Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-23-2013, 07:26 PM
 
6,039 posts, read 6,036,039 times
Reputation: 16753

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lira2 View Post
Are you denying that is there futility and suffering in the world?
I am not.

But there's a whole lot more than that in the world. Sorry you apparently can't see it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-23-2013, 07:28 PM
 
6,039 posts, read 6,036,039 times
Reputation: 16753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorees View Post
@elhelmete

Procreation is immoral whether you accept it or not.

1.It's morally wrong to cause or not to prevent avoidable harm
2.Procreation both causes and does not prevent harm
3.Therefore procreating is immoral
epic logic fail with #2. Sorry!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2013, 10:40 PM
 
878 posts, read 940,613 times
Reputation: 893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annuvin View Post
Hey Tele-Cat,

I recommend you pay close attention and take notes.
I recommend you go back to first grade, brainiac.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2013, 12:17 AM
Status: "81 Years, NOT 91 Felonies" (set 2 days ago)
 
Location: Dallas, TX
5,789 posts, read 3,583,738 times
Reputation: 5687
LOOONG thread!

As for the last third or so of it - dealing with the morality of procreation - one thing is true is that we all should be very careful about considering whether or not to have a child. Examine your own world view, your own risk calculations of acceptability, and keep risks to the lowest reasonable minimum.

I myself sympathize with the antinatalist position but NOT the criminalization of reproduction. I oppose even the mere use of legislation to forbid procreation, not to mention more drastic physical measures. That is the most counterproductive thing I can think of. It's like people of one school of thought forcing their idea of goodness down others throats. Do not place me in the same category as Lorees and others who think like him or her. Everyone has to come to their own decision in this matter, just as everyone has to come to their own decision about abortion, religion, and so forth.

It's true that the probability of all people eventually deciding to call time on the human species via non-procreation is zero for all practical purposes. However, probability and practicality really is just a side issue. The issue is whether an act (or in this case lack thereof) is the moral thing to do for one's self (and, in a manner of speaking, for one's own potential descendants) regardless of whether the rest of humanity eventually decides to follow them in their choice. I myself have decided not to procreate for practically the same reasons (with a few variations and/or subtractions) as the antinatalist crowd on here, and admittedly would like all of us to do the same*, but realize that all we can do is present our reasons and arguments and let others decide. That's all we can do.

*Not completely true, as I am willing to "settle for second best' so to speak, in order to prevent a more horrible kind of suffering decades down the road of any hypothetical immediate cessation of ALL procreation at once. In other words, I'm willing to accept a lesser of two sufferings. That bullet I bite is a would be a worldwide birth rate of between 1.0 and 2.1 children per lifetime per woman, which would continue to supply able bodies capable of maintaining and supporting infrastructure, agriculture, machinery, etc. needed by the much aged population. It may not be ideal (hence "biting the bullet") but it would mean an eventual reduction of the human population to zero in a less painful way than having a whole mass of starving and sick elderly ending up with an agonizing final days (NOTE WELL THAT I only present this as an ideal, for as I said above, I realize there is practically no chance humanity as a whole will accept antinatalism. It is simply something I take on for myself).

As for the suicide comments, the reasons are two-fold but very similar. The core of it all is that we all have a duty to alleviate or prevent pointless suffering to the greatest extent possible (i.e. suffering that is avoidable, insufficiently productive, insufficiently compensatory for the sufferers, and serves no greater purpose than one's own self-benefit)

1) Suicide denies others your future efforts at preventing others suffering (whether direct hands-on volunteer work or buying Fair Trade and Sweat Free goods in addition to boycotting exploitative businesses -- the latter is certainly more effective than merely cessation of sweatshop purchases)

2) Suicidal deaths are much more agonizing for surviving close ones (family and friends) than are natural deaths, or even premature accidental ones. It leads survivors to feel abandoned, betrayed, resentful, and feeling insulted in a particularly degrading way that their love and concern for the person was not enough to keep that person from choosing nonexistence over their companionship and emotional support. So whatever suffering and agony that person's suicide stops is extremely likely to be more than offset by the even greater suffering and agony of close friends and loved ones, for some of them lasting years, if not a lifetime.

Because of these two factors, I would say suicide is legitimate only when there is no realistic hope of ever again being minimally able to endure life for the sake of others.


