|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:no one is arguing with you about broad bodily autonomy, including the right to autoeuthanize, which appears to be generally supported throughout this forum (or subforum, at least). Great, so we've successfully debated and discussed. Having children is fine, but you must make accessible exits for it to be ethical. Close the thread I guess.
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 03:42 |
|
|
Byzantine posted:Trying to puzzle out the rules of greater ethics and the meaning of meaning is overdoing it, imo, when the real crux is that the immediate future is loving bleak. Having a kid now just means they'll come of age right after the fifth once-in-a-century economic collapse and be stuck making $2.13/day in balmy Alaska. This here is pretty much my reasoning. Why invite someone over when your house is on fire? Personally, I think this described future is quite a bit too optimistic. I find it perplexing why anyone would deliberately try to have children, my friends with kids describe it as an unending hell that they love for some indescribable reason.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 19:14
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:This here is pretty much my reasoning. Why invite someone over when your house is on fire? Personally, I think this described future is quite a bit too optimistic. At the risk of sounding  people evolved to love their kids so they wouldn't just throw them at the nearest bear.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 19:29
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:I find it perplexing why anyone would deliberately try to have children, my friends with kids describe it as an unending hell that they love for some indescribable reason. hear, hear, fellow goon! This "love" is an ineffable and hideous emotion! Do your friends not know that loving their children eats into valuable time for the betterment of one's soul, such as watching their favorite vtubers play danganronpa?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 19:42
|
|
|
children???? in MY forum????? I think not! that would take away from my busy schedule of hate reading things
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 19:47
|
|
|
Vasukhani posted:mayhaps it is in fact quite hard to reliably kill yourself. I'm sure in 20 years you will say you've always supported bodily autonomy, but I guess its still too progressive right now It's super easy to kill yourself reliably. Especially if you have the internet, like you do. Reminder: I'm not making a wider point, I'm saying if you, personally, believed what you were saying you'd kill yourself. As you are still shitposting, you don't. Which makes everything you are saying tedious. Note: Not saying go kill yourself. I'm saying stop pretending you actually believe what you are saying. You don't, you are just pissing and moaning in a corner. Mulva fucked around with this message at 22:12 on May 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 22:07
|
|
|
So to be a Real antinatalist, I need to have a vasectomy yesterday, got it. I mean, yeah I should do that anyway, but that's the point you seem to be making: no one can be a good faith advocate of a position unless they personally live that position's logical extremes themselves.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 22:21
|
|
|
Strawberry Pyramid posted:So to be a Real antinatalist, I need to have a vasectomy yesterday, got it. The "extremes" of doing literally anything but talking about it, yes. If the extent of your beliefs is talking about it on the internet, then it's just posturing. You might as well be some loving music nerd going "Yeah, well, I liked them before they were big". You don't care about the thing, you care about being known to care about the thing. We can deduce that fairly easily if you've taken no steps to support the belief, but *have* taken repeated steps to show you have the belief. This shows where the priority lies. If you have any disagreements with that methodology I'd love to hear it.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 22:44
|
|
|
Strawberry Pyramid posted:I mean, yeah I should do that anyway, but that's the point you seem to be making: no one can be a good faith advocate of a position unless they personally live that position's logical extremes themselves. thinking life is suffering (however you define that) and nonexistence and the end of suffering is objectively superior to continued suffering but not killing yourself is an incoherent position and is why everyone thinks you sound like a whiny mall goth. If I thought satiety is superior to hunger and had a sandwich at my disposal, I'd eat the sandwich. If I didn't it's because I had some reason to prefer hunger over satiety: I don't want to gain weight, say. If you think nonexistence is superior to existence and have the ability to end your existence, you'd do so. You don't because there's something stopping you. You can say it's a fear-based part of your suffering, but based on what? Missing out on something cool, actually enjoying your life in a general sense (if you don't want to admit it), whatever -- but guess what! -- death destroys desire, this doesn't hold water by your own logic. If you killed yourself, there'd be no one to care about missing out on something. This is an incredibly tedious argument because people arguing in favor of life = suffering haven't even taken the time to interrogate themselves about their own feelings on the matter, so everyone else has to sit through all of this empty childlike positioning and too-online blackpilled dogshit. It sucks! If you're going to try and make an argument out of this at least make the attempt to bring something interesting or thought-provoking to the table. e: not to mention it's fundamentally very selfish. I enjoy my life but they can't, or won't, or will be prevented from doing so by something or other. Pentecoastal Elites fucked around with this message at 22:59 on May 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 22:57
|
|
|
I mostly keep living not out of hope or zest for life, but as a gleeful act of defiance and spite against those who hate me. The knowledge that every breath I continue to take is a finger in their eye and a stream of warm piss in their cheerios is very personally satisfying.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 23:04
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 23:06
|
|
|
