LogFAQs > #956392837

kind9 posted...

I'm not saying I believe this. I'm saying I don't believe the opposite, that there will never be a way to totally eliminate human suffering, and you're doing nothing to convince me except reasserting it as a fact. You're making a knowledge claim that I'm not comfortable making. You claim to know that elimination of human suffering is unachievable, but you don't really know that, you're just incredulous to believe otherwise.

I think it's a good question. Who benefits from antinatalism? Literally no one.

It's a binary, either ending human suffering short of ending human existence is possible or it isn't. If you don't believe we will never do it than you believe we will, or at least can do it. A double negative (don't-never) equals a positive, this is basic English grammar here. If someone said "God doesn't exist" and I said in response "I don't believe that God doesn't exist" that translates into "I believe God exists", now sub out the word God for the phrase "ending human suffering short of ending humanity". Ignoring me having to explain something this simple to you at least I've made an effort to explain why I think the way I do outside of asserting it as a fact (a fact the vast majority of the world would agree with) with my little sci-fi scenario. You haven't explained at all how such a thing might be possible without or even with fundamentally breaking the concept of humanity except vaugly pointing towards scientific advances, as if any new technology would cause problems as well as solve them, or as if any technology that could be used for great good can't also be used for great evil. In my sci-fi scenario I even glossed over these points as if they could be solved and still showed that problems and suffering would exist. You've ignored so many of my other points but I'll ask you to elaborate here, how could suffering be ended? Keep in mind that billions of children would have to be born to keep society going in this utopian future, all of whom will suffer and many suffer greatly on the road to the future I deny exists, is all of that sacrifice acceptable?

Who benefits from an alcoholic schizophrenic crack addict in a physically, emotionally, and sexually abusive long term relationship not bringing a child into that mix? The unborn child obviously. Or would such a person having a child and introducing them to the situation not be bad in your eyes? You being too selfish and inflexible to conceive of benefiting someone who could but doesn't exist isn't an argument.