|
I just can't stand kids, OP, and would be quite happy to never encounter them again for the rest of my adulthood if that were possible.
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2021 01:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 23:45 |
|
|
When you think about it, abstaining from childrearing is the only real form of rebellion against capitalism we truly have: breaking the chain of Number Go Up by not willingly adding another person to the great meat grinder. Witness all the breathless thinkpieces fretting about the replacement rate across the political spectrum.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2021 23:21
|
|
|
My toaster doesn't need to feel pleasure nor pain, or anything at all. It is a toaster, a tool for burning bread, nothing more. The same applies to all machines we build or will build. Humans are not machines because we can't manufacture more with sapience or pain/pleasure detection disabled. It's a complete apples to oranges comparison.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2021 15:09
|
|
|
What is the point of creating an artificial being that feels at all, beyond research purposes? A computer has sensors that can detect abnormalities and automatically stop operation until repaired, they don't need pain or the qualia of suffering to accomplish that task. People bond to dumb chatbots for psychological comfort just fine. Mass production of self-aware and especially feeling AI would be incredibly inefficient and obviously cruel.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2021 17:30
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:It's kinda just what we do, regardless of what you put after this (including children, to circle back to the origin topic) That's why I specified "other than research purposes". Self-aware AI is unnecessary, even dangerous, for real world applications. They're machines, we don't need their opinions or navel gazing, we need them to just do their drat tasks with a minimal of fuss. That's the whole point of inventing machines in the first place: to streamline and relieve human labor.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2021 17:37
|
|
|
enki42 posted:If humans have a biological urge to procreate and spread, and they accomplish that goal, how is that any less an authentic experience than anything else you're going to do in life. Your right to relieve stress through punching ends where my nose begins; your right to swig a beer ends at the moment you plow your car into me. The difference is that procreating, by definition, requires bringing a sapient being into existence that didn't before, without its consent to do so. If your reason for doing so is to score a dopamine hit for fulfilling an instinctive urge, then ultimately all you have done is selfishly pushed your own suffering off onto someone else. And before you start talking natural urges are fine to fulfill, what about my natural urge to assault my neighbor for not returning my weedwhacker? We as a society have already decided we accept an abrogation of certain base urges to keep society overall from descending into violent barbarism, even in the most permissive anarchist models.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2021 23:13
|
|
|
Why do people think declining birth rate is a bad thing? Yeah, the current cause might suck, but what if we just improve material conditions while instating policies to disincentivise births?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2021 05:04
|
|
|
Beelzebufo posted:I mena, births below replacement aren't good longterm for society or the species. Replacement rate is good though. On a moral level though, why should people not have more kids if they want them. If you remove economic coersion from society and found that birth rates trended up, what do you do? Coerce people in some other way not to have kids? How is that more just? A transhumanist would say it would be more moral to try and figure out immortality rather than continue to rely on perpetuating a cycle of non-consenual existence and death.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2021 05:11
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:It's also all still psudo-intellectual nonsense too because we're trying to moralize reproduction, something that is necessary to life, while also barely defining what moral or morality means here. It seems to just be a vague "suffering is bad" so no one should have kids because they might suffer. But that's not very well defined and really doesn't say anything about the morality of having a child. Honestly it's almost narcissistic to say that if you have a child you then hold a responsibility for any and all suffering that person ever experiences. What an outsized ego to think you have any control over the flow of time or the random happenstance that makes up life. I personally hold my parents responsible for all the suffering I've had to endure and continue to endure, yes.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2021 18:50
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AP/status/1389800020409561089 I will never understand natalist pearl clutching. If people don't want to ruin the rest of their lives by creating ungrateful little parasites, who are we to say that's wrong?
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2021 09:11
|
|
|
What is?
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2021 23:48
|
|
|
Beelzebufo posted:Why? Why is suffering bad? Reported as a psychotic sadist.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2021 23:59
|
|
|
Beelzebufo posted:If nothing has meaning, why does the subjective qualia of suffering carry any weight? Why, absent meaning-making, does your or anyone else's suffering, carry ethical connotations? It's bad when I suffer, it's good when people I don't like suffer.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2021 00:05
|
|
|
Mulva posted:What argument, that people that really believed what they were saying would eat a loving bullet? This is a bit off topic, but just to be clear though I have no interest in it myself, I am also an advocate for broad self-euthanasia rights and destigmatization thereof. gently caress anyone who condescendingly throws a loving phone number at anyone who voices even vaguely end-of-lifey concerns. Have some respect for people's personal choices and life situation, christ.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2021 07:07
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 23:45 |
|
|
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
|
|