Strawberry Pyramid posted:So to be a Real antinatalist, I need to have a vasectomy yesterday, got it. When your core position is extreme, yes. "All life is inherently suffering and pain and the only reason to live is active spite" is inherently an extreme stance that probably comes from genuine mental illness,
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 23:07
|
|
|
Like I'm not being all internet 'lol you're mentally ill' I'm genuinely saying you should probably be getting checked in on somehow if you're living only for spite
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 23:08
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:Like I'm not being all internet 'lol you're mentally ill' I'm genuinely saying you should probably be getting checked in on somehow if you're living only for spite A reason to live is a reason to live. I don't see how it's any more or less valid a reason just because it personally offends your sensibilities as long as it accomplishes its purpose.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 23:12
|
|
|
Strawberry Pyramid posted:A reason to live is a reason to live. I don't see how it's any more or less valid a reason just because it personally offends your sensibilities as long as it accomplishes its purpose. well aside from being just a genuinely kinda tragic thing to see I'd argue a negative reason to live is much less stable than a positive, considering that kinda hinges on weird outside perception stuff rather than a focus on yourself.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 23:14
|
|
|
Strawberry Pyramid posted:I mostly keep living not out of hope or zest for life, but as a gleeful act of defiance and spite against those who hate me. The knowledge that every breath I continue to take is a finger in their eye and a stream of warm piss in their cheerios is very personally satisfying. Who hates you? Why do they hate you? Why does it satisfy you?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 23:17
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Who hates you? Why do they hate you? Why does it satisfy you? Because I was born. It satisfies me because they're terrible people who deserve to suffer as much as possible. That's all it really boils down to.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 23:19
|
|
|
Strawberry Pyramid posted:Because I was born. It satisfies me because they're terrible people who deserve to suffer as much as possible. That's all it really boils down to. Are your parents anti-natalists?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 23:21
|
|
|
Strawberry Pyramid posted:Because I was born. It satisfies me because they're terrible people who deserve to suffer as much as possible. That's all it really boils down to. I think it's out of the scope of this thread, but I would like to join the several other people here who are urging you to please seek professional help and spend a good chunk of time reflecting on these deep feelings of hatred inside of you, where they come from, why they exist, what compels you to stay so attached to such feelings of negativity, and what possible strategies you could take to cope and transform this profound energy into something more productive and personally fulfilling. People who confess to extreme negative feelings like yourself often embark on dangerous and destructive paths in life - both to themselves and possibly to others. See Seung-Hui Cho, Elliot Rodger and others.There's time to get off of this path if you take action. Best of luck to you, I genuinely hope for the best for you. 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 23:38
|
|
|
Mulva posted:It's super easy to kill yourself reliably. Especially if you have the internet, like you do. Reminder: I'm not making a wider point, I'm saying if you, personally, believed what you were saying you'd kill yourself. As you are still shitposting, you don't. Which makes everything you are saying tedious. "drat, you support abortion yet had kids? guess you're a hypocrit"
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2021 04:04
|
|
|
The issue of birth ethics is entirely negated simply by giving humans actually freedom of choice, again unless you think the body belongs to the state/god/whatever and not the human
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2021 04:09
|
|
|
Great, nobody was talking about that and nobody probably disagrees. Feel like eating a bullet yet?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2021 04:15
|
|
|
Mulva posted:Great, nobody was talking about that and nobody probably disagrees. Feel like eating a bullet yet? ? quote:Disease & Disaster > Do you think reproducing is morally/logically/ethically wrong? ???? it's literally the thread topic? And you don't disagree? wisconsingreg fucked around with this message at 04:24 on May 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2021 04:21
|
|
|
Strawberry Pyramid posted:I mostly keep living not out of hope or zest for life, but as a gleeful act of defiance and spite against those who hate me. The knowledge that every breath I continue to take is a finger in their eye and a stream of warm piss in their cheerios is very personally satisfying. This all seems incredibly unlikey... on several levels.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2021 13:06
|
|
|
good(?) news (?) it looks like we will need to keep thinking about this, new research suggests that fertility decline has been greatly exaggerated https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14647273.2021.1917778?src= Richardson and her colleagues found that earlier research claimed causal links between declining sperm counts and declining fertility, as well as between exposures to certain environmental chemicals and lower sperm counts. The GenderSci Lab researchers found that neither of these assumptions are supported by scientific or geographic evidence.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 19:18
|
|
|
Yes, the previous reports were based on meta-analysis only, with a bias towards Europe and the US, and they claimed just hasn't held up to scrutiny. Which is not saying that the plastics industry isn't exposing people to dangerous chemicals, but the scientist who was peddling this was pushing a book that claim that you could increase your chances of conceiving by removing things like vinyl shower curtains from your house, so she wasn't really interested in science policy, more pop-size as consumerism which was reflected in her book and the book tour she did.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 20:12