So it is that while you could call me an antinatalist, mine is not of the militant, freedom-destroying type. All I can do is give reasons for my position and let the other person decide if I'm correct.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2013, 05:46 AM
 
41 posts, read 45,088 times
Reputation: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by sponger42 View Post
This thought process--and that of many people posting in this thread--seems very divergent from the societal norm. If the majority of the world thought this way, there would be no more human race, as procreation levels would be too low to sustain the population.

I do not, and there is plenty of proof that society does not, accept this way of thinking as reasonable, and the conclusions as valid. I believe this is an aberrant mindset resulting from depression. The last statement about the "ultimate protection" sounds eerily similar to statements made by those suffering from postpartum depression.
Why do we have to continue human race?

I am not depressed. I am sure many people here are not depressed.
Life entails suffering. This is an objective fact.
In order to be antinatalist you just need to have empathy for suffering.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2013, 05:50 AM
 
41 posts, read 45,088 times
Reputation: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by elhelmete View Post
epic logic fail with #2. Sorry!
Suffering is real, life entails suffering.Everybody will sufer and die. By procreating you are creating a congenital sufferer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2013, 10:06 AM
 
Location: Bike to Surf!
3,080 posts, read 11,047,634 times
Reputation: 3022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorees View Post
Why do we have to continue human race?
By what measure does the universe define itself without self-aware life forms to appreciate it? The uniqe ability of the human animal to distinguish itself from its environment is the means by which all beauty, art, love, (as well as uglyness, destructiveness, and hate) are created. Without minds to appreciate the universe, it is nothing but a gigantic clockwork in an empty room, winding down to a pointless entropic end.

Having evolved (or been created) as self-aware beings able to look at a sunset and declare it beautiful (have you seen your cat do this?), or hear birdsong and call it musical, we have a duty to perpetuate our species as the yardstick against which the universe can be measured and declared to exist. If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, it does not matter if it makes a sound. If the universe exists but no one appreciates it, it does not matter if it exists.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2013, 10:13 AM
 
878 posts, read 940,613 times
Reputation: 893
Quote:
Originally Posted by sponger42 View Post
By what measure does the universe define itself without self-aware life forms to appreciate it? The uniqe ability of the human animal to distinguish itself from its environment is the means by which all beauty, art, love, (as well as uglyness, destructiveness, and hate) are created. Without minds to appreciate the universe, it is nothing but a gigantic clockwork in an empty room, winding down to a pointless entropic end.

Having evolved (or been created) as self-aware beings able to look at a sunset and declare it beautiful (have you seen your cat do this?), or hear birdsong and call it musical, we have a duty to perpetuate our species as the yardstick against which the universe can be measured and declared to exist. If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, it does not matter if it makes a sound. If the universe exists but no one appreciates it, it does not matter if it exists.
The universe doesn't care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2013, 10:15 AM
 
Location: Bike to Surf!
3,080 posts, read 11,047,634 times
Reputation: 3022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorees View Post
Suffering is real, life entails suffering.Everybody will sufer and die. By procreating you are creating a congenital sufferer.
Life also entails joy. By procreating and taking care of your offspring, you are bringing them happiness.

Someone who believes they are nothing but a "congenital sufferer" for having been born seems to fit the description of someone who is depressed. The balance of your life may have been more suffering than joy, meaning that you are not depressed but rather realistic, but you should recognize that this is not true for everyone else.

How can you count death as a negative if you count life as majority suffering? Death would be celebrated as the end of suffering. Since the majority of people do not welcome death, this would indicate that they enjoy and appreciate their life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2013, 10:22 AM
 
Location: Bike to Surf!
3,080 posts, read 11,047,634 times
Reputation: 3022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tele-Cat View Post
The universe doesn't care.
Glib, but thoughtless.

That is the point. We define both the universe and our purpose in it. If the universe doesn't care, then what is the purpose of eliminating human life? Why does it matter if thin film of green on our little mudball can have a greater diversity of life or be less polluted for the 5 billion years remaining before the Sun scours the life from the surface, without humans?

We care, or most of us do. We want to experience life, and by doing so, define our world. This is a suitable purpose of the existence of humans. Those who do not care whether they live or die, or prefer not to exist, are in the minority. Were they in the majority, humans would cease to exist in a handful of generations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:25 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top