[Fin]

Create/acquire/purchase something with an estimated positive EV.
=Speculaton

Everything you consciously do (and not do) in life.
= Speculation


"Investing" is really only a theoretical concept since there are no 100% safe investments on this planet.

....including the option of refraining from having children.....

However...

...If you opt to create a child, you will nonetheless be speculating with the life of that child.

The state of non-existence is (from this ethical perspective) very preferable for conceptual future human beings. And we should do what we can to let these conceptual future people remain in that state.

Impossible for humanity to ever go extinct this way? Yes, probably.
The least we could do is to try to reduce the population of the planet and thereby reduce the total amount of suffering. (Very roughly/simplified we could say that there´s a first order linear relation between world´s total population and world´s total suffering. No need to explain that.....)




To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Seablue]

	Originally Posted by Fin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The state of non-existence is (from this ethical perspective) very preferable for conceptual future human beings.

You should really go back to this part of the thread:

	Originally Posted by ManWithNoName To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You are To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . You can't accurately compare two things and make statements about such a comparison if you don't define the things you are comparing. As far as we know non-existance could be filled with a suffering that would make even the most terrible existance absolutely cheery.

[BlackMita]

	Originally Posted by ManWithNoName To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As far as we know non-existance could be filled with a suffering that would make even the most terriable existance absoutly cheery.

The definition of suffering I use describes a deprivation mechanism exclusive to sentient feeling creatures. Needing things. Non-existent things need nothing, which means it can't be horrible.

	And yet in order to substantiate any of that you would have to prove a number of things. The first and probably most pertiant being that non-existance is even possible.

Wat.

	How do you know we don't exist before we are born? Maybe unborn people exist in some kind of hell and being born is a mercy? If you're going to appeal to the unkown and imagine ubsubstantied scenarios and take them as fact I can play this game also.

Known consequences of being born (a recipe for disaster):

1. Guaranteed suffering (needing).
2. Guaranteed death (mortality).
3. Risk of great harm (shit happens, circumstance).
4. Guaranteed increase of 3 over time (accidents, aging).

	Speculating is pretty much the only thing you are doing with your ideas.

	The problem with your dice scenario is that it's not really reflective of reality. There is a random element to life but the net happiness/suffering that would accure from the result of being born is largely incalcuable.

I think those knowns are sufficient proof that birth must be unethical, given that the born has no say in those afflictions. I have no interest in the majority's assessment of their own lives, because the likelihood of one person who'd rather not have been brought into existence being the result of any given birth is the problem. You keep accusing me of speculating, and yet that's what every birth is predicated on: hoping they won't hate it, even though the mere possibility is sufficient reason to never do it.

Like I said in that previous thread: “I'm glad I was brought into existence” cannot justify bringing anyone else into existence, for the same reason “I like pain” cannot be used to justify inflicting pain.

	-the only thing you can say is that being born is a an action. You can try to make the claim that it unethical because it's being done against the babies will, but in order to do that you have to actually know the will of the unborn baby to conclude that it is in fact unethical-

Noooooo. With this same line of reasoning, all forms of suffering prevention would be wrong because someone may have wanted it in some future situation we can't possibly be privy to. Non-existent people have no will that I ought to know in advanced. All I have to know is the consequences to being born (overall) and specific observations about the circumstance someone could potentially be brought into that I can actually observe and feel myself.

	Also moving past the birth itself you cannot assign any value statments to the result of the birth as to what degree the action of birth will lead to suffering or pleasure or in what amounts or if these amounts are tolerable or intolerable you cannot calculate. (and this all is assuming that non-existance is a zero state and not some hell).

Because you can't calculate weather someone can tolerate life or not is why I'm saying never have kids. I don't worry about impossible unborn people being upset over not being born and who don't exist. My concern is preventing people who come into existence realizing they were screwed.

Suffering and pleasure are subjective things. No logical argument about what to do or what is ethical or unethical can be made with them because they cannot really be measured or defined as they differ from individual to individual. The only thing you can do is leave it up to the individual in which when it comes to birthing the individual it is neither a moral or immoral act as it's impossible to know the will of the individual and so impossible to say in advance if it's immoral or moral and if you can't say birthing is immoral or moral how can you make the argument that we should stop it based upon ethics?

	Originally Posted by StripeDog To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There's a difference between advocating contraceptives and telling people to not procreate at all.

