|
OwlFancier posted:That procreation produces magnitudes more suffering than violation of bodily autonomy. in the same way it's ethical to violate someone's bodily autonomy by arresting them if they show evidence of intent to harm others, it is ethical to do so if they show evidence of intent to create life that will primarily suffer. Bodily autonomy is not inviolable, it is simply desirable to preserve it without a good reason not to. why are you monologuing like a villain in a Metal Gear Solid game. ~whips cape around while robo-mechs throw F-16s away~ "Snake.....If you could flip a switch and sterilize the entire planet, it would produce a horrible world, but it would be a very finite amount of horror. A procreating world has far, far more time to endure far, far more horror. DON'T YOU SEE!? THE PATRIOTS WERE WRONG SNAKE!" ~throws hands to the sky as score goes into overdrive~ "COME TO ME SNAKE....LET US BATTLE FOR THE FATE OF OUR SPECIES!" OldTennisCourt fucked around with this message at 13:32 on Mar 31, 2017 |
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 13:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 17:54 |
|
|
idgaf if anyone else has children, I just know that I really don't want children.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
The ecological arguments for non-procreation or the extinction of the human race don't hold water, I feel. We know that the earth, absent humans, will be incinerated in a couple billion years anyway as the sun becomes a red giant and expands. Then there won't be any life at all, and the whole thing will be basically pointless. If you value the existence of life in the universe, or the continued perpetuation of the Earth's biodiversity, you'd realize that humankind existing is Earth's ecosystem's best shot for long-term survival. We only get one shot; we don't know for a fact that intelligent life will evolve a second time after we're gone, so I think we owe it to the planet to not go extinct.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:How are you objectively measuring suffering and horror here? OldTennisCourt posted:why are you monologuing like a villain in a Metal Gear Solid game. In reality, there have probably been more authoritarian weirdos who believed in having huge families (of the right sort of people) whereas the antinatalists tended to be small religious sects like Cathars and Shakers who kept to themselves and thus didn't stay around long for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:The ecological arguments for non-procreation or the extinction of the human race don't hold water, I feel. We know that the earth, absent humans, will be incinerated in a couple billion years anyway as the sun becomes a red giant and expands. Then there won't be any life at all, and the whole thing will be basically pointless. If you value the existence of life in the universe, or the continued perpetuation of the Earth's biodiversity, you'd realize that humankind existing is Earth's ecosystem's best shot for long-term survival. We only get one shot; we don't know for a fact that intelligent life will evolve a second time after we're gone, so I think we owe it to the planet to not go extinct. Actually we should try seeding life on other planets as hard as we can, IMO, spreading extremophile bacteria everywhere we can reach, so that any spacefaring species that come after us will not have to deal with the crippling loneliness and exceptionalism we do. We should plant vaults of advanced technology and scientific records, too. We are, in fact, the Ancients.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:The ecological arguments for non-procreation or the extinction of the human race don't hold water, I feel. We know that the earth, absent humans, will be incinerated in a couple billion years anyway as the sun becomes a red giant and expands. Then there won't be any life at all, and the whole thing will be basically pointless. If you value the existence of life in the universe, or the continued perpetuation of the Earth's biodiversity, you'd realize that humankind existing is Earth's ecosystem's best shot for long-term survival. We only get one shot; we don't know for a fact that intelligent life will evolve a second time after we're gone, so I think we owe it to the planet to not go extinct. Chimps would probably be the next in line but I don't really see them being any "better" at being decent to each other than hominids. Evolution by natural selection is not really the process you're looking for if you want build a utopian society. A better chance would be with AIs where you could program in the decency as a core feature but still allow for evolutionary growth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Yeah this must be why Japan's economy is just roaring right? https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Italian_Studies/dweb/plague/effects/social.php of course we can't draw a direct distinction and a lot of our more complex consumer economy would suffer if there were a sudden labor shock due to some plague event but we'd certainly deal with structural un/underemployment and stagnating wages in the face of some moderate population loss. it's just simple economics
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