|
|
|
wait so are the frogs turning gay, or not
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 08:58
|
|
|
Cabbages and Kings posted:wait so are the frogs turning gay, or not rumors of frog gayness may be better explained by the frog getting a career and going to college, deciding not to lay eggs
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 15:49
|
|
|
Strawberry Pyramid posted:I mostly keep living not out of hope or zest for life, but as a gleeful act of defiance and spite against those who hate me. The knowledge that every breath I continue to take is a finger in their eye and a stream of warm piss in their cheerios is very personally satisfying. People who actually hate you don't really care that you continue to exist as long as you don't have any material impact on their lives. You just become someone fun to talk about when you're not around and they're probably getting more laughs out of your existence than any negative feelings. Please consider seeking help as a spite filled existence will only end in tragedy and it probably won't be a tragedy for just you.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 23:03
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:Trying to puzzle out the rules of greater ethics and the meaning of meaning is overdoing it, imo, when the real crux is that the immediate future is loving bleak. Having a kid now just means they'll come of age right after the fifth once-in-a-century economic collapse and be stuck making $2.13/day in balmy Alaska. This is my general reason not to except I think it's way worse and mammals are pretty much done by the end of this century. That said, I also think that civilization is bad, and bad for us, and therefore that it is always immoral for civilized sentients to reproduce. Even the term, reproduction, captures the pitilessly machinistic lens through which civilization understands the world. -posted using smoke signals from a hut in the woods-
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2021 14:37
|
|
|
The world is a vampire
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:That said, I also think that civilization is bad, and bad for us, and therefore that it is always immoral for civilized sentients to reproduce. Even the term, reproduction, captures the pitilessly machinistic lens through which civilization understands the world. What is "civilization"? Are hunter-gatherers not civilized? Are the seasonal settlements of slash-and-burn agriculturalists not civilized? Is the production of tools not a civilized behavior? The coastal areas of the Pacific Northwest were such abundant places, fed by the great upwelling of deep ocean nutrients surged up from the depths by the westerly flow of the wind, that they allowed gatherers to produce complex hierarchical societies despite not having agriculture. We have evidence for this in the massive shell-mounds that they left behind. Are they civilized or uncivilized?  This is a village in the highlands of New Guinea. People have been living in these areas for something like 40,000 years, cultivating taro and digging incredible stepped terraces in order to feed populations of thousands. They did this with Paleolithic technology. Are they civilized or uncivilized?  This was made by a person some 21-35,000 years ago. Is this not a product of a civilized human being, with the ability to imagine, plan, create tools and implements from nature, think abstractly, and render those abstract concepts into a representation in the world? My point here in asking these rhetorical questions is to say that there's no distinct boundary that makes up "civilization" and some mythical, imagined pre-agricultural existence. Archaeological evidence shows that hunter-gatherers and agriculturalists coexisted for hundreds, if not thousands of years. In fact, it seems that hunter-gathering and farming were mutual activities - people who lived in areas where agriculture was favored tended to settle into agricultural villages as part of a gradual tendency, starting with creating seasonal storehouses and progressing to permanent villages. They traded with their pastoralist and hunter-gatherer neighbors who lived in the more marginal areas where agriculture was unfavorable. We have been making tools, observing the world around us, making inferences, deliberately planning where to live and what to do with our environment for as long as we have been human - and even far before genus Homo even existed. Even pre-agricultural tribes intensely modified and altered natural landscapes to better suit their needs - isn't literal terraforming an act of civilization? To wish to hearken back to a pre-civilized era is to wish to eradicate that which makes us human, and to point at pre-industrial or pre-agricultural peoples as "better off because they are uncivilized" is to accept the same 19th century Imperialist framing that led to their decimation, and moreover to erase their essential humanity.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2021 21:05
|
|
|
Humanity existed just fine for hundreds of thousands of years at a -lithic level of technology. The Agricultural Revolution was about twelve thousand years ago. That marked the start of our collective dehumanization and calling it "civilized". Reduction of population and letting go of our modern trappings and vapid distractions back to the state we evolved to optimally exist in is the only viable long-term path for humanity. Anything else will result in our accelerated extinction, just unwilling rather than willing.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2021 21:21
|
|
|
Strawberry Pyramid posted:back to the state we evolved to optimally exist This is blindly accepting primitivist rhetoric and "Noble Savage" myths at face-value. Evidence shows that we evolved and are continuing to evolve since the wide-spread adoption of agriculture. You can see another example in the evolution of lactose tolerance, which wouldn't have happened prior to settled agriculture. It's plainly unscientific to claim a state of "optimal evolution", because evolution is a constant process. DrSunshine fucked around with this message at 22:10 on May 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2021 21:33
