D02.01 DNG Debates: Put LIFE out of its misery

[hawanja]

I don't think I've ever seen a sadder person.

[Pulchism]

does "lose" mean "results in more pain than pleasure" (for the individual or by aggregate), or does "lose" mean "end in meaninglessness"?

[TheEmpiricalTruth]

Apologies for the double entry. I made my video private in order to fix something and when I brought it back it was not showing as a reply to you.

[BlowDevilUp]

@GloomBoomDoom

I am sick to death of your constant misuse of words and their definitions! Get a GD dictionary!

[matrixflower13]

Everything ends in chaos.

[matrixflower13]

1) We deliberately keep our young young for as long as possible.. as you say .. and beyond. Let's face it we keep them dependant and in school for around a quarter of their lives, in our quest for a better chance of their survival (for one) - to extend our input.

Scientifically it can't be proven that there is anything beyond dust to dust ... however it also can't be proven there is nothing. Logically the prior is the obvious situation, however we still continue (mostly) .. to engage in

[matrixflower13]

@matrixflower13 2) certain death rituals and crisis' response for e.g. .. to behave as if there is a greater force :- for comfort (mummy and daddy watching over me/they are all knowing - type psyche) .... out of fear (of that unknown [the same reason most don't kill themselves when the urge rises]) .... for purpose/structure - to fill the void, the feelings of emptyness, meaningless and lonliness (one of the main selfish reasons why ppl reproduce).

[CaptainNemoful1]

I never against Gary Inmendham's Debates, I'm all 4 Them, WHY Because, He is Perfectly Right: > Gary's Video's Makes Perfect Sense To Me, -Thanks to Gary, I've learned what Life really is,- A FUCKED UP STUPID GAME OF ADDICTIONS.

Gary Inmendham Gets All The Credit 4 putting Up All His Video's from all his channel's, He Speaks The Rational Truth & They are the TOTAL TRUTH OF WHAT WE REALLY ARE!!!!

The End Game is A Graceful Exit is the only way OUT,> OUT CLEAN.

[IdaMiaDot]

I would also agree with you that the core difference between humans and other animals is our birth-to-adult brain ratio. There is nothing spectacularly brilliant or abnormal about the human brain. It possesses as many neurons as would be expected for a brain of its size, and is even greatly out-matched in certain aspects by the brains of elephants and cetaceans. Humans are however born with 28% of their brain mass, and spend the first years of their life doing nothing but absorbing information.

[IdaMiaDot]

Some insects and arachnids demonstrate a capacity for non-instinctive learning. The Portia Labiata is perhaps the smartest spider, and performs surprisingly well at some learning and cognitive tasks in laboratories. One of their evolutionary mechanisms is to pluck out rhythms at the corner of a web to mimic a trapped bug or insect intruder in order to lure other spiders to their web for food. Such complex behavior would suggest at least the first emergences of sentience; as tragic as that is.

[atontearmont]

if we were biengs that tried everything once and there were infinite experiences so that we could exist forever without ever doing anything twice... then love desire home comfort wouldnt be possible but fear and ignorance would rule our conscience 

[FoodOrFail]

Just out of curiosity (and not in any way meant to be mean), why did you get out bed this morning? Any why do you continue living? You seem to have such a low opinion of humans and life itself, that it does not make sense to me that you would want to continue on. And please, I really do not mean anything nasty by this.

[threeofwands]

And so for a final analysis the point of view that seems most relevant is stoicism. Would a stoic, who has dis-invested himself from any interest in a DNA molecule driven world, want to actively end the world? No. Because this in itself is an active priority competing with other active priorities. In fact it is prolly the most active priority among Sapiens, since all they've ever done is try to kill each other.

Want a challenge to Sapiens? Try improving conditions without profiting from it.

