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.
I can only say that for me, the connection between effort / responsibility and control / outcomes is far too flaky for me to look with anything but jaundice on the whole concept. Remarriage is not the only example of hope triumphing over experience. I cannot in good conscience recommend parenting to others as a rational proposition.
Nor -- and this is far more important -- can I commend it as a rational proposition for the children it will produce.
The ultimate outcome of these facts is that I cannot honestly say that I regard the human experiment as worth continuing.
The difference between me and a full-on antinatalist is that I recognize this as my opinion only and I do not see any percentage in doing more than arguing for it at a level that might actually make a difference, which is pretty watered down from "sterilize everyone and bring the race to a screeching halt". Even if I felt it worthwhile to argue for such a thing, I don't feel that it would be right to impose it on others. As such it is a given that it's never going to happen. The human race will not voluntarily stop reproducing. Population density knock-on effects will auto-regulate birth rates, but that's about it.
As I've said before, I really don't have anything against your statements or opinions, because they are just that, and you are aware of this. Your worldview is basically one that you don't believe that humanity is worth continuing, and though I disagree with you, I don't take fault with it, for two reasons...
1) it is based on your personal experiences, which you've shared. Your experiences shape your worldview all the same that mine have shaped mine; neither one of us can apply our worldview to the other, having experienced what we have experienced, and have it still make sense.
If my life was 5x5 and yours was 5x6, it wouldn't be right for me to tell you that 30 is wrong and attempt to force you to make it 25 because that's the sum of my life, and thus 25 is the only correct outcome for life. That's basically what Nill's, and the antinatalist position in general, is.
2) you allow that others have had different experiences not only in having children, but also in being born and growing up. You acknowledge that the bar for the acceptability for everyone's experiences shouldn't be set at the bottom, which is what would happen if the world was run according to Nill/Gafke/Lorelaii's worldview. You are basically too enlightened to be an antinatalist; as you've stated, you are a pragmatist, and you're able to be objective enough to say that while the course that yours and the lives of your children took was not one you'd wish others to take and that you don't view the human condition as being divinely chosen for any higher purpose, you believe that it's wrong to impose that belief on others whose experiences and beliefs dissent from this.
Quote:
Want to have kids? Knock yourself out. Don't say I didn't warn you ;-)
I already have more than a fair deal of insight into what goes into raising children, and all the possible outcomes. I appreciate your concern, though.
Parents commit immorality by bringing children into a world with possibility for harm.They create the window of opportunity for the occurence of harm. Some experience more harm, others experience less harm. But we are all harmed.
Inhuman is the act of imposing the serious burden of life on an innocent entity who couldn't consent the serious risk taken on her behalf to benefit oneself.
Antinatalism isn't about suicide, mass murder, destruction or genocide, it's about the avoidance of the creation of life. You can't destruct something that wasn't created in first place.
We've already been over this. I reject your conclusions and disagree with your opinions on the nature of "suffering," "harm," etc.
Quote:
I am concerned with the well-being of innocent children. Suffering is serious, pain is the most intense feeling, suffering and our duty to prevent it can't be understimated. The injuction to always focus on the good and positives, is often an indifference to suffering.
Pain is not the most intense feeling to me, whether it's physical or emotional.
I am literally walking around with a broken rib at the moment, and I accept the pain but choose not to let it dominate me, so that instead I can walk around, work with my kids, and generally enjoy my life between now and when it heals in approximately a month. I have also gone about my days with broken toes, fingers, arms, etc at varying points and the pain honestly does not bother me.
I was to have been a father, but it was a stillbirth. It hurt, certainly; it's a reality I live with, but I have come to embrace the experience in its entirety for a variety of positive and negative reasons. I worked in hospice and a children's terminal ward; I'll let you fill in the blanks as to what experiences I had. They were certainly painful at turns, but I don't view these painful experiences as being negative.
I find love and happiness to be infinitely more powerful and intense emotions and feelings than pain, and this interpretation of both physical and emotional has shaped the entire direction of my life. I won't question that pain is the most intense feeling to you, but just as it is wrong for me to tell you that you must live your life as though you experience the world as I do, it is wrong for you to do this to me.