As soon as she could walk, I began training my daughter to be an eco terrorist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Mulva posted:You do know that the ultimate conclusion of that logical train is shooting you in the face, right? If I torture you, then wipe your memory, then leave you be for a day, then torture you again, then wipe your memory again, then give you another day, and I do this for years on end, with the net effect being that you are living in intense suffering, but your inability to build an accurate perspective of your life (because of the selective memory alteration) means you don't perceive it that way, are you or are you not suffering? I would take the position that you are, regardless of whether you are aware of it after the fact. And you could shoot me but, I think, the key point is simply to ensure that I don't procreate, which you could do by shooting me but as I'm not going to anyway that would be a bit superfluous. I'm going to die anyway in a comparatively short amount of time so there's very little need to accelerate that. If you're trying to minimize suffering you would be better served convincing people not to have children rather than going out and shooting people, which does cause rather a lot of suffering because people who already exist have relationships and things, they can be missed, a person who never existed cannot. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Mar 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If I torture you, then wipe your memory, then leave you be for a day, then torture you again, then wipe your memory again, then give you another day, and I do this for years on end, with the net effect being that you are living in intense suffering, but your inability to build an accurate perspective of your life (because of the selective memory alteration) means you don't perceive it that way, are you or are you not suffering? I would take the position that you are, regardless of whether you are aware of it after the fact. Why do you keep talking as if it's an obvious fact that any given life contains more suffering than non-suffering? How could you possibly even begin to quantify that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why do you keep talking as if it's an obvious fact that any given life contains more suffering than non-suffering? How could you possibly even begin to quantify that? Presumably about as well as you can quantify the opposite. Mostly gut instinct. Though I do think that people trend, near universally, towards cognitively minimizing their suffering, they avoid thinking about it, dwelling on it, discussing it, so at the least, I think it's sensible to assume there is more suffering in the world than there seems like, because everybody tries to hide it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Presumably about as well as you can quantify the opposite. Mostly gut instinct. Gut instincts are about the worst thing you can use as a basis for justifications.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
If you've got a justification for why the world is mostly nice I'd be interested to hear it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
this thread was better when it was about true detective season 2
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you've got a justification for why the world is mostly nice I'd be interested to hear it. Because "suffering" is quite an arbitrary concept, and more or less completely in the eye of the beholder. The fact that people aren't throwing themselves off bridges en mass is a pretty good indicator that they see a net positive in continuing to breath and reproduce. Like, we live in a world where millions of people believe broadband internet is a human right, and that denying people free access to that service is barbaric. Our modern concept of "suffering" is radically different than someone from 25, 50, or 100 years ago. To suggest that now is the time for the species to lay down and die because life is poo poo seems kinda wierd. It's like a specifically bougie ennui. Boguennui? Beaujolais?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Because "suffering" is quite an arbitrary concept, and more or less completely in the eye of the beholder. The fact that people aren't throwing themselves off bridges en mass is a pretty good indicator that they see a net positive in continuing to breath and reproduce. Well, no I'm arguing specifically that the fact that people think their lives are good is not a trustworthy metric, because if people didn't think their lives were worth living they would die, which suggests that the people who are alive are the ones most resistant to believing that their lives aren't worth living, not necessarily that they are the ones with the best lives. Do you think it is more likely that humans have objectively good lives, or simply that they have evolved a cognitive bias to make them incapable of recognizing that their lives are bad? While still experiencing pain constantly? And as you say, suffering is arbitrary, or at least relative, to use your internet example, before the internet existed, people relied on different forms of communication, now our society relies quite heavily on telecommunications, and to be excluded from that is now to be excluded from a quite significant aspect of society. So saying "you have internet you can't be sad" is about as sensible as saying "you own a television you can't be poor" because it ignores the fact that the commodities serve functions in people's lives and because they are available, society has changed so that those functions are not easily met in other ways. And thus the deprivation can cause suffering.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
Namtab posted:I'm going to have sex For the sake of this topic, anime bodypillows don't count
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well, no I'm arguing specifically that the fact that people think their lives are good is not a trustworthy metric, because if people didn't think their lives were worth living they would die, which suggests that the people who are alive are the ones most resistant to believing that their lives aren't worth living, not necessarily that they are the ones with the best lives. Do you think it is more likely that humans have objectively good lives, or simply that they have evolved a cognitive bias to make them incapable of recognizing that their lives are bad? While still experiencing pain constantly? "Objectively good lives" is an irrational concept, especially if your measurement is something as nebulous as "suffering". Does a "brain in a jar" that experiences no pain and only constant bliss have an "objectively good life"? Why is coping with or rationalizing pain a universal negative? Maybe learning to deal with suffering and adversity is actually key to having a good, resilient worldview. One that leads to a "good life" and some deeper sense of happiness or satisfaction beyond simple comfort.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
I killed the environment with one shot and thus twins were made. Furthermore...