[55ella2007k]

Very interesting topic. Will try to do a video follow up on this. The bliss of ignorance is of course also part of reality, although it doesn't last too long. The virtual reality thing is interesting, because it causes no REAL harm, but then again, you would still need a physical body, or at the very least a brain, in order to experience it.  So, even then, everything depends on real chemical interactions. Evolution does not necessarily mean, that the human species will NOT die out.

[kantfail]

i believe in negative utilatarianism i.e. the elimination of pain

[DerivedEnergy]

Taking one's own life isn't like takking out the rubbish, Pyrrho. It doesn't matter how bad the life one is leaving behind. Suicide is a horrific thing to put yourself through.

[pyrrho314]

I would take part but I would want to know I won't get blocked in the middle of the process.

[pyrrho314]

test

[DerivedEnergy]

Then you have imposed something on him that he didn't wish. However, there are two huge differences between imposing a film on someone and imposing life on someone: firstly, they can walk away from the movie without having to murder themselves and he has the consent to refuse to watch the movie after you have given him the gist of it.

[pyrrho314]

@DerivedEnergy : I think it's odd to talk about murdering yourself with melodrama about it when if life is worthless, what's the big deal?

[DerivedEnergy]

And this evaluation (if positive) should not be permitted to form a retrospective justification for bringing new life into the world because at the point at which the parent made the decision to bring new life into the world there was no reason to do so based on any interests of any sentient being other than those who ALREADY exist.

[BiodegradeableMan]

The human animal is fickle and capricious we all know that. It’s the staggering arrogance of some that truly beggars belief. There are people out there who actually believe the human animal is pivotal to some cosmic grand plan that the Universe is only here to facilitate this plan. The fact the Universe existed for billions of years before we ‘evolved’ seems to pass them by.

[coaxx]

i agree with just about everything you say. lifes an addiction based on exploitation in one form or another and there is no real meaning except whatever short sighted goals we make up. its just a big sandbox really. that said, i think there is also a lo of pleasure in the world, and it is exciting to see where all this is heading. life is a lot more resilient against pain than you portray though. it makes us stronger, and we endure coming out stronger in the end.

[threeofwands]

Your argument seems to come down to: since there isn't an objectively valid metaphysics ( a value that would be post-life), then it isn't worth doing (considering all of the suffering, deprivation, and ultimate disappointment involved).

I'm not sure that there can be any argument against that. But since life (organic chemistry) did not come to be because of an argument (or any other ratiocination imaginable) then I'm not sure just how applicable that is to something that is just doing life.

[TheMaleWithNoName]

@threeofwands

"I'm not sure just how applicable that is to something that is just doing life."

Even if it was just "life doing life" and we had no control over it, doesn't make it acceptable and I'd still say there'd be some worth in making the argument of it being better to have never been.

However, the fact is that we do have control over it, and the perpetuation of (sentient) life is because we let/make it so, not because it's "just doing it's thing" any more.

[threeofwands]

@TheMaleWithNoName We may have wrested control over it (which is a very DNA-driven thing to have done) but that does not thereby make us a metaphysical subject to which life has to justify itself. If we made a decision to end sentient life, then that would be an aesthetic decision on our part (because the life process seems to us to ghastly to bear) but not something that could be ultimately justified.

[TheMaleWithNoName]

@threeofwands 1 of 2

"aesthetic decision"

No, it would be a logical decision. While it may be too ghastly to bear for some, the argument is not based upon that. It is based upon the arguments that (put simply) life is unnecessary while at the same time very costly. Nowhere in the argument is there any subjectivity; only the logical implications of the facts of reality.

[TheMaleWithNoName]

@threeofwands 2 of 2

Just as if we found a wild animal with an aggressive, painful form of cancer; we can make the intelligent decision to gracefully put it down for the sake of its own welfare, not for our (potential) disgust.

Furthermore, as the argument can be made by someone who doesn't find life unsettling, that further reveals the invalidity of such an assertion.

[threeofwands]

@TheMaleWithNoName And so once again, here the example is being made for the benefit of an individual element with the system, it is not a judgement on the life system itself.

