therefore justified in throwing new innocent people into the lottery of life.
This really betrays how selfish the thinking is behind natalist thinking. You are out of touch with the plight of the elephant man and his right to never have been. We know suicidal people exis, and you need to answer to them before you are justified in continuing to perpetuate the cycle.
LiamsVlogChannel 5 months ago
@LiamsVlogChannel Why isn't the opposite "logic" just as applicable? Because so many people find life on the whole pleasurable and worthwhile, what gives you the right to decide that NO ONE should have the opportunity to experience life in precisely the same way?
DanaGarrett 5 months ago
On the topic: I am sure that many of us have had a momentary "I wish I was never born" {I have}. But one thing I have notice about those around me who have suffered the most...they always seemed to live by the mantra "enjoy life while you can, because it is way too short". So why squander such a fleeting gift with the wish you had never had been born?
Laurel
YeOldeHeretic 5 months ago
I hope you are feeling better soon Dana! :)
Laurel
YeOldeHeretic 5 months ago
Commenters, I am not ignoring you. Finally got my pain meds so I'm feeling a bit loopy now. I hope to get to your questions later Saturday or by Sunday at the latest. Thanks for your patience.
DanaGarrett 5 months ago
you are using drugs to numb the pain Dana. If we take those drugs away you will be screaming for it to end.
antinatalism1 5 months ago
@antinatalism1 Last week I had 17 straight hours of continuous excruciating pain and I never once wished I hadn't been born, nor did I once think about offing myself. My predominate thought was why couldn't the oral surgeon prescribe meds for me just because he was at a conference and why wouldn't the dentist prescribe meds for me until he saw me. So my point remains. Why didn't severe pain and suffering raise the question of existence being worthwhile like you antinatlsts say it should?
DanaGarrett 5 months ago
Hope you make a speedy recovery Dana, I must say I'm overwhelmed at how much controversy this Antinatalist debate is causing.... It seems obvious to me that to aline oneself with antinatalism one must surely be suffering some form of depression. The logic can only make sense to a person who wants to die at least as much as they want to live.
amabodei 5 months ago
@amabodei
Thats simply not true, I have never suffered depression but I am still an antinatalist.
I simply recognise the inescapable futility of life. Even when things are going great for me, I understand that I'm not actually achieving anything. Instead I am just chasing tails as my DNA tells me to.
I can recognise that were I never born, I would never have had any desires to be deprived of in the first place, meaning I would not miss life.
Stop appealing to depression.
LiamsVlogChannel 5 months ago
@LiamsVlogChannel I admit I was generalizing. But I must point out something profound here - I assume that being an antinatalist you believe that you can overcome your genetic 'programming to reproduce and instead choose not to. Right, if so, can you see how you are using your 'free will' to do this? Here's my point. If you have free will, then your picture of life as merely chasing tails as your DNA tells you is hollow reasoning. It would seem, your real reasoning must lie someplace else.
amabodie 5 months ago
@amabodie
To clarify, I have desires for food, water, sex, entertainment and indeed life. However that does not mean that anything is achieved when I fulfill these desires, except for the fulfillment of the desires themselves. Desires that do not need to exist. In this sense I (like most people) am addicted to life, despite its futility.
Also, Im not convinced many people really do have strong desires for children and i reckon its mostly societal contidioning. I desire sex, sure, but not kids.
LiamsVlogChannel 5 months ago
@LiamsVlogChannel I see where you're coming from and agree that people often have kids for the wrong reasons. But I don't agree with your expectation that we must 'achieve' something in order to make life worth while. Look, to permanently end life - that is not for me nor anyone to decide. You could argue - who am I to bring another person into the world? Well, if I didn't think there was the smallest of chances that this new person could experience true joy, I wouldn't - and nor should anyone.
amabodie 5 months ago
@amabodie
Cont'd.
Life essentially creates a mess, and then only cleans up half the mess. There is no pinnacle humanity is working towards except for the elimination of all the messes created by being here in the first place. In this sence, we are merely chasing tails, working towards a goal that is not only unachievable but also unecessary, since it would be just as good to not exist.
LiamsVlogChannel 5 months ago
@LiamsVlogChannel Where does this idea that life is all about goals and achievement come from? It seems as much a result of social conditioning as the desire to have children - if not more.
amabodie 5 months ago
@amabodie
Life is all about fulfilling desires. Thats all we do. On a basic level we desire food and water, then shelter, then companionship and so on.
Sentient life can be boiled down to: we have a desire, we try to do something about it.
Also the things we desire have no purpose outside of our human needs, for example theres nothing inherently valuable about food. It only has value because we get hungry. In this sense we are just chasing desires set out by both out DNA and society.
LiamsVlogChannel 5 months ago
@LiamsVlogChannel Anyone who thinks that life is only about fulfilling desires has clearly not lived and should in no way be qualified to pass judgement on lifes real value. You know what a 'self-fulfilling prophecies' is right? The fact is, if you believe life is an unnecessary wast of time and suffering, then it'll probably turn out that way for you - which ultimately makes you right about being an antinatalist. The scary thing is, is that it's up to you.
A pleasure debating with you :)
amabodie 5 months ago
@amabodie
In that case, please name one thing that humans do, that makes sense without it referring to human desires.
It cant be eating, because that only happens because of our desire for food. It cant be lovemaking, as that only happens because of our desire for companionship. Indeed, I cannot think of a single thing we do, that satisfies anything other than desires created by our very existance.
