@DerivedEnergy Oh please. Now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm not into that. The determinant of value is composed of more than just logic. It also comprises instinct, feelings, emotions, and other senses. If I stuck you with a sharp stick your willing to say that would NOT influence your judgment? C'mon. Go tell that bullshit to the tourists.
@DoNotCiv 'If I stuck you with a sharp stick your willing to say that would NOT influence your judgment?''
About what? It would certainly influence my judgement of what kind of person you are but it wouldn't convince me that you can deprive future generations of happiness.
''The determinant of value is composed of more than just logic.''
@DoNotCiv I would estimate that clean water, crop, oil etc shortage will secure our failure more so than the after-effects of nuclear waste.
Nuclear waste may only require quarantin for a few centuries before the science necessary to dispose of it properly is developed (assuming our scientific advancement isn't stunted).
@IdaMiaDot It's a composite problem to be sure. But I'm less concerned about long term storage (which requires about 100,000 years) than getting the fuel cooled in the fuel pools and to the LT storgage sites. One cooling pool in the midwest contains more radioactive cesium than all the nuclear bombs ever detonated by the US. It's a huge problem. We are on thin ice should a disaster like flood, hurricane, volcano, earthquake etc. destroy the cooling water system. F.U.C.K.E.D. actually.
Some AN's only stop at human life (and even then, not believing in coercion into non-birth). Plants and Microbes? I have never heard ANY antinatalist go this far. Unless you can produce specific evidence they said plants (and especially microbes), this is clearly putting words in AN's mouths. After all, plants and microbes (and non-neurological life in general) doesn't suffer at all. So what's the point in including them. You've overstated your claim and I'm calling you on it.
@filrabat I may be guilty of taking the comments of one person and making it a blanket statement for all ANs. But unless, the definition in the Wiki page is incorrect, this is technically accurate and the default position of AN as argued by people like David Benatar, i.e., birth has negative value. There are no qualifiers that draw a line somewhere in the taxonomy of life. I really don't know that I need to be dragged into an AN debate, because as I stated clearly, I'm not an AN.
There's much more to it than wikipedia lets on. As for qualifiers - context helps (e.g. neurologial or not)., although antinatalism is in principle as broad a spectrum as atheism, theism, capitalism, conservatism, liberalism and other -isms. There are different factions / schools of thought. BTW, not to be rude, but by making a claim about what AN's believe, you by default inserted youself into the debate. I'll not debate you, since I know what you mean, and I respect your wish.
@filrabat "you by default inserted youself into the debate." Yes, I guess I did. But mainly I was trying to distinguish myself from (what I viewed as) the AN position, and at the same time call out the similarities and ways that AH overlaps. As you said there are different factions. I don't think any one person can be the designated spokesman, let alone the patron saint of AN, so I don't expect a one stop shop for "the party platform and position." But I will keep an open mind on the issue.
@filrabat "After all, plants and microbes (and non-neurological life in general) doesn't suffer at all. "
Yes, I'll go along with that. But the point of the strict AN is that nature cannot be trusted and thus ALL life must be extinguished on earth lest we run the risk that she will start the whole show up again in 50 or 100 million years. Again I'm not an AN, but I'm reasonably certain that IS the AN position.
@DoNotCiv The "must be extinguished" part...Speaking for myself alone, I can agree in the theoretical-to-the-point-of-abstractness sense, though I also believe suffering prevention NECESSARILY includes respect for human rights and freedom of choice (a subset thereof). Thus, I interpret "must" as being strictly voluntary - with the current AN practices should be limited to educating and informing others. Also, there are serious practical limits about what we can do to actually negate all life.
''My instinct goes against it, my emotions go against it.''
Your instincts and emtions are not to be trusted.
DerivedEnergy 2 months ago
@DerivedEnergy Oh please. Now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm not into that. The determinant of value is composed of more than just logic. It also comprises instinct, feelings, emotions, and other senses. If I stuck you with a sharp stick your willing to say that would NOT influence your judgment? C'mon. Go tell that bullshit to the tourists.
DoNotCiv 2 months ago
@DoNotCiv 'If I stuck you with a sharp stick your willing to say that would NOT influence your judgment?''