Quote:
I honestly see with great concern the ease with which many people treat moral questions, as if morality could be discarded the first time it's contrary to some ideological discourse or convenience.
I don't disagree, I just find your conclusions on morality, based upon the extrapolation of a singluar, subjective unhappiness into an all-encompassing objective conclusion to be simple and incorrect. I think it's a shame that you've wasted as long as you have on this topic, because you're obviously of some intelligence, which would likely be much better served put to other purposes.
Quote:
For each charmed life there are thousands of wretched lives..People use to overestimate the quality of their lives. The world is infested with pollyanism, cognitive biases, positive illusions. Part of our psychology, survival and defence mechanisms, also strongly re-enforced by society. These biases can be overcome if one wants though.
These are all matters of interpretation; I know that you have embraced your pessimism as something that has elevated you above the general experience of humanity, but my own pessimism was really just a stepping stone towards a more balanced and rational way of viewing reality, reality being something that ultimately we can only view from the onus of our own existence.
You specifically note "positive illusions," and that we can overcome these things, but what is to be said about someone like me, who is of the opinion that pain is an illusion, a natural survival and defense mechanism that I view as an encumbrance to an enjoyable existence? I will not tell you that your opinions are wrong for yourself or where the correct parameters for "suffering" are in your life, but they are inapplicable to who I am as a human being all the same that my perceptions are to yours.
[quote]The point is why some people should suffer horribly so other people can have a great time?[quote]
The point is not that some people should suffer so that others can have a great time, but that one does not necessarily preclude the other. Humanity should strive to allow a greater number of people to enjoy their existences without impeding upon the happiness of others. This is just as grand an aspiration as the discontinuation of humanity, and one that is much more palatable towards the very humanity itself that you purport to basically "save" via a mercy killing.
Quote:
Is it justified that some people have a great time, while others have a miserable, agonizing time?
Yes.
Quote:
wouldn't it make more sense to just birth no one because then no one experiences either agony or joy?
No.
Quote:
plus, if no one is born, then the people who would have been happy wouldn't be 'missing out', right? Because it presuposes conscience.
If nobody is born is a win-win.
It's true that if we stopped humanity then none of these people would have existed to have a choice, but as long as we are talking about presupposed, theoretical alternate realities, we can also talk about a reality in which people do indeed ask to be born so they can experience life, but are deprived of this because of the myopic and solipistic misery of a few misanthropes.
Beautiful and important to the person who said it... to me... to a vast many others. I also don't believe in god and am acutely aware of the fact that my own fate as well as that of humanity doesn't ultimately matter to the universe, but as you just said, humans matter to humans. When we're gone, it may or may not matter to anyone; the circumstances and timeline of humanity's demise are as yet unknown to us. I don't believe in a god or higher power or anything of the sort, but I believe that the human diaspora is a beautiful thing, even in the ugly things it's done to itself or been subject to, and am happy to be a part of it.
I know. My point is that the absence of human species wouldn't be harmful nor for the universe, nor for anyone. There is no particular purpose for humanity, we don't contribute for anything and the universe doesn't need or depend on us for anything.
The human species is not an entity, it doesn't have a well-being, interests, rights. Only individuals have a well-being, interests and rights.
Stopping procreation wouldn't be immoral because nobody does anything violently against anyone, nobody will harm, kill or destruct anyone. It's just about avoiding the creation of new life.
I know most people regard human as something beautiful and worth being preserved, but the point is that when if there were no humans, there wouldn't be no one to miss out these things. The non-existent human species wouldn't regret its non-existence. And After all we are all going to die. Nothing will have importance when we go back to non-existence. If there is no species, then the non-existence of the species doesn't matter to anyone.
We've already been over this. I reject your conclusions and disagree with your opinions on the nature of "suffering," "harm," etc.
No. parents are responsible for all harm their children will experience. It's Just like If I throw a child in the jungle and a wolf kills the child, I am still responsible for all harm the child suffered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 415_s2k
Pain is not the most intense feeling to me, whether it's physical or emotional.
The most intense pain is more intense than the most intense pleasure. Suffering is more bad than happiness is good. There is a moral urgency to alleviate suffering, not to promote happiness.