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:This is blindly accepting primitivst rhetoric and "Noble Savage" myths at face-value. Evidence shows that we evolved and are continuing to evolve since the wide-spread adoption of agriculture. You can see another example in the evolution of lactose tolerance, which wouldn't have happened prior to settled agriculture. What about the "fact" we care most about people close to us because we're just not designed to operate in a globalized world order where we are connected to people on the other side of the planet? We naturally care most for our family or community above all else because of evolution and that's how humans were for most of our existence? I'm honestly curious since I see this a lot but I know nothing about science.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2021 21:53
|
|
|
Dunbar's number is mostly pop-sci nonsense, Wikipedia posted:CriticismEdit Also, humans don't share most of their genetic code with their sisters like eusocial insects do, so there's no selection pressure towards "caring" about people outside of the group that ensures your survival and enhanced your chances of passing on genes. Humans do have the ability to abstractly reason other motivations for actions though (see nationalism/group identification), to the point of sacrificing their own lives/chances at passing on genes, so if anything humans show a strange pull away from what pure evolutionary pressure would seem to push towards. Also, Given that agriculture appeared independently as behaviors on multiple locations across the planet (as did pastoralism), there's was obviously a selection pressure away from Hunter gatherer social orders in the past.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2021 22:06
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:What about the "fact" we care most about people close to us because we're just not designed to operate in a globalized world order where we are connected to people on the other side of the planet? We naturally care most for our family or community above all else because of evolution and that's how humans were for most of our existence? If you take like middle of the bell-curve levels of empathy, people feel empathy for complete strangers on the opposite side of the planet very readily (and to an extent that idk how someone would even try to explain with ev bio or w/e beyond just acknowledging that people are essentially hard wired to feel empathy). I think the bigger issue there is that it's clearly easy to stoke xenophobic sentiment and inhibit that normal level of empathy or to shelter people from humanizing exposure to remote people affected by our choices or actions.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2021 22:07
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:What about the "fact" we care most about people close to us because we're just not designed to operate in a globalized world order where we are connected to people on the other side of the planet? We naturally care most for our family or community above all else because of evolution and that's how humans were for most of our existence? Well, obviously it's a work in progress! The physiological changes that made us able to thrive from eating grain and drinking milk are probably faster, and occurred earlier in our history, than the ones which are presently making our brains bad at caring about the wellbeing of humans we don't know about, or thinking and planning on a civilizational scale. But I would argue that this kind of evolution is happening and visible now. What is the rise of attitudes of despair and deep empathy applied across an entire civilization, especially among the young, like Greta Thunberg, but a form of natural selection bringing into existence a race of more caring, more selfless, more far-seeing humans? EDIT: And yeah, this: Beelzebufo posted:Humans do have the ability to abstractly reason other motivations for actions though (see nationalism/group identification), to the point of sacrificing their own lives/chances at passing on genes, so if anything humans show a strange pull away from what pure evolutionary pressure would seem to push towards. We can and do see humans being empathic towards others on scales undreamed about. ISIS was able to recruit people living nowhere near Syria or Iraq. Animal rights activists demonstrate that human beings are even able to feel empathy towards and display selfless behavior towards creatures that aren't even able to communicate with or understand us. If archaeological and anthropological studies are any indication, the high rate of mortality among hunter-gatherer societies is due to war with neighboring groups. If we reset the clock, we might end up finding out that a future nomadic forager society would be more violent than our current existence than less. All of the problems we currently see with nationalism and xenophobia, and strange cults forming due to information echo-chambers, would become magnified and shrunk down. Imagine if in your whole life, all your peers in your world are a single small neighborhood Facebook group, with no input from the outside world. Could you imagine what kind of echo-chamber your society would be if all you had to go on was the wisdom passed down by your grandparents? Suddenly rather than the "others" being some group of people living across the world, far away, the "others" are the tribe right next door. Rather than the adversary nation being separate from your nation by an ocean, the adversary nation would be the next hill over. DrSunshine fucked around with this message at 22:24 on May 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2021 22:08
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:What about the "fact" we care most about people close to us because we're just not designed to operate in a globalized world order where we are connected to people on the other side of the planet? We naturally care most for our family or community above all else because of evolution and that's how humans were for most of our existence? Seems like if any of that was true then as the world got more crowed violence and stuff would go up and up and up. But both at a group level (war) and a personal level (murder) people have been pretty steadily being better and better at getting along peacefully for centuries. The more people are the nicer we get, apparently.  
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2021 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 03:42 |
|
|
The only reason war stopped is we built weapons powerful and all-consuming enough to trip enough people’s self-preservation instincts. Good thing there’s nothing on the horizon that might make people desperate enough to risk it anyway
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2021 23:25
|
|