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 20:16
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
LogisticEarth posted:"Objectively good lives" is an irrational concept, especially if your measurement is something as nebulous as "suffering". Or perhaps all of that is after-the-fact justification to align your ability to think and philosophize with your overriding, animal instinct to not die above all else. You don't really have much way of knowing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you've got a justification for why the world is mostly nice I'd be interested to hear it. Well then you'll need to ask somebody who actually made that claim.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Well then you'll need to ask somebody who actually made that claim. Well it does kind of have to be one or the other.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well, no I'm arguing specifically that the fact that people think their lives are good is not a trustworthy metric, because if people didn't think their lives were worth living they would die, which suggests that the people who are alive are the ones most resistant to believing that their lives aren't worth living, not necessarily that they are the ones with the best lives. Do you think it is more likely that humans have objectively good lives, or simply that they have evolved a cognitive bias to make them incapable of recognizing that their lives are bad? While still experiencing pain constantly? But that's circular logic. Specifically, it's the fallacy of Begging the Question . You're assuming with the premise that suffering is universal and constant, and rationalizing how everyone isn't killing themselves based off of that, which then justifies your premise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:But that's circular logic. Specifically, it's the fallacy of Begging the Question . You're assuming with the premise that suffering is universal and constant, and rationalizing how everyone isn't killing themselves based off of that, which then justifies your premise. My actual position would be that you can't really satisfactorily know which case is true, and that this uncertainty should give you very serious pause when it comes to thinking whether or not you should reproduce. The unknowability is why I definitely don't suggest you should kill yourself or other people because of it, because killing people does have some very definite badness associated with it. But not creating life? That's far more grey. I'm stating it from the assumption that suffering is more prevalent than its opposite (whatever that is) so that I can illustrate the argument from that premise, I can't prove the premise, you're correct, my argument is that you should have a lot of reason to think that whether the premise is correct is actually unknowable, even for your own life. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Mar 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Or perhaps all of that is after-the-fact justification to align your ability to think and philosophize with your overriding, animal instinct to not die above all else. If you ditch your dualistic premise of a discrete "animal" instinct and "rational" mind, this falls apart. It's the same "after the fact rationalizing" by our sapient mind that equates bodily and mental discomfort with "suffering" in the first place. The "rational" concept of suffering is rooted in the same instinctual directive to "not die" as is the ability to cope. And again, what is an "objectively good life"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:If you ditch your dualistic premise of a discrete "animal" instinct and "rational" mind, this falls apart. It's the same "after the fact rationalizing" by our sapient mind that equates bodily and mental discomfort with "suffering" in the first place. The "rational" concept of suffering is rooted in the same instinctual directive to "not die" as is the ability to cope. If. LogisticEarth posted:And again, what is an "objectively good life"? One which does not require cognitive bias to be recognized as such. It is not the perfect word to describe it but I lack a better one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well it does kind of have to be one or the other. Sure, but that doesn't mean I have to claim I know or even believe which it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Sure, but that doesn't mean I have to claim I know or even believe which it is. No, but knowing that, or not knowing that, or which is correct, is very pertinent to the question posed in the thread, and any attempt to answer it, I think, must address the question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No, but knowing that, or not knowing that, or which is correct, is very pertinent to the question posed in the thread, and any attempt to answer it, I think, must address the question. Sure, but you can't just assume one or the other because you have a "gut feeling". You should have actual good reasoning if you're going to make that sort of claim.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
As I said, my position is primarily that you really can't know satisfactorily, that there is a prevalent cognitive bias among humans that suggests that it is worse than it seems, whatever that is, and personally it doesn't seem super good to me. You can disagree with the last bit if you want but the rest, I think, holds. It's not a complete answer but I think it should formulate part of your own personal answer to the question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
There's a whole other group of problems if you assume a dualistic mind, but I'm phoneposting and don't want to dig into that right now. OwlFancier posted:One which does not require cognitive bias to be recognized as such. But this is a circular argument for reasons already pointed out. Tying it back into the original question of the thread, if you hold that: 1) "Suffering" is not an objective, universal, or measurable concept. 2) Whether you call it "cognitive bias", or simply learning to cope", people can be content within their own experience despite pain or adversity. 