I just want people to stop having babies. This is an important philosophical issue in the universe. If birth is permissible to you, then you're basically throwing ethics out the window in favor of what feels good. Addressing the suffering of people who exist balances out to doing less than nothing if you just create new problems in the form of future generations; who will likely busy themselves addressing symptoms instead of working to cure, because it's easier to endlessly pass the buck.

The cure for cancer is to stop making cancer.

	"Marionetting" is simply not the word. It is instinct; and like I mentioned once before, no matter how far you want to distance youself with our natural impulses as living breathing animals, you cannot deny the fact that we are.

I don't have an instinct to make babies. That's way too compliacted and involving to be an instinct, which is why I'm certain individuals can use their intelligence to cleverly subvert that desire for ethical reasons through contraception, abortion, not being a moron, etc. People demonstrate the capacity to do it regularly, they just have to do it without exception.

	It really sounds like the sort of "sapian-transendence" thing that is imagined by the same people who become defiant with the fact that we remain animals on this planet.

The quasi-religious tone of it is just a stylistic bonus. Guilty of relishing in that a bit.

[Fin]

ManWithNoName and Seablue>>>>

Non-Existence does not include any suffering what so ever.
Think about it for a while and you'll realise why....

[ManWithNoName]

	Originally Posted by BlackMita To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The definition of suffering I use describes a deprivation mechanism exclusive to sentient feeling creatures. Needing things. Non-existent things need nothing, which means it can't be horrible.

	Wat.

The crux of your argument lies in that a state of non-existance, which as you have defined it assumes:

1. it is possible
2. we are in such a state before birth.

Both of these things are unsubstantiated. In short how do you know that we haven't always exist in some timeless form and exist in some form before we are born? Or that such an existence before birth is not a hell?

Youre entire argument can pretty much be rendered null and void as it reiles on non-existance being preferable both ethically, and in terms of suffering endured, over life.

Because you can't prove that non-existance actually exists (just because you can think it up dosen't mean it exists, no more so than thinking up a god or an afterlife exist) and because you can't prove that we exist in such a state before birth pretty much everything forward from it including the ethicality of birthpure conjecture and unfounded.

I'm essentially humoring you by answering the rest the same way I would humor a religious person when dicussing the finer points of theology.

For both yours and thier theories you have to assume something that is unproven as a self-evident fact to even begin dicussing things. For them you have to assume that a god exists and that we exist in some form of after life after death, for you it's that non-existance is possible and that we are in a state of non-existance before life.

	Known consequences of being born (a recipe for disaster): 1. Guaranteed suffering (needing). 2. Guaranteed death (mortality). 3. Risk of great harm (shit happens, circumstance). 4. Guaranteed increase of 3 over time (accidents, aging).

Who are you to say that the measure in which we encounter these things is intolerable or that it is a disaster? Who are you to say that non-existance is preferable to suffering, no matter how little? What if I suffer say only for about a year's worth of time over my entire life? Would it then be ethical to prevent me from being born? What about 2 years? Where do you drawn the line? With what authority? How do you know I won't prefer to suffer say for a great amount of time say 75% of my life just to experience the other 25%?

Suffering is an incredibly, incredibly subjective thing. You have dirt poor farmers in Africa who are incredibly happy and satisfied with thier lives. Suffering is more of a personal perspective than anything else. It's going to vary depending on individual. Just because one person may find the things they suffer from intolerable and non-existance preferable dosen't mean everyone will.

You are being highly unethical here as you assume that you can commonly define suffering, and then define exactly how much is intolerable and that the person would prefer non-existence to the amount they suffer. And then take actions on their behalf 'for the good of all' or 'because you know better' without taking into account how the person themself defines these ultimatly subjecitve things.

Until the person experiences life you or even they aren't going to know and define:

1. What they find intolerable
2. Or that such intolerable things exist in such an amount that it makes non-existence preferable and thus the ethical choice.

If neither you, nor they can know or define these things before they were born how can you use them in your arguments against thier birth?

They hold absoultly no meaning in such a context. This is not a case of simply rolling a dice when someone is born and where the even numbers mean suffering and the odd numbers mean not-suffering. As in that scenario you have an objective definition of what 'odd' and 'even' is and can say for sure which sides are the odd ones and which ones are the even ones.