Suppose if I want to take you to dysneyland for 1 week of fun, but at the cost of submitting you to 1 whole day of excruciating torture. Would you accept the deal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 415_s2k
I am literally walking around with a broken rib at the moment, and I accept the pain but choose not to let it dominate me, so that instead I can walk around, work with my kids, and generally enjoy my life between now and when it heals in approximately a month. I have also gone about my days with broken toes, fingers, arms, etc at varying points and the pain honestly does not bother me.
Many people have overall good lives. Many people experience some pain but their life contains more good than bad. Some pain here and there doesn't cancel the good of life. I am not the one to judge that their lives are not worth living. But we have to consider people whose life is predominantly misery and agony with little or no joy. The pain of the most miserable life is more intense than the pleasure of the most blissful life. We have a moral duty to avoid the suffering of these people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 415_s2k
but just as it is wrong for me to tell you that you must live your life as though you experience the world as I do, it is wrong for you to do this to me.
But it's not wrong for parents to impose their views on their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 415_s2k
I don't disagree, I just find your conclusions on morality, based upon the extrapolation of a singluar, subjective unhappiness into an all-encompassing objective conclusion to be simple and incorrect.
Why the optimist has the right to impose its morality on the pessimist then? Those who are in favor of the continuation of this experiment are imposing their will on those who don't want it to continue. Why some people have to be born and suffer unberably for the sake of the happiness of others who wouldn't be deprived of this happiness if it didn't exist?
The preference of the optimist causes harm. The preference of the pessimist would never harm anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 415_s2k
I think it's a shame that you've wasted as long as you have on this topic
I don't know why you spend so much time in discussing with antiantalists. You should take this time to breed instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 415_s2k
You specifically note "positive illusions," and that we can overcome these things, but what is to be said about someone like me, who is of the opinion that pain is an illusion, a natural survival and defense mechanism that I view as an encumbrance to an enjoyable existence?
Pain is intrinsically bad. Some people may find life is worth living regardless of the pain they experience. But it doesn't change the fact that all pain is intrinsically bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 415_s2k
The point is not that some people should suffer so that others can have a great time, but that one does not necessarily preclude the other.
But when we create happy lives, miserable lives will inevitably be born. It's not fair that miserable people have to be born for the sake of creating happy people who aren't being deprived of any good in non-existence. If there was no sentience, there'd be no suffering and no deprivation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 415_s2k
Humanity should strive to allow a greater number of people to enjoy their existences..
Why? A duty to create happy lives is simply inexistent. Nobody commits immorality by not procreating. Benefiting is morally acceptable, good, and even commendable but not obligatory. Most agree that it's perfectly moral not to bring as many kids as possible into existence. That's why people stop procreating when they have the exact quantity of children they desire. For each child conceived there are others zillions of potential children who couldn't have a chance at life. But it's not immoral, because nobody harms anyone nor deprive anyone of anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 415_s2k
Yes.
This is cruel. Pleasure for a majority could justify horrendous acts such as the nazi treatment of jews that could be regarded as moral, if it was for the happiness of a majority. Or it could justify four boys torturing a little child if it benefits the majority. How is procreation any different of this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 415_s2k
It's true that if we stopped humanity then none of these people would have existed to have a choice, but as long as we are talking about presupposed, theoretical alternate realities, we can also talk about a reality in which people do indeed ask to be born so they can experience life, but are deprived of this because of the myopic and solipistic misery of a few misanthropes.
Can't you see the asymmetry? This only has moral significance if the happy child does or will exist in the alternate world.
Benefiting a happy child by bringing that child into life at given world has no moral significance because that child never exists at that alternate world. It doesn't incur a loss. While saving the miserable child by avoiding to create her at a given world has full moral significance because that child does exist and experience suffering at that alternate world.
The potential happy child isn't deprived of happiness but the miserable child has to suffer because of some irrational, deluded, selfish and sadistic human animals.
IF you have the money to raise those kids PROPERLY, which is 1/2 million $ each, in todays money, really a million, considering inflation in the 25 years it takes to get them well and truly raised. This bs of welfare just because you squirted out a kid is sickening. Nobody made you have that kid. That kid's no benefit to me, so I see to it that almost none of my income gets diverted to places/projects that I don't agree with.