3) That, given #2, most people decide that life is worth living for their own reasons, and due to #1, you can't objectively tell them that they're wrong. Then procreating is not that ethically controversial. Most people cope, and in the end, coping is sort of a personal responsibility anyway. You're not forcing the decision to experience life on someone, but merely giving them the decision in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:As I said, my position is primarily that you really can't know satisfactorily, that there is a prevalent cognitive bias among humans that suggests that it is worse than it seems, whatever that is, and personally it doesn't seem super good to me. Even if it's worse than it seems that doesn't mean that it is still bad enough to justify saying that life isn't worth creating without a more concrete understanding of exactly how much worse it is than the average person might think. This is even granting that people do in fact underestimate how much suffering they experience, which is also an unfounded assertion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:There's a whole other group of problems if you assume a dualistic mind, but I'm phoneposting and don't want to dig into that right now. If, as I posit, there is an optimisitc bias present in a majority of people, this interferes with their ability to make accurate judgements. Again use my example from earlier, if I torture you a lot and then give you amnesia, does that make the torture not immoral and does it erase the suffering you experienced during it? Does it undo the fact that you lived in suffering for that time? Is suffering bad because people experiencing it is bad or is it bad because people remember that it's bad? If I kill people who suffer does that mean I have done a good thing because now they don't, and that undid the time when they did? The only way suffering makes sense to me is if it is bad because it is experienced, entirely irrespective of what we think about it afterwards. So from that, I must view optimistic bias as a method of preventing people from making accurate decisions about their level of suffering. And again, if this is a thing that almost everyone has, which I think it is, then I'm not "giving someone the choice" as to whether they want to live or not, because nobody is capable of making that choice properly. Or rather, whether they want to live does not correlate with how much they suffer, it is entirely possible for someone to live a life primarily full of suffering, serving no purpose, and dying afterwards, while still thinking it's a good thing all the while. To any observer who could accurately perceive that life, it would be barbaric, but because nobody can, we permit it. I am positing that if this optimistic bias exists, it is entirely possible for humanity to be a kind of perpetual engine of misery, constantly propagating itself because it is pathologically incapable of establishing an accurate concept of its own suffering. And we wouldn't know about it. Who What Now posted:Even if it's worse than it seems that doesn't mean that it is still bad enough to justify saying that life isn't worth creating without a more concrete understanding of exactly how much worse it is than the average person might think. This is even granting that people do in fact underestimate how much suffering they experience, which is also an unfounded assertion. My belief in an optimistic bias is entirely based on personal observation so obviously I can't prove that to you, you will have to make that decision for yourself. And it does indeed depend on how generally unpleasant you perceive the world to be. You can also decide that for yourself. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Mar 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Or perhaps there is a pessimistic bias and your mind is actually causing you to believe you're more miserable than you think you are because avoiding negative stimuli is how you survive and adapt as an organism, and your mind makes you believe you're suffering more than you actually are to goad you into taking actions that enhance your prospects for survival. Perhaps humanity is a perpetual engine of happiness and satisfaction, and life is full of ups and down but is overall a pleasing and worthwhile experience that should be treasured during it's brief duration. Perhaps the tendency for internet dwelling misanthropes to believe otherwise is the real pathology.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
It would be nice to think so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
If I hold someone's hand over a stove but then give them a cookie afterward I'm still an rear end in a top hat no matter how much pleasure that cookie gives them. Similarly, if I force a conscious being into an existence where they inevitably will suffer but also have at best a chance of enjoyment, I'm an rear end in a top hat for the same reason. Pleasure does not cancel out pain, the chance of joy does not counter the certainty of suffering. Propagating sapient life is ethically indefensible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:If I hold someone's hand over a stove but then give them a cookie afterward I'm still an rear end in a top hat no matter how much pleasure that cookie gives them. Similarly, if I force a conscious being into an existence where they inevitably will suffer but also have at best a chance of enjoyment, I'm an rear end in a top hat for the same reason. Pleasure does not cancel out pain, the chance of joy does not counter the certainty of suffering. Propagating sapient life is ethically indefensible. Wrong. Small moments of happiness easily outweigh suffering otherwise we'd all kill our selves. So at that point you forcing that life to not enjoy those moments is ethically indefensible. Edit: actually I take that back as no one should be forced to procreate. However forcing someone not to is loving ridiculously horrible
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:Wrong. Small moments of happiness easily outweigh suffering otherwise we'd all kill our selves. So at that point you forcing that life to not enjoy those moments is ethically indefensible. Wrong. The presence of pain is bad, the absence of joy is neutral at worst. If I choose not to have a child and thus deprive that potential child of joy, no harm is being done - not least because they never exist. If, however, I choose to have a child it is a certainty that they will suffer and thus harm is done, which cannot be canceled out by the presence of whatever joy they might or might not experience.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:If I hold someone's hand over a stove but then give them a cookie afterward I'm still an rear end in a top hat no matter how much pleasure that cookie gives them. Similarly, if I force a conscious being into an existence where they inevitably will suffer but also have at best a chance of enjoyment, I'm an rear end in a top hat for the same reason. Pleasure does not cancel out pain, the chance of joy does not counter the certainty of suffering. Propagating sapient life is ethically indefensible. If I give you a life saving vaccine you will suffer because it requires poking you with a needle. So does this make every doctor on the same moral level as Mengele?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 17:54 |
|
|
TomViolence posted:Wrong. The presence of pain is bad, the absence of joy is neutral at worst. If I choose not to have a child and thus deprive that potential child of joy, no harm is being done - not least because they never exist. If, however, I choose to have a child it is a certainty that they will suffer and thus harm is done, which cannot be canceled out by the presence of whatever joy they might or might not experience. Prove to me all pain is bad. Suffering can actually be really good for you!
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:57
|
|