With subjectively defined things such as suffering and happiness it would be like rolling a dice with probably near limitless sides in which every side has a distinct and different symbol in which you don't know the meaning. As you fundamentally don't know what someone will experience in thier future life and if they will find these experiences pleasureable or painful.

	I think those knowns are sufficient proof that birth must be unethical, given that the born has no say in those afflictions.

How do you know the person will view such things as afflictions or afflictions that make non-existence preferable?

Stop assuming that you know best when you do not and such a defintion is impossible. You are essentially saying what is good and preferable as seen by you should be good enough for everyone.

	I have no interest in the majority's assessment of their own lives, because the likelihood of one person who'd rather not have been brought into existence being the result of any given birth is the problem.

Yeah which is why I'm pointing out that is not the majorty of people saying they have been glad to have been born make the liklihood that existance is preferable to non-existence is high?

	You keep accusing me of speculating, and yet that's what every birth is predicated on: hoping they won't hate it, even though the mere possibility is sufficient reason to never do it.

lol, so the mere possibly of something unethical act occuring to someone or someone doing something is enough to warrent it unethical?

I could possibly murder someone years from now, or even tommorrow. Am I being unethical now? Is it ethical to restrict me or make decisions for me based upon things I could posisbly do? Or that could possibly happen? Is it ethical to keep me locked away in a bubble just because I may catch a cold and become miserable if I am not?

You don't know what someone's life will be like, what they will suffer, what they will do. You can make some educated guesses but the truth of the mater is you fundamentally don't know.

The amount we encounter suffering varies hugely and suffering itself is subjective and the point in which it becomes intolerable is subjective.

How can you make some set of absolute standarized generalizations or assumptions based upon such subjective things? And claim to be ethical?

It would be like saying, 56% of black people commit a crime. Thus the ethical thing to do is to lock them all up as the mere possibitly of a black person commiting a crime is a sufficient enough reason to do so as we will be preventing mass amounts of suffering.

You are making huge absoulte generalizations in the same manner the above statment does. There is no sense of proportionality, context, or reality to your argument and it is generally reality and context which determines wether or not something is ethical or unethical.

	Like I said in that previous thread: “I'm glad I was brought into existence” cannot justify bringing anyone else into existence, for the same reason “I like pain” cannot be used to justify inflicting pain.

You kind of show the subjectivity of the things your argument rests on in the above. Much in the same way that just because someone dosen't like pain it dosen't justify them inflicting it on others, just because you find parts of life sufferable or the idea of non-existence preferable dosen't justify your decision of it for someone else.

Noooooo. With this same line of reasoning, all forms of suffering prevention would be wrong because someone may have wanted it in some future situation we can't possibly be privy to. Non-existent people have no will that I ought to know in advanced. All I have to know is the consequences to being born (overall) and specific observations about the circumstance someone could potentially be brought into that I can actually observe and feel myself.

We don't know what the uborn person would prefer/not-prefer in regads to life so deciding to birth them/not birth them is neither ethical nor unethical and so you cannot make the arugment that everybody should or should not do it on the grounds of ethicality as ethicality is impossible to determine.

	Because you can't calculate weather someone can tolerate life or not is why I'm saying never have kids. I don't worry about impossible unborn people being upset over not being born and who don't exist. My concern is preventing people who come into existence realizing they were screwed.

If you can't calculate weather someone can tolerate life or not, how is that an argument for or against it?

It is a possibility (among many) that I may murder someone tomorrow. Right now it is incalculable if I will do it or not. How is it ethical to suggest a course of action? Or is it even logical?

You might as well tell people not to have children because of the possibility that the universe could just up and vanish tomorrow as that is another thing which is also incalculable. How is such a statment ethical or logical?

The only thing your statments say anything about is you. As to try and advance them is to assume your definitions for subjective things such as suffering, the amount it is found to be intolerable, that non-existance is preferable, can be assumed to be true for everyone.

	I just want people to stop having babies. This is an important philosophical issue in the universe. If birth is permissible to you, then you're basically throwing ethics out the window in favor of what feels good.

Birth is a netural act. As you can't say what came before it nor say in any spefic way what will come after it.

Yes the person will suffer but as to wether or not that individual will find the amount they suffer to be intolearble you cannot define or say and therefore cannot judge the ethicality of.