There have been many individuals who have benefited from life. And for those, there have been countless others who paid an unfair price. The decision on the terrible inequality of the numbers in a benefit/cost ratio analysis is going to be a value judgment.

[threeofwands]

@TheMaleWithNoName Unnecessary to what, very costly for whom? You might recall that in the 80's the megacomputer in Terminator took less than a nanosecond to run the same analysis and decide to eliminate life. The problem is that within the life system, beings are operating with self interests. Once you make the decision that life itself is superfluous, you've left the system and are thinking from a lifeless perspective.

I'm not expressing myself all that well just off the cuff like this.

[TheMaleWithNoName]

@threeofwands 1 of 2

"it is not a judgement on the life system itself"

I was arguing in response to your assertion that it would be an aesthetic decision, and the analogy was to further demonstrate that decisions don't have to be made based on our subjective feelings.

"a value judgment"

So now you're just saying, "because it's a value judgement, it's just a subjective opinion"? You could resort to that in practically any other debate (right to die, military intervention, political reform etc),

[threeofwands]

@TheMaleWithNoName "Once a decision is made, it becomes objective". This is something similar you said earlier about validity in regards to assertions. I can only refer you to preliminary textbooks on logic.

[threeofwands]

@TheMaleWithNoName Yes, that is what I'm saying. That the overall judgement on life without all of the facts would be an aesthetic/vlaue/subjective decision. And the only way to get all of the facts would be posting a judgement after all of life was over, i.e. a metaphysical decision that we are not capable of.

[Yamikaiba123]

About living the life of a certain profile, I might rather live that life if the only other option on the table was to remain non-existent.That question relies on how much the person choosing values existence itself. (Obviously, if the choice was between my own life and that of the negative profile, I would choose my own).

[TheMaleWithNoName]

@Yamikaiba123

"I might rather live that life if the only other option on the table was to remain non-existent."

Read that back to yourself again... ;)

The non-existent are just that, non-existent; thus "they" have no desire to come into existence, since "they" don't exist to be able to have desires.

[Yamikaiba123]

@TheMaleWithNoName I fully understand this- but I'm responding to a question Gary posed- whether or not you would choose to live the live of a certain profile that he gave you that had much suffering involved. This is about what is worth more, life with suffering, or no life at all. It's about which weighs more, even if it is an emotional or chemical ordeal. It's not about making a choice before you're born.

[Yamikaiba123]

@Yamikaiba123 For example, if I can make a case for why life is almost always better than non-life (which I haven't, at least yet, if ever I'm able to, I don't know- hypothetically), then I can say that antinatalism is not worth it, because I'd be doing a service by bringing people into the world, instead of a disservice.

[DerivedEnergy]

@Yamikaiba123 Doing a sevice? Like delivering pizza to someone who doesn't want or need pizza? 

[Yamikaiba123]

@DerivedEnergy Hmm. Sure. When I show a movie to a friend that's never seen or heard anything like it, I consider I'm doing a servie to them, since I'm bringing something new to them that they otherwise would have never com across. They consider it a positive too, if the like it. But this is the dilemma that I admit to, which is why consider validity to be with Gary's point of view. I need to consider whether or not the movie is worth watching.What if my friend thinks it was a waste of his time?

[Yamikaiba123]

@DerivedEnergy That's why this discussion is useful. We need to consider whether or not people enjoy life over-all. My point is that as people's illusions of pleasure seem to outnumber their illusion of pain, it seems like they do enjoy life over-all. And as long as you're evaluating life based on pain. You can't go around and say pleasure is not valid as it's just based on meaningless instinct. Because pain is also based on meaningless instinct. Either you validate both, or neither.

