LogFAQs > #956343930

kind9 posted...

I have no respect for people who think philosophy never fails or who use it to justify/buttress stupid beliefs or to con people. I've been calling antinatalism a philosophy this whole time in case you didn't notice, genius. So you can keep calling it what it is and I will too. Now that you know my disrespect isn't for philosophy itself you can go ahead and list those examples. And maybe go look up the meaning of "extremism". You might be surprised that it's not a synonym for terrorism.

Turns out you're right about the age of the sun, at least partially. It won't be closer to the earth, but it will be burning too bright and hot for the earth to sustain life. The sun won't start to expand until it begins to transition into a red giant in 5 billion years. How long did it take for humans to split from apes?

If you were consistent in your views shouldn't you extend antinatalism to all animals? Your reason for not doing so is because they're just "automatons" and don't experience suffering the same as we do. But how do you know that? Have we fully assessed the sapience of all animals? Do you use the same excuse to justify factory farming? Is the way that we experience suffering all that matters? What about children born with brain defects who don't experience suffering the same? What is the objective measure of suffering that you're using?

As I said it isn't relevant, even less so if you agree anti-natalism is one. I have no clue why you even brought up the subject in the first place while I have entire parts of my argument that have been ignored like post #126

For the third time, if humans were to die out there is basically zero chance of anything replacing us. Even if the chance did exist as I've said sapient aliens who suffer similar to humans might very well exist too but my philosophy is human focused as a matter of practicality. It isn't worth the trouble of searching the cosmos for these hypothetical aliens just like it isn't worth the trouble of worrying about hypothetical sapient species that could replace humanity.

What you're thinking of is called Efilism, which is slightly similar to anti-natalism except for all forms of life (efil being life backwards). The main difference being that since you can't convince a dog or cow to not breed forced sterilization or outright extermination would necessarily have to take place which isn't the case with anti-natalism. I've read their literature but I'm not a proponent of the school myself. The only relevant question in this final list is about the case of a brain damaged child who experiences suffering differently... and guess what, my opinion is that such a child should have never been born in the first place. This is the most basic part of anti-natalism, it is about preventing harm before it can ever occur, the focus isn't about people who already exist.