It's like saying I fire a gun.

Is my action ethical or logical? We don't know enough to judge without being able to say what came after or before. Am I firing at someone? What happens after? What happened before?

A person is born.

Is such an action ethical or even logical? We don't know enough to judge. What happens after? What came before?

You can't say so you can't really judge.

	Addressing the suffering of people who exist balances out to doing less than nothing if you just create new problems in the form of future generations; who will likely busy themselves addressing symptoms instead of working to cure, because it's easier to endlessly pass the buck. The cure for cancer is to stop making cancer.

Cancer is seen as something undeseriable and it's destruction ethical and deseriable because it inflicts suffering upon humans. If it existed in a way that didn't inflict suffering upon humans it wouldn't be seen as undeseriable.

Humans are the not the same way and are not equilivent to cancer. You don't know if they are going to inflict suffering or not or be inflicted by suffering or not. If sufering is such an evil thing and ethicality rests in preventing it, for all you know you could be acting unethical in preventing future generations from preventing massive amounts of suffering.

I don't have an instinct to make babies. That's way too compliacted and involving to be an instinct, which is why I'm certain individuals can use their intelligence to cleverly subvert that desire for ethical reasons through contraception, abortion, not being a moron, etc. People demonstrate the capacity to do it regularly, they just have to do it without exception. The quasi-religious tone of it is just a stylistic bonus. Guilty of relishing in that a bit.

All your arguments are on par with making as many blatent assumptions as most religions ones so your relishing of it dosen't surprise me.

[BlackMita]

I'm not going to prove that non-existence exists.

Suffering is a fact of life. It's not something you can shirk if you're lucky. The "anti-birth" of antinatalism is advocating the prevention of suffering and pointing out that birth is necessarily imposing a circumstance of need, deprivation, eventual death, and risk of great harm on someone else, without their consent.

Most of this is just you refusing my definition of suffering which, to be blunt, is the only correct definition. The word exists explicitly to be distinct from a simile for stubbed toe or whatever. Suffering is the gravity of meaning. It's the circumstance by which you determine all value as a sentient feeling creature. There isn't even a pain/pleasure paradigm without a suffering, which is the deprivation mechanism in action, prodding you to chase your biological desires that wouldn't otherwise exist had you not been born in the first place.

I don't usually like to bring up the Buddhists definition of suffering, because Buddhists don't really talk about these implications, but that's basically what I mean by suffering. If you somehow managed to not suffer, you wouldn't even be a conscious thing, and you'd only be animate on the level of a zombie or bacteria.

It's just nonsense to contest that suffering could mean a stubbed toe or something, and that so long as enough people think stubbed toes are par for the course, that now makes imposing life OK. No it doesn't. Just being born with the sensibility that life is shit, the damage has already been done, and it can't be voided (suicide doesn't solve the problem of suffering).

There isn't a moderate position on this, but understand, I'm not saying it's now everyone's job to go kick pregnant women in the stomach or pass a law where all babies are shot on sight. I get really annoyed having to constantly preface this argument specifically to dissuade people 's irrational fear that any given proposal for ethical behavior will necessarily be enforced by some huge authority structure that wants to rape your freedom or whatever.

So fine. You're free to have children! You're free to do any horrible activity you want. Just don't fake some moderate position, or complain about that anti-birth means imposing on your freedoms in some absurd way, to veil the fact that you aren't interested in applied ethics, and that you have no problem fucking with people's lives without their consent in some situation (birth) but not others (everything else). And before they're around to make any substantial contention to the actions that resulted in their suffering. Namely you having sanctioned their being brought into the world unnecessarily.

I won't even bother with another reply unless there's at least some attempt to provide an argument for the necessity of giving birth to things. You don't even have to justify imposing suffering on people. Just explain why a universe with humans in it, is somehow prefferable to a universe with no humans in it. Go ahead. Explain the nightmare on Mars caused by there being nobody on it.

I'll probably go bug people in
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
tomorrow.

[kronique]

discussing this at all sets any "antinatalist" back a few. Its too extreme and quite pointless.

Don't hurt a discussion that seriously needs momentum as it is, the world is overpopulated: (

[BlackMita]

	Originally Posted by kronique To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	discussing this at all sets any "antinatalist" back a few. Its too extreme and quite pointless. Don't hurt a discussion that seriously needs momentum as it is, the world is overpopulated: (

I understand how you feel. I'd take your approach IRL, but not online, where there's no excuse to avoid being honest.

