A Defence of Antinatalism (Part 1)

A Defence of Antinatalism and David Benatar's theory as espoused in his seminal work: ''Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence''.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Antinatalism
• David Benatar
• Philosophy
• Pessimism
• Immendham

[integralmath]

@DerivedEnergy it's worth noting that most people didn't live through the black death pandemic. Most people who lived in the affected regions may not have been happy. This says nothing about most of the world's population for that subset's 'most' was not the set's 'most'. We have an absolute cure for that malady and can exclude it from being a source of suffering in the future, which is the time frame contemplated by anti-natalism. Arguing math or science this poorly will not serve you well.

[DerivedEnergy]

@integralmath ''Deductive reasoning: therefore, most people who are created will likely be human and happy to have been born.''

Yes, I bet most people were happy they were born during the black death pandemic. I think you are simplifying the thoughts people have about their lives. Life is a mixed bag even for cheery optimists. N.B.That is not deductive reasoning. It is a perceived correlation in your mind unsubstantiated by rigorous scientific enquiry and methodology.

[DerivedEnergy]

@integralmath 1) I 'doubt people's sincerity' if they are going to cite the presence of other animals on this planet as a reason why they are entitled to create more dying animals of their own.

2) The human race WILL become extinct at some currently unknown point in the future. How's that for a prediction?

3) And we are also more able to inflict more suffering on others and on a larger scale. We are now able to stretch people's lives out longer when they simply want to die. Etc Etc

[DerivedEnergy]

@integralmath i've addressed this argument in my farewell cruel world video. I don't care if you doubt my sincerity or not.

[integralmath]

@DerivedEnergy I doubt your sincerity. You have available to you an elegant way to end your perception of all of these ills, and yet you prefer to perceive others suffer than to take advantage of it. It is immediately obvious that to whatever extent you dislike perceiving suffering, it is insufficiently cogent an argument to you that you should avail yourself of a perfect solution to having to perceive it. Yes, I doubt the sincerity of your position as it applies to, noticeably, only you.

[integralmath]

@DerivedEnergy but there are people to do the perceiving. You are arguing that there shouldn't be, and in support of that saying we should ignore the data we have available to us and just use our imagination. Indeed, you seem sufficiently wedded to being alive that I notice you persist in remaining in that state despite your attestations of how great the only available alternative is. Further, I see you still fail to note we are not the universe of life, let alone perceiving life.

[integralmath]

@DerivedEnergy you create a child and you will quite often find a human who is happy to have been born. Deductive reasoning: therefore, most people who are created will likely be human and happy to have been born.

There's not anyone who can't play exactly the same game you're playing, but with the added benefit of billions of extant humans attesting to it.

[integralmath]

@DerivedEnergy and yet Einstein didn't stop with thinking. He thought about some stuff, and then constructed a physical experiment amenable to real data to test it against. It's worth noting that other thought experiments of his failed - for instance, quantum mechanical behavior bedeviled him because as it happens our ability to intuit the true nature of things in our own heads is quite limited. Einstein would manifestly reject your argument that a thought experiment is a sufficient analysis.

[integralmath]

@DerivedEnergy 3 errors here. 1.) suffering isn't unique to humans, so our extinction does nothing in the way of eliminating it. It only forestalls all potential experiences humans can have - we are not the universe of life which can suffer. 2.) the future is problematic, as you say, to predict, and yet this doesn't counsel you in the slightest against predicting it and then arguing from that prediction. 3.) history indicates that as we learn more, we are able to mitigate suffering.