[DerivedEnergy]

@Yamikaiba123 People's illusions of pleasure seem to outnumber their illusion of pain? Is this an imaginary survey you did? When people ask me ''How are you?'' I tend to reply ''I'm good, thanks'' or some other perfunctory socially sanctioned response. What we really need to consider is whether the person we bring into existence will come to feel that life was imposed on them or not. As we have no way of knowing this before we have them we should air on the side of caution because we are not(1)

[Yamikaiba123]

@DerivedEnergy I covered this in one of my original comments. My scruple is that people tend to have a drive towards survival. That means that there is a very strong positive that is attributed to life that trumps all amount of pain except for those that no longer wish to live. What I'm saying is because of that, you necessarily have to say that life is worth it for those that want to live, and life is not for those that don't. And those that want to live outnumber those that don't.

[DerivedEnergy]

@Yamikaiba123 I don't see how the possibilty that someone will be glad that they were born is a factor that you need to take into consideration when, again, if you don't have them you are NOTdepriving them of ANYTHING WHATSOEVER. I have a strong moral obligation not to punch a homeless person in the street. My moral obligation to hand him 20 bucks or give him/her a foot massage is a lot less clear and this is where he/she CAN exprience deprivation!

[DerivedEnergy]

@Yamikaiba123 Also I don't know how you arrive at the formulae: not committing suicide = being glad that one was born. People can curse themselves for not having the courage to take their own lives all the time. On the other hand, no one has ever regretted taking their own life after they have completed the act.

[Yamikaiba123]

@DerivedEnergy I'm including people who do not want to live in that category of people who's lives aren't worth living. The moment you are aware that your life would have been better off not being means that the pain has outrun the pleasure in your system. But if that hasn't happened, you're in the group of people who are still enjoying it more than not.

[DerivedEnergy]

@Yamikaiba123 But why should that group experience some thing that they enjoy and feel that they have benefitted from when it comes at a great cost to others - the suicidals, the tortured souls et cetera?

[DerivedEnergy]

@DerivedEnergy Especially when they wouldn't have been deprived of it if they have never had it?!

[Yamikaiba123]

@DerivedEnergy That's where I said I'm not sure whether or not my line of reasoning no longer applies. I can cover an argument for the majority of people enjoying life more than not, but I haven't gone so far as excusing the suffering of others.

[DerivedEnergy]

@Yamikaiba123 I can't feel neutral about the suffering of anyone when there is no reason to bring even a single person into existence for their own sake. I congratulate myself for not having my views contaminated by the mindless aherence to the dogma that procreation isn't a morally problematic endeavour. You seem to be sitting on the fence somewhat. I hope you can crystallise your thoughts on the matter so that you are comfortable and at ease with what stance you finally adopt. Good luck!

[DerivedEnergy]

@Yamikaiba123 ...taking away anything from them if we don't have them. My videos conver this assymetry quite extensively although by no means all antinatalist arguments rely or rest on this assymetry. For example, Immendham tackles the whole issue from a different angle (Survival, Reproduction, Cannabilism, Addiction).

[Yamikaiba123]

... and anyone who's system does not uphold it's survival mechanisms did not have a life worth living.

The one big weakness in my point here is that it is only considering living things individually. I don't know whether or not it falls apart if I bring it to a world-wide scale of consideration, as I haven't thought it out as you have. (Sorry for the long trail of comments.)

[Yamikaiba123]

(in the way that we instinctively pursue survival, and are relieved when we escape a deadly fate). Hence, as long as our argument depends on biologically founded values such as pain and pleasure, we can't accept one as being worth considering and not the other on the basis that it's biologically founded and hence meaningless. So if we are to weigh pain and pleasure equally, without discarding either one, anyone who's system keeps itself from dying has a life worth living...

[TheMaleWithNoName]

@Yamikaiba123 1 of 2

The difference between the two is that pleasure is simply just an arbitrary desire which only has value to those already caught up in the "addiction". It cannot be extended to the non-existent (since the non-existent can't be deprived of pleasure) and thus cannot be used as a reason for perpetuation.