Pleasure debating with you too
LiamsVlogChannel 5 months ago
@LiamsVlogChannel True, any action is born from desire - even the desire to be free of desire is yet more desire. But Life is not desire. To answer your question, and I'm sure you'll agree, we come into existence without any desire to do so. It seems that the very act of existing is beyond desire. It is because of the serendipitous nature of existence that we cannot judge it. It's value is unquantifiable. To end life on grounds that it is of no value is thus irrational.
amabodie 5 months ago
@amabodie nicely put.
tranquil87 4 months ago
Comment removed
amabodie 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HeroinChurch You can spew all the emotionally charged hyperbole that the 500 chrctr limit will allow, the fact of the matter is that existence is a prior condition to value and autonomy. Even if procreation could coherently be described as an imposition, it can't be described as unethical because you can't act ethically toward something that doesn't exist, you can only act ethically toward things that do. Making suicide illegal is an imposition, procreation is not.
DrOman5596 5 months ago
@HeroinChurch You can spew all the emotionally charged hyperbole that the 500 chrctr limit will allow, the fact of the matter is that existence is a prior condition to value and autonomy. Even if procreation could coherently be described as an imposition, it can't be described as unethical because you can't act ethically toward something that doesn't exist, you can only act ethically toward things that do. Making suicide illegal is an imposition, procreation is not.
DrOman5596 5 months ago
@DrOman5596 Yes, you got it perfectly.
DanaGarrett 5 months ago
@HeroinChurch Why do you feel incline to insult people? If you dislike life stop giving excuses to your YT audience, and embark on your departure. It is your choice. If you are going to impose yourself, on the world, at least make valid arguments without the drama! The slop you serve, in the name of mentation, is a fraudulent battle to oppose a sanguine disposition! The only cesspool that is immediately evident is the shared contents of your mind unless you wise up..unlikely.
EuphoricImpact 5 months ago
Oh Prof! You look rough man... take it easy man!
ACULTURE0 5 months ago
@HeroinChurch I'm not sure I understand your comment completely, but I did recognize a logical error in it right away. You speak of "imposing a consciousness." But it's impossible to impose anything on something that doesn't exist (e.g. the unborn). You can only impose something on that which does exist. So your entire argument rests on a logical blunder. As for the world being "trivial and repetitive," speak for yourself. You haven't described an objective condition of the world.
DanaGarrett 5 months ago
@DanaGarrett ''But it's impossible to impose anything on something that doesn't exist.''
The energy/matter from which are bodies are created was dormant for billions of years, unmolested by deprivational states and the experience of being a mortal creature who can suffer, until our parents 'played god' and summoned us forth into this insane and deeply troubled world.
DerivedEnergy 5 months ago
@DerivedEnergy Oh, say you think that dormant energy/matter has a RIGHT not to have life imposed upon it. LOL! What other rights does dormant energy/matter have? Do rocks have a right not to be fashioned into a patio? Since dormant energy/matter has no sentience, it cannot experience harm. And as they say, "No harm, no foul."
DanaGarrett 5 months ago
@DanaGarrett ''Since dormant energy/matter has no sentience, it cannot experience harm.''
EXACTLY!
DerivedEnergy 5 months ago
@DanaGarrett
"But it's impossible to impose anything on something that doesn't exist"
You are right. He should have said: Imposing consciousness on to matter and energy that could care less about consciousness or the pleasure or suffering such a state of matter and energy causes.
Hope this clarifies the imposition. An imposition that matters once the matter and energy has been configured into conscious matter and energy.
Thanks.
trick0171 5 months ago
@DanaGarrett The person being imposed upon DOES EXIST if a woman procreates. The person doesn't exist only if the aforementioned woman DOESN'T PROCREATE.
You guys can't use non-existence to validate your argument because you would create existence.
FreeLongPig 5 months ago
@DanaGarrett
You are the one making the logical blunder. There is at least one attribute you can force on the nonexistant, namely existance (and all that come with it therefore)
This line of reasoning seems to claim that since these people dont exist yet, we can do whatever we want to them and its all justified. Unfortunately for you, your actions will directly lead to that childs life. Therefore you caused it, you are responsible and in the absence of consent it is an imposition.
LiamsVlogChannel 5 months ago
@LiamsVlogChannel Sorry, but when you are talking about existence being an attribute, you are committing a generally recognized blunder--one that has been recognized ever since Kant showed that existence is not a predicate in his refutation of St Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God. You might want to look that up.
DanaGarrett 5 months ago
@DanaGarrett
Also you say 'You haven't described an objective condition of the world'. What does this mean, and why is it relevant?
Just because suffering is subjective doesnt make it any more justified. You wouldnt look at people in concentration camps and say, oh its okay, their pain is only subjective. We know suffering sucks, and we know procreating leads to suffering.
You have yet to say what you think we humans are actually achieving by being here, to balance all the pain.
LiamsVlogChannel 5 months ago
@LiamsVlogChannel "You wouldnt look at people in concentration camps" You anti-natalists really need to stop referring to concentration camps. I looked up the studies on this. Studies of the holocaust do NOT show that the majority of holocaust victims attempted suicide. Some of the studies show that there was not even an increase above average attempted suicide rates. So concentration camps are a problem for your position since the victims still found life worthwhile despite their suffering.
DanaGarrett 5 months ago
@LiamsVlogChannel "You have yet to say what you think we humans are actually achieving by being here, to balance all the pain." Why do human beings have to "achieve" anything? As for balance, human beings VALUE their pleasures and loves more than their pain and suffering. It counts more to them. Consequently, because of this valuation for most humans pain and suffering run a deficit. If not, suicide rates would be out the roof.
DanaGarrett 5 months ago