|
Children are the key to immortality. If you don't breed then you are a genetic dead end. Who wants to completely vanish when they die? Having kids should be a basic human right. Population has driven all forms of technology, art, and other forms of human progress.
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 07:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 21:21 |
|
|
This feels like one of those threads where the OP is going to gently caress it up and get it gassed before page three. Prove me wrong, OP. Anyway having children is not a thing anyone ever needed to justify in the first place. Justify to who?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 07:55
|
|
|
Admiral Bosch posted:No. Don't have children. It doesn't matter, because someone else will. Suffering will continue to perpetuate. lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 08:08
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:Well the whole continuation of the species thing is kind of important. Is it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:I would no poo poo get a vasectomy if I could arrange it. Vasectomies own.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
TerminalSaint posted:Is it? It's certainly a basic biological drive. That doesn't mean it's ontologically "important," but if we're going to look at humanity through a strictly materialist lens, doing what we're programmed to do at our deepest levels can be considered pretty important.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
it's not, but also please get help OP
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
Leroy Diplowski posted:Children are the key to immortality. If you don't breed then you are a genetic dead end. Who wants to completely vanish when they die? Not the part of the population that tends to reproduce anymore. Patent holders, Phds, and other people with strong signifiers of 'intelligence' are less likely to have kids. Also, there is a measurable pressure driving down average IQ, longevity, and general health (IQ is still improving worldwide though due to better nutrition and access to food amongst other things). I don't know a single guy with a phd that hasn't gotten a vasectomy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
I think our species is going to die within 30-40 years and I don't really want to bring in more victims of that, OP
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
TerminalSaint posted:Is it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Blockade posted:I don't know a single guy with a phd that hasn't gotten a vasectomy. Sounds like they're not very smart then, eh? Joking aside, I think it's a bit if a fallacy to equate PhDs with intelligence, and despair that we are doomed to a rising tide of stupidity. Dedication to navigating the world of academia for a decade with dubious personal payoff doesn't actually mean you're the best and the brightest. Huge numbers of intelligent people escew graduate degrees because they have other priorities. Hell, I know farmers who know more about biology, business, and mechanical trades than I ever will, and I know professors who are so far up their own rear end they haven't made any worthwhile contributions to the knowledge base in decades. We have children because there is no other option. Is it unethical to bring someone into a world of adversity, if the alternative is non-existence? No. 95% of all human existence through history has been poo poo. The whole human story is about being thrust into a world of poo poo and trying to overcome it. Maybe it's a Sisyphean task, but I think there is more triumph than tragedy in making an attempt. LogisticEarth fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Of course it's justifiable. Given the unstoppable momentum of the forces quickening the end of the world, I personally wouldn't bring new life into it knowing that it could potentially end in their lifetime, but I'm not about to decide if that decision is right for someone else or not. It's almost a coping mechanism for me that when I see the world "failing" for lack of a better word, I can tell myself that I only need to worry about myself and not how a future generation carrying my genes will survive the Thunderdome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Deified Data posted:but I'm not about to decide if that decision is right for someone else or not. given the availability and reliability of contraceptive methods, you make this decision for another person when you choose not to use them
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
There are so many children without parents already. Adoption just seems so much kinder than having your own children.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Who exactly are we supposed to justify this to?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
You don't need another person around in order to decide whether a thing is just or not, but I would suggest that in this instance "your prospective kid" would be a good start.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You don't need another person around in order to decide whether a thing is just or not, but I would suggest that in this instance "your prospective kid" would be a good start. And if my prospective kid wants to be born?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
I like living and I'm glad to be alive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:And if my prospective kid wants to be born? something which doesn't exist doesn't want anything op
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:something which doesn't exist doesn't want anything op By that same logic I don't need to justify anything to them either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:And if my prospective kid wants to be born? Well I would suggest that humans aren't actually fit to make that decision about themselves because of our survival instincts, people, as far as I can tell, will attempt to cognitively minimize their own suffering, subsisting on a seemingly unfounded sense of positivism and optimism. People try to forget or explain away the bad in their lives but it doesn't stop them experiencing it, only preventing them from acting to remedy it, personally I feel like this is a post-hoc rationalization for our in-built instinct to not die, but whatever the cause I think the effect is fairly plain. And while you can make many good arguments against killing people "for their own good", I don't think any of them really apply to not creating people in the first place. Not having children is ethical where involuntary euthanasia is not. Also, like, you can't ask your kid so you shouldn't assume they'd be fine with it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Who exactly are we supposed to justify this to? somethingawful.com forums
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
No. The human species must end. The sooner the better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Is mandatory sterilization ethical as well?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Is mandatory sterilization ethical as well? Ethics are a human invention. No humans = no problem, hth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Personally I like living but Im really hosed up and I can understand that most people wouldnt want that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Joking aside, I think it's a bit if a fallacy to equate PhDs with intelligence, and despair that we are doomed to a rising tide of stupidity. Dedication to navigating the world of academia for a decade with dubious personal payoff doesn't actually mean you're the best and the brightest. Huge numbers of intelligent people escew graduate degrees because they have other priorities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Is mandatory sterilization ethical as well? In a vacuum, arguably, but not as it's overwhelmingly practiced. And trying it species-wide would probably not actually be achievable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Is mandatory sterilization ethical as well? For op, yes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:In a vacuum, arguably, but not as it's overwhelmingly practiced. And trying it species-wide would probably not actually be achievable. What's your reasoning that justifies violating people's bodily autonomy against their will?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:What's your reasoning that justifies violating people's bodily autonomy against their will? 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. 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. You could also make a somewhat awkward argument that creating life itself is a violation of the bodily autonomy of the created individual, or at least that all subsequent suffering can be traced back to the initiation of that life, incurring a degree of fault at that point, but I would probably not lead with that argument as I don't think it's as strong. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Mar 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
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. Is that not every Final Fantasy games villains reason for doing what they do?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
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. You do know that the ultimate conclusion of that logical train is shooting you in the face, right? I mean misery isn't like gravity, it's not some universal truth. If people are too ignorant or deluded to know how poo poo their life is they aren't actually suffering. You on the other hand have openly come out with the statement that living in the world is horrific. So we can't say that sterilizing the world would be an act of mercy, because we can't actually say that any particular future child would suffer, but we can say that you view the world as full of suffering, and thus killing you would reduce the total of suffering in the world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:I like living and I'm glad to be alive. Look at this weirdo everyone
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That procreation produces magnitudes more suffering than violation of bodily autonomy But what if I am Nozick's utility monster made flesh, and human suffering makes me happy? Fortunately as a fan of both not having to deal with infants of my own making GBS threads everywhere as well as human suffering, other people will take care of this conundrum for me lol lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 07:36
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
While I'd like to make the OP feel better about nobody wanting to have sex with him/her, I disagree and think we should still have kids. No more than two I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 07:53
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:eh, some population decline would be a good thing. it would be amazing for blue collar labor if all of a sudden you actually had to hunt for people to work at mcdonalds or wherever instead of just sorting through the first dozen applications in the stack for the best looking candidate Lol if you think "if we just get rid of tons of people, everyone left will have jobs!" is how economies work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 09:28
|
|
|
Mulva posted:You do know that the ultimate conclusion of that logical train is shooting you in the face, right? Crowsbeak posted:Is that not every Final Fantasy games villains reason for doing what they do?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 10:01
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Is that not every Final Fantasy games villains reason for doing what they do? Not entirely. Some of them (Kefka) are just cackling loons who want to remake the world according to their mad whims.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 13:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 21:21 |
|
|
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. How are you objectively measuring suffering and horror here?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 13:29
|
|