[TheMaleWithNoName]

@Yamikaiba123 2 of 2

So the pain (cost) then exists for no other reason than for need (pleasure) which didn't need to exist in the first place; and thus is where it can be seen that the pain exists as a real "-1" while the pleasure only exists as a fake, unnecessary "+1".

[Yamikaiba123]

@TheMaleWithNoName Ah, but there's a false distinction being made, which is what I'm pointing out. Pain is also an arbitrary repulsion. Antinatalism depends on giving weight to the emotional effect of pain, but it ignores the counterbalance of pleasure, which keeps most of us from wanting to die. Also, tt should be obvious enough that pleasure can be extended to the non-existent as soon as they are born.

[Yamikaiba123]

@TheMaleWithNoName It's like saying someone can't find goo tast in a cookie if I gave them one sinc ehtey have never tasted one before.

[TheMaleWithNoName]

@Yamikaiba123 1 of 2

"Ah, but there's a false distinction being made, which is what I'm pointing out..."

It seems you've just repeated what I already responded to.

As I'm also pointing out, pain and pleasure must be used in reference to the non-existent, since that is what the argument is about. As such, pleasure cannot be extended to the non-existent and so is only of worth to the existent. You could also say the same about pain.

[Yamikaiba123]

Well, so much for not giving an elaborate response; I'm thinking about this too actively not to comment. The basis of our criticism towards life is the biological illusion of negativity in response to conditions of suffering which is overabundant. However, it means we need to give the same credence to the biological illusion of positivity in response to pleasure, or even the pleasure that comes with being alive.

[Yamikaiba123]

Hmm... I'm thinking about this referral to those that have suffered much vs. those that haven't. People who have suffered a lot still tend to have children, right? I guess you could say that it's an act of selfishness on their part, but following the present line of reasoning, you would have to admit that they have an insight we don't, and deserve an input into whether or not life is worth any amount of suffering they endured.

[TheMaleWithNoName]

@Yamikaiba123

Everyone deserves an input (i.e. to make their argument), and what you experience in life can give you a personal insight. But that life experience, however special it is, does not add validity to one's argument; the argument stands on its own, separate from the arguer.

And thus the argument can still be made that life is not worth any amount of suffering endured, since life (and the suffering that comes with it) doesn't even need to exist/be perpetuated in the first place.

[DerivedEnergy]

@Yamikaiba123 Of course people are entitled to make an evaluation concerning how good or bad their own lives are regarding the amount of pleasure and pain they experience during the course of it. However, once they start anticipating how good or bad their future offspring's life might be they have crossed the line. I, for example, would allow someone to chop off my little for the sum of 200,000 dollars. Some people, however, would find such a deal unpalata

[DerivedEnergy]

@Yamikaiba123 Of course people are entitled 2 make an evaluation concerning how good or bad their own lives are regarding the amount of pleasure and pain they experience during the course of it. However, once they start anticipating how good or bad their future offspring's life might be they have crossed the line. I , would allow someone to chop off my little for the sum of 200,000 bucks. Some people, however, would find such a deal unpalatable and I would NEED to gain their consent beforehand!

[Yamikaiba123]

But that's just an immature line of thought I'm coming into this with. I'll watch your video, and if I plan on making an elaborate response, I might do it while I'm walking and talking to and from school as I have much work to do...

[Yamikaiba123]

I'm looking at it in this way: The game is over when you die. While you play, you can still have fun, but in the end, you lose everything you accumulated, so even if you think you won something, you're not bringing it with you anywhere...

But not playing does not mean winning. Because there is no you, and you never played the game. So you can only win by existing, and playing the game- but the game isn't something you can win.

In the end, it's all in how gracefully you lose, I'm guessing.

[misterclownface]

Excellent video. The truth..telling it like it is without sugar coating it. You can't argue logically with anything you just said.

Now we wait for the retards with their counter arguments of leprechauns and fairy god mothers with pixie dust.

