LogFAQs > #956380064

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, Database 8 ( 02.18.2021-09-28-2021 ), DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	I'm an anti-natalist.
Reigning_King 07/23/21 9:16:56 AM #194:	kind9 posted... What about what I said implies that I want to simply reduce suffering? I said "eliminate suffering as much as possible." In case you didn't know, quality of life has been on a steady incline for centuries. As science and technology improves, who knows what the future holds? I mean other than you with your power of omniscience to claim as an undeniable fact that human suffering will always exist. What does it matter if you eliminate human suffering when there are no humans left to experience that blissful existence? I don't care about imaginary people in imaginary worlds. I care about extant humanity. When there are no humans left and the concept of "good" no longer has meaning or application, what good have you accomplished? Even if you could somehow reduce global human suffering by 99.9% of its current value that is still only reducing it, not ending it. I should not have to explain the meaning of basic words to you. I don't need to be omniscient to say human suffering is tied to human existence, it is something so simple a child could grasp it, the question is whether or not you accept that fact, which most people do by saying the suffering inherent to life is worth the good parts. If you actually think there is a way to totally eliminate all human suffering while humans exist, you're wrong to a staggering degree. Even in some insane sci-fi future where all wants and needs are instantly taken care of for humans and everyone is immortal and invulnerable (so that the suffering caused by death and injury are eliminated) there would still be problems, conflicts between people, boredom, the unsustainably of such a society. Hell if there were no problems at all, no possibility of ANY type of suffering no matter how small then no one would do anything. Why get out of bed in the morning if you were 100% satisfied while laying there? You don't need to eat, or piss, or even breathe because all of that is (somehow) not an issue. If you get up because you want to socialize then that means you weren't fully satisfied being alone which is impossible in this ridiculous utopia (remember how I just pointed out that the word utopia means NO WHERE?). No, the concept of life without suffering is oxymoronic at every level. Suffering is negative, suffering is undesirable. If you want to be pedantic I'll say "true" suffering, that is suffering beyond the ability of a person to handle which serves no greater purpose or confers any benefits, is those things. Anyone who cares about morality should be able to acknowledge we should try to help people avoid true suffering as much as we can. "As much as we can" logically means we should aim for 100% reduction, or elimination of true suffering. As I have pointed out and the vast majority of the planet would agree with, this is impossible with any traditional means. Hence anti-natalism. That no one would be around to experience good things anymore is a complete nonissue as I have said several times unless you're a loon. Reigning_King posted... how many people would say that they find it disagreeable that potential people miss out on the joys of life? Who says that women should have as many children as they possibly can since it's a bad thing that their potential children are missing out? <cite>Reigning_King posted [p:956380064] in I'm an ant... [t:79573893]...</cite> <quote>kind9 posted... </cite> <quote>What about what I said implies that I want to simply reduce suffering? I said "eliminate suffering as much as possible." In case you didn't know, quality of life has been on a steady incline for centuries. As science and technology improves, who knows what the future holds? I mean other than you with your power of omniscience to claim as an undeniable fact that human suffering will always exist. What does it matter if you eliminate human suffering when there are no humans left to experience that blissful existence? I don't care about imaginary people in imaginary worlds. I care about extant humanity. When there are no humans left and the concept of "good" no longer has meaning or application, what good have you accomplished?</quote>Even if you could somehow reduce global human suffering by 99.9% of its current value that is still only reducing it, not ending it. I should not have to explain the meaning of basic words to you. I don't need to be omniscient to say human suffering is tied to human existence, it is something so simple a child could grasp it, the question is whether or not you accept that fact, which most people do by saying the suffering inherent to life is worth the good parts. If you actually think there is a way to totally eliminate all human suffering while humans exist, you're wrong to a staggering degree. Even in some insane sci-fi future where all wants and needs are instantly taken care of for humans and everyone is immortal and invulnerable (so that the suffering caused by death and injury are eliminated) there would still be problems, conflicts between people, boredom, the unsustainably of such a society. Hell if there were no problems at all, no possibility of ANY type of suffering no matter how small then no one would do anything. Why get out of bed in the morning if you were 100% satisfied while laying there? You don't need to eat, or piss, or even breathe because all of that is (somehow) not an issue. If you get up because you want to socialize then that means you weren't fully satisfied being alone which is impossible in this ridiculous utopia (remember how I just pointed out that the word utopia means NO WHERE?). No, the concept of life without suffering is oxymoronic at every level. Suffering is negative, suffering is undesirable. If you want to be pedantic I'll say "true" suffering, that is suffering beyond the ability of a person to handle which serves no greater purpose or confers any benefits, is those things. Anyone who cares about morality should be able to acknowledge we should try to help people avoid true suffering as much as we can. "As much as we can" logically means we should aim for 100% reduction, or elimination of true suffering. As I have pointed out and the vast majority of the planet would agree with, this is impossible with any traditional means. Hence anti-natalism. That no one would be around to experience good things anymore is a complete nonissue as I have said several times unless you're a loon. Reigning_King posted... </cite> <quote>how many people would say that they find it disagreeable that potential people miss out on the joys of life? Who says that women should have as many children as they possibly can since it's a bad thing that their potential children are missing out?</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1