I know. My point is that the absence of human species wouldn't be harmful nor for the universe, nor for anyone. There is no particular purpose for humanity, we don't contribute for anything and the universe doesn't need or depend on us for anything.
The human species is not an entity, it doesn't have a well-being, interests, rights. Only individuals have a well-being, interests and rights.
Stopping procreation wouldn't be immoral because nobody does anything violently against anyone, nobody will harm, kill or destruct anyone. It's just about avoiding the creation of new life.
I know most people regard human as something beautiful and worth being preserved, but the point is that when if there were no humans, there wouldn't be no one to miss out these things. The non-existent human species wouldn't regret its non-existence. And After all we are all going to die. Nothing will have importance when we go back to non-existence. If there is no species, then the non-existence of the species doesn't matter to anyone.
Couldn't rep you again so I will say, very well put. At the end of the day, the human species is just another species in nature and is subject to anything and everything any other species is subject to. Just look at how nature's catastrophes can knock out an entire colony of humans just as quickly as it can a group of any other animal herd. Thinking we are special is false bravado.
Most childfree people have made the decision for themselves not to have kids and do not care whether or not others have them just as most people who chose to have children don't care that others choose not have kids. There are militants on either side of the spectrum, however, who feel they have to stick their noses in other people's business. They will use every excuse and argument they can to get others to follow whatever life script they feel is the one and only "right" one.
Couldn't rep you again so I will say, very well put. At the end of the day, the human species is just another species in nature and is subject to anything and everything any other species is subject to. Just look at how nature's catastrophes can knock out an entire colony of humans just as quickly as it can a group of any other animal herd. Thinking we are special is false bravado.
Most childfree people have made the decision for themselves not to have kids and do not care whether or not others have them just as most people who chose to have children don't care that others choose not have kids. There are militants on either side of the spectrum, however, who feel they have to stick their noses in other people's business. They will use every excuse and argument they can to get others to follow whatever life script they feel is the one and only "right" one.
Sitting meditation is an act of civilisation. These days we are so busy, we don't even have time to breathe. To take a moment to sit in stillness and cultivate peace, joy and compassion - that is civilisation. And it is priceless.
Couldn't rep you again so I will say, very well put. At the end of the day, the human species is just another species in nature and is subject to anything and everything any other species is subject to. Just look at how nature's catastrophes can knock out an entire colony of humans just as quickly as it can a group of any other animal herd. Thinking we are special is false bravado.
Most childfree people have made the decision for themselves not to have kids and do not care whether or not others have them just as most people who chose to have children don't care that others choose not have kids. There are militants on either side of the spectrum, however, who feel they have to stick their noses in other people's business. They will use every excuse and argument they can to get others to follow whatever life script they feel is the one and only "right" one.
Funny that you would say this in that you are coming out in support of somone who is a militant and earlier on stated that they believed that there should be laws preventing people from having children...
Even if I share some general sentiments and ideals of someone, I can stand back and say, "whoa: you're on the extreme side of things, even if we share the same ideals and intentions..." There are plenty of groups all over the world and all up and down the spectrum whose core arguments I believe in, but I find the methodology with which they seek to further those arguments to be totally repugnant.
Funny that you would say this in that you are coming out in support of somone who is a militant and earlier on stated that they believed that there should be laws preventing people from having children...
Even if I share some general sentiments and ideals of someone, I can stand back and say, "whoa: you're on the extreme side of things, even if we share the same ideals and intentions..." There are plenty of groups all over the world and all up and down the spectrum whose core arguments I believe in, but I find the methodology with which they seek to further those arguments to be totally repugnant.
If this person said that earlier I completely missed it. I am not doubting you in any way. I admit I have not read all of these posts and I certainly did not see where he or she said that. No, of course I would not agree with any statement dictating there should be laws regarding whether or not people should having children. That represents the militancy I do not support. What caught my eye in the post I was quoting was the idea of the human species having a role in the universe as any other as opposed to having a superior one as many believe. That is what I was addressing.
I can agree with people on some points and not on others. The statement by this person regarding the human race and its importance in the universe is still something I have debated with many people. So it really isn't funny at all that post should catch my eye above others. But I am not supporting a person and all the ideas that person put forth, I am supporting a single concept that person put forth that I believe.
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.
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.