[ManWithNoName]

	Originally Posted by BlackMita To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm not going to prove that non-existence exists.

Then how can you make the argument that not being born is preferable to life and ethical over it? Or the better choice?

It's like saying you have to boxes in which one is a sandwich and in which the other is something you don't know.

And then trying to assume the one where the other is unkown is the proper choice purely because it's unknown.

Your argument is highly flawed in this manner and largely just an appeal to the uknown.

Most of this is just you refusing my definition of suffering which, to be blunt, is the only correct definition. The word exists explicitly to be distinct from a simile for stubbed toe or whatever. Suffering is the gravity of meaning. It's the circumstance by which you determine all value as a sentient feeling creature. There isn't even a pain/pleasure paradigm without a suffering, which is the deprivation mechanism in action, prodding you to chase your biological desires that wouldn't otherwise exist had you not been born in the first place. I don't usually like to bring up the Buddhists definition of suffering, because Buddhists don't really talk about these implications, but that's basically what I mean by suffering. If you somehow managed to not suffer, you wouldn't even be a conscious thing, and you'd only be animate on the level of a zombie or bacteria.

I only pointed out the subjectivity of suffering to point out that you have no way of knowing how much suffering a person is willing to endure/not endure before they deem non-existance preferable.

The only statment you can make from that then is that you think any amount of suffering is intolerable and that you think that non-existance is preferable to any amount of suffering.

You have no way of knowing if other people think this or value this unless you ask. Your argument has no logical backing. It's essentially: "I think that any amount of suffing makes life unworthwhile and (possible) non-existance preferable."

Deciding that the suffering of life will be intolerable (and by intolerable I mean to the point where non-existance is preferable) on the behalf of an unborn child is just as unethical as deciding that it isn't. Each stance essentially assumes what it possibly can't know, and that it knows better in terms of what the person will value or what they should value.

If you just wanted to keep this decision to yourself I'd be fine as I can't say not chosing to bring someone into the world is unethical no more than bringing someone into it is.

The problem lies in and where you are being highly unethical in that you are trying to say the majority of people should value what you value and act upon these values just because you value it and really for no other reason than this. You have no idea what an unborn baby may consider intolerable nor does anyone else.

More than anything else it just seems like you can't deal with the fact that some people find life perfectly tolerable despite the suffering they endure.

So fine. You're free to have children! You're free to do any horrible activity you want. Just don't fake some moderate position, or complain about that anti-birth means imposing on your freedoms in some absurd way, to veil the fact that you aren't interested in applied ethics, and that you have no problem fucking with people's lives without their consent in some situation (birth) but not others (everything else). And before they're around to make any substantial contention to the actions that resulted in their suffering. Namely you having sanctioned their being brought into the world unnecessarily.

I'm interested in applied ethics. I just don't see how deciding to bring someone into this world is unethical or at least more ethical than not.

As what I have said before each position assumes that it knows the will of the child and what it will find tolerable or intolerable and value in terms of suffering. Neither position can possibly know this.

Thus you can really only say that at best both decisions are unethical and so it dosen't matter either way or that the ethicalitity of it is undeterminable.

	I won't even bother with another reply unless there's at least some attempt to provide an argument for the necessity of giving birth to things.

Something dosen't have to be necessary to be deemed ethical. Much of human activity is uncessary, we do it because we want to.

We have children/not have children because we want to. The decision either way is unethical and selfish as each assumes that what the individual wants is greater than what the unborn person wants as each assumes to either know or not care what the uborn person wants.

	You don't even have to justify imposing suffering on people. Just explain why a universe with humans in it, is somehow prefferable to a universe with no humans in it. Go ahead. Explain the nightmare on Mars caused by there being nobody on it.

Because generally it's unethical to impose your will or values on someone else unless you can strongly justify it from an ethical standpoint.

You think an empty world is preferable to one with humans. Most people do not. How is an empty world prefferable to a full one? Sure there is suffering in the full one but how can you ethically or even logically speak for everyone in saying that such suffering is intolerable?

[StripeDog]

	Originally Posted by BlackMita To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If birth is permissible to you, then you're basically throwing ethics out the window in favor of what feels good.

