How in the hell do antinatalists even quantify the notion that life is suffering or harm or whatever. Schopenhaur probably had a brain infection or something. I have never seen Gary or anyone else substantiate this argument with psychological science, they just seem to state the life sucks and that it is guaranteed to be miserable. This is pure insanity and ignorance.
Perhaps to answer my own question of impoverished countries, could it make the sadness that much worse to admit that life is too painful to perpetuate anymore? And what are we saying and doing about our lives when we say that life is just too crappy to perpetuate? That is the definition of self-defeating. If my life is good, and it is, I shouldn't be hesitant about subjecting someone else to it, it is a benign and neutral act in that case, which may enrich my own - a net positive.
I kind of get what the moderate antinatalists are saying, because when I see some extremely impoverished country where people are reproducing like crazy and dying like crazy, I have to wonder why they don't just end it all when there is an 80% chance their child is going to die in pain before they're mature. But how the hell can you say that everyone is like that? There is a lot of stuff that goes into happiness, there is a science of it, and in some cases happiness is almost guaranteed.
you can't say it's a bad thing because it's beyond good and evil. Life predates cognizance. If we discover a bad thing we may be obligated to rectify it, but it was not "bad in itself"... due to the nature of physics, in my world view.
I would say it's "tragic" that there was no realization of it's "wrongness" but I recognize my cognizance of its wrongness as integral to the wrongness. It's not wrong to an amoeba. It takes awareness.
The concept of bad is intricately related to tragedy/suffering/pain etc. Let's call it tragic instead, then; and act accordingly (i.e. work to mitigate tragedy).
@IdaMiaDot : it's personally bad. It's not fundamentally bad-according-to-nature... there is no authority by which it is unequivocally bad... it's bad from my point of view because of who I am, the kind of creature I am, and because I have a chance to see and understand it... it does not convey on nature, because nature did not create it the way I see it, until, that is, nature created me to see it that way. I'm sure that makes sense.
@IdaMiaDot : it is like that. It's hard to think relative to there being no life, for example... the sun is a nuclear furnace... it's just not a "war" so it's not automatically "bad"... and given no people, no mammals, no life, as a basis of physics, a lot of thing are not automatically bad for similar reasons to why nuclear explosions in the sun are not "bad" like nuclear explosions are earth are.
How in the hell do antinatalists even quantify the notion that life is suffering or harm or whatever. Schopenhaur probably had a brain infection or something. I have never seen Gary or anyone else substantiate this argument with psychological science, they just seem to state the life sucks and that it is guaranteed to be miserable. This is pure insanity and ignorance.
StabbyRaccoon 3 months ago
Perhaps to answer my own question of impoverished countries, could it make the sadness that much worse to admit that life is too painful to perpetuate anymore? And what are we saying and doing about our lives when we say that life is just too crappy to perpetuate? That is the definition of self-defeating. If my life is good, and it is, I shouldn't be hesitant about subjecting someone else to it, it is a benign and neutral act in that case, which may enrich my own - a net positive.
StabbyRaccoon 3 months ago
I kind of get what the moderate antinatalists are saying, because when I see some extremely impoverished country where people are reproducing like crazy and dying like crazy, I have to wonder why they don't just end it all when there is an 80% chance their child is going to die in pain before they're mature. But how the hell can you say that everyone is like that? There is a lot of stuff that goes into happiness, there is a science of it, and in some cases happiness is almost guaranteed.
StabbyRaccoon 3 months ago
yeah, man
lets put all the sharks in swimming pools & feed them on beans & corn-flakes
TWITfromURANUS 3 months ago in playlist More videos from pyrrho314
@TWITfromURANUS : and get the hides for free!
pyrrho314 3 months ago
ImaMidDot: 3:00
you can't say it's a bad thing because it's beyond good and evil. Life predates cognizance. If we discover a bad thing we may be obligated to rectify it, but it was not "bad in itself"... due to the nature of physics, in my world view.
I would say it's "tragic" that there was no realization of it's "wrongness" but I recognize my cognizance of its wrongness as integral to the wrongness. It's not wrong to an amoeba. It takes awareness.
pyrrho314 3 months ago
@pyrrho314 Why is it tragic but not bad?
The concept of bad is intricately related to tragedy/suffering/pain etc. Let's call it tragic instead, then; and act accordingly (i.e. work to mitigate tragedy).
IdaMiaDot 3 months ago
@IdaMiaDot : it's personally bad. It's not fundamentally bad-according-to-nature... there is no authority by which it is unequivocally bad... it's bad from my point of view because of who I am, the kind of creature I am, and because I have a chance to see and understand it... it does not convey on nature, because nature did not create it the way I see it, until, that is, nature created me to see it that way. I'm sure that makes sense.
pyrrho314 3 months ago
@pyrrho314 I understand.
But saying predation isn't bad relative to nature is like saying nuclear war isn't bad relative to gravity.
IdaMiaDot 3 months ago
@IdaMiaDot : it is like that. It's hard to think relative to there being no life, for example... the sun is a nuclear furnace... it's just not a "war" so it's not automatically "bad"... and given no people, no mammals, no life, as a basis of physics, a lot of thing are not automatically bad for similar reasons to why nuclear explosions in the sun are not "bad" like nuclear explosions are earth are.
cheers.
pyrrho314 3 months ago
Comment removed
IdaMiaDot 3 months ago