[Morgoththeenemy]

A nice piece of summation. I urge everyone viewing this to make a quick trip to Mexico, to purchase the necessary amount of pentobarbital, the barbiturate most commonly known as nembutal, where it can be purchased easily and cheaply. It's easily self-administered and terminates life by dropping the user into a painless sleep, during which breathing finally ceases. Quick and painless, it offers an easy death. Great video.

[misterclownface]

@Morgoththeenemy

I believe the message is to stop continuing the stupid game (reproduce), not necessarily commit suicide.

Going to Mexico to purchase drugs to commit suicide is not going help.

The point is people need to understand the game. Stop making babies (new victims) and make suicide legal so you can go to your local doctor and gracefully get yourself out of the game.

[fulishproductions]

exact truth...

faved obviously

[Lycanthr0py]

I think it would be a good idea for you to write a book or two summarizing your philosophy. At least that way the next generations would have access on your thoughts and ideas should these video files be gone in the future.

[pyrrho314]

@Lycanthr0py isn't an antinatalist writing books for future generations admitting defeat?

[rtiven]

@pyrrho314 Are you going to make a response video to Gary?

[BeardedBill86]

@pyrrho314 It's known as plan B or the realistic contingency.

[DerivedEnergy]

@pyrrho314 The short answer is no. For every would-be parent who reaches the morally sound conclusion that procreation is a misguided and selfish act (as a result of having been exposed to anti-natalist arguments) there will be one (or two, or three, or four, or five) less centres of suffering that will emerge in this universe. Vegetarians still feel somewhat pleased if they convert a friend to vegetaranism due to ethical reasons even if they fail to convert the majority of the human race.

[Lycanthr0py]

@pyrrho314 Not at all. Maybe our current society just isn't ready for the message.

[beardfreak1969]

Good idea, a script of this video would be useful to pass around on blogs etc. Text format would help some relate to the concepts more so. Touch-typer in the house?

[DerivedEnergy]

The worlds depicted in Star Wars were anything but safe! The clue is in the name of the movie, silly!!! Ha ha! Love your work Gary!

[TheMaleWithNoName]

Only thing I would add is about the non-existent and how they can't be deprived of an existence, so there's no "real" reason to perpetuate life.

Other than that, glad you're back on this argument.

[kileer7]

I would be very interested in how a self-reflexing projection to an unknown-other like Professor Anton would argue against the overview/argument contained within this video.

[DerivedEnergy]

@kileer7 LOL!

[f417h2GRACE]

#tag/subject/self-sub title/

≈here+hear=ƒorward

[mopme2008]

Your philosophy is so in sync with Heavens Gate.

[rtiven]

I wish you had your own television show or radio show, Gary. I'm not being sarcastic here, I really mean it. Human beings need to have these ideas shoved in their face instead of wallowing in silly shit like sitcoms, reality television and celebrity magazines.

[custardtin]

@zweezey

"we should wait longer."

Says the probably well-off Westerner in his/her comfortable computer chair.

[BeardedBill86]

@zweezey I meant conceivably discover, just to clarify.

[BeardedBill86]

Great video Gary.

[BeardedBill86]

@zweezey There's really nothing that we could discover that justifies the suffering of lifes very existance, really, meeting aliens isn't worth a million starving african's, or a holocaust etc and it's incredibly unlikely they'll have anything usefull to tell us except how to play the game better perhaps.

The past cannot be undone, that's millions of years of collective suffering by billions of various lifeforms capable of experiencing it on this planet pointlessly, that's bad enough.

[TheGzeus]

@zweezey "that would be interesting" isn't what I'd call a massive need.

I can live without seeing live music. It's interesting, but I'd be ok without it.

[IdaMiaDot]

Excellent video.

[Domzdream]

Wow. I have nothing to add. Well said. Not bursting with optimism. But....well said nonetheless.

I 'm looking forward to reading other peoples' comments on this.