I've mentioned before that ethics mean nothing in regards to existence. Doing "right" is just naive to disregard the fact that life does not guarantee fairness and ethical reasoning.
In itself, ethics is merely something fabricated by mankind, so I don't regard it as a legitimate argument

	Originally Posted by BlackMita To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Addressing the suffering of people who exist balances out to doing less than nothing if you just create new problems in the form of future generations; who will likely busy themselves addressing symptoms instead of working to cure, because it's easier to endlessly pass the buck.

Nobody is forced to accept the problems or suffering of the past. When the time comes, any individual can choose to accept this caustic suffering, or they can reject it.

	Originally Posted by BlackMita To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't have an instinct to make babies. That's way too [complicated] and involving to be an instinct, which is why I'm certain individuals can use their intelligence to cleverly subvert that desire for ethical reasons through contraception, abortion, not being a moron, etc.

You're right in the aspect of being able to reject the reproductive nature; and you can see that you yourself are a living example of what people can do to avoid the inevitable suffering that you say is the result in procreation.

I don't disagree however, that humanity is detrimental to life on Earth, but you have yet to understand that it's not humans that are the problem, it is the power of humans and their unnatural direction towards industry and destruction.
What you see is not the nature of humans, it is the actions of humans, because we all have a say in what we do. There's nothing reasonable with blaming the entire species.

[Seablue]

	Originally Posted by Fin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	ManWithNoName and Seablue>>>> Non-Existence does not include any suffering what so ever. Think about it for a while and you'll realise why....

Correction : you have a concept of Non-Existence, and you define it as a state that does not, and can not, include any suffering what so ever.

You cannot prove that this "Non-Existence" exists.

Maybe we never non-exist. Maybe we have immortal souls that always were and always will be. Maybe these immortal souls live in terrible suffering, and maybe being incarnated into flesh (and forgetting all about what happened before that) is a relief for them.

Prove to me that, by giving birth to a child, I'm not giving a few decade of respite to one of these tormented immortal souls.

[Fin]

ManWithNoName and Seablue>>>>>>>

I´m 100% convinced life is bad (relative to non-existence) for ALL human beings.
Simply because non-existence includes ZERO suffering. ZERO.

It´s intuitively perfectly clear. No matter if you pick out the second in your life when you´re at the absolute prime of your life (perhaps the point when you´re creating your little baby), Non-existence would still be to prefer.

Sure, non-sentience may or may not exist........ (multiple dimensions, universes, who knows).
But why create suffering from the unknown?

So we rephrase the question:

Is it ethically justified to create suffering from the unknown?


Here´s a little thought experiment for everyone considering having a child:
Pick out the perfect orgasm and ask yourself; Would you rather spend an eternity of such orgasms, (Note: Your memory will be erased between every orgasm), or would you rather spend an eternity non-existent?

[Seablue]

	Originally Posted by Fin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Here´s a little thought experiment for everyone considering having a child: Pick out the perfect orgasm and ask yourself; Would you rather spend an eternity of such orgasms, (Note: Your memory will be erased between every orgasm), or would you rather spend an eternity non-existent?

That question is absurd. Also, my answer would be "orgasms", which I guess isn't what you're hoping for.

[Fin]

It may take 50, 500, 5000 or 50000 years. But hopefully, one day Humanity will leave its adolescence behind and assume its responsibilities of adulthood.

[Seablue]

And disappear?

[Tocsin]

I was looking for this observation on population growth and the elimination of democracy for another thread, but it seems applicable here as well.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[scorpiomover]

Fin, I think you should bear in mind, that the most fundamentalist of people, have the most kids. They are out-breeding non-religious people in massive numbers. Say that religious fundamentalists have 6 kids per family. If the rest have 2 kids, then in 20 years, that's 3 more fundamentalists to every 1 non-religious person. If the rest have 1 kid, then in 20 years, that's 6 more fundamentalists to every 1 non-religious person. That in turn means that to get 3 more fundamentalists to every 1 non-religious person, you only have to wait 10 years, not 20. However, that's not the whole story, because the next generation, repeat the pattern. So in 2 generations, 40 years, there are 9 more fundamentalists to 1 more non-religious people.

So non-religious people not having kids, makes the world more and more non-fundamentalist, and the process accelerates with each subsequent generation from now.