About what? It would certainly influence my judgement of what kind of person you are but it wouldn't convince me that you can deprive future generations of happiness.
''The determinant of value is composed of more than just logic.''
I agree. That's why I'm not a moral nihilist.
DerivedEnergy 1 month ago
You seem to be *anti-humanity*, which is just being a misanthrope. Antihumanism has nothing to do with this.
tranquil87 2 months ago
@tranquil87 I'm for quality not quantity, creating better humans not more of them.
DoNotCiv 2 months ago
@DoNotCiv I would estimate that clean water, crop, oil etc shortage will secure our failure more so than the after-effects of nuclear waste.
Nuclear waste may only require quarantin for a few centuries before the science necessary to dispose of it properly is developed (assuming our scientific advancement isn't stunted).
IdaMiaDot 2 months ago
@IdaMiaDot It's a composite problem to be sure. But I'm less concerned about long term storage (which requires about 100,000 years) than getting the fuel cooled in the fuel pools and to the LT storgage sites. One cooling pool in the midwest contains more radioactive cesium than all the nuclear bombs ever detonated by the US. It's a huge problem. We are on thin ice should a disaster like flood, hurricane, volcano, earthquake etc. destroy the cooling water system. F.U.C.K.E.D. actually.
DoNotCiv 2 months ago
Comment removed
IdaMiaDot 2 months ago
Comment removed
IdaMiaDot 2 months ago
Some AN's only stop at human life (and even then, not believing in coercion into non-birth). Plants and Microbes? I have never heard ANY antinatalist go this far. Unless you can produce specific evidence they said plants (and especially microbes), this is clearly putting words in AN's mouths. After all, plants and microbes (and non-neurological life in general) doesn't suffer at all. So what's the point in including them. You've overstated your claim and I'm calling you on it.
filrabat 3 months ago
@filrabat I may be guilty of taking the comments of one person and making it a blanket statement for all ANs. But unless, the definition in the Wiki page is incorrect, this is technically accurate and the default position of AN as argued by people like David Benatar, i.e., birth has negative value. There are no qualifiers that draw a line somewhere in the taxonomy of life. I really don't know that I need to be dragged into an AN debate, because as I stated clearly, I'm not an AN.
DoNotCiv 3 months ago
@DoNotCiv
There's much more to it than wikipedia lets on. As for qualifiers - context helps (e.g. neurologial or not)., although antinatalism is in principle as broad a spectrum as atheism, theism, capitalism, conservatism, liberalism and other -isms. There are different factions / schools of thought. BTW, not to be rude, but by making a claim about what AN's believe, you by default inserted youself into the debate. I'll not debate you, since I know what you mean, and I respect your wish.
filrabat 3 months ago
@filrabat "you by default inserted youself into the debate." Yes, I guess I did. But mainly I was trying to distinguish myself from (what I viewed as) the AN position, and at the same time call out the similarities and ways that AH overlaps. As you said there are different factions. I don't think any one person can be the designated spokesman, let alone the patron saint of AN, so I don't expect a one stop shop for "the party platform and position." But I will keep an open mind on the issue.
DoNotCiv 3 months ago
@filrabat "After all, plants and microbes (and non-neurological life in general) doesn't suffer at all. "
Yes, I'll go along with that. But the point of the strict AN is that nature cannot be trusted and thus ALL life must be extinguished on earth lest we run the risk that she will start the whole show up again in 50 or 100 million years. Again I'm not an AN, but I'm reasonably certain that IS the AN position.
DoNotCiv 3 months ago
@DoNotCiv The "must be extinguished" part...Speaking for myself alone, I can agree in the theoretical-to-the-point-of-abstractness sense, though I also believe suffering prevention NECESSARILY includes respect for human rights and freedom of choice (a subset thereof). Thus, I interpret "must" as being strictly voluntary - with the current AN practices should be limited to educating and informing others. Also, there are serious practical limits about what we can do to actually negate all life.
filrabat 3 months ago
Excellent. Make more!
grundgemonster 3 months ago in playlist More videos from DoNotCiv