[Fin]

Alternate headline: Extinction = The only logical solution for humanity.

LATE EDIT: Posts that answers all your questions about suicide, the negative value of life, procreation, etc:


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




Assumption 1: “Pleasure” and “Suffering” are not mutually exclusive concepts. In fact, they are not possible to separate from one another.
Assumption 2: The overall wellbeing of any given human being is fundamentally quantifiable, at least in a relative sence. (i.e. life on earth for any given human being.)

Let´s say we choose to apply a 0-100 scale, where 0=”WB min” and 100=”WB max”.

Following, A1, the only way for a human being to experience zero (0) suffering is by achieving non-existence. Of course a human being can not be “non-existing”. Therefore we will have to think of a human not yet born or a conceptually possible human being.

Perhaps better, we should just think of non-existence vs existence.


Anyway, it is intuitively perfectly clear that Antinalism is (in theory) the answer for humanity.
Non-existence is very good, because suffering is set to Zero.

Or would we rather re-live your current lifes (or similar ones) started up with erased memory an infinite number of times? Maybe we will have to do that anyway, but that´s not really relevant here.


This text lacks quality, I know, but Antinatalism is such a underrated subject, therefore I wanted to bring it up. INTJ´s, INTP´s and INFJ´s should be well-suited for this.

Anyone here that don´t accept Antinatalism? If so, why not?

[StripeDog]

It's not even a matter of accepting it actually. It either is regarded or isn't, since it is such a positively gigantic theory. And saying you accept it or not is counter-intuitive to the aspects of life.

You know the aspects of "pleasure and pain" really isn't that difficult, and it doesn't need to be. Most people believe that such intrinsic topics need to undergo strenuous calculations in order to understand them. But foremost, one would need to adopt a more flexible and relative viewpoint regarding such.

Because you can't quantify everything. Much of human life is really left up to the individual conscious, not a stop-light system that are passed among masses.

[Tocsin]

The problem with antinatalism, on an individual level, is that if you are capable of understanding it, it is already to late to do anything about your own case: You can be "reborn" (according to some beliefs), but you can't be un-born.

As far as refraining from giving birth to others, it is a choice that many people make, and for many reasons. It doesn't seem to need a particular ideology to advance it at the moment.

As far as remedying the situation of the individual, once born, the process of a conscious individual reversal of the situation of existence usually falls under the all-inclusive banner of "suicide."

While fewer people may be considered a "solution" in regards to maintaining an ecosystem, or solving problems of resource shortages, on the individual level, suicide doesn't seem so much as a solution than it does merely as a terminus.


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


"...that showed 'em, huh?"

[Fin]

Point is non-sentience is better than sentience. There´s no logical, non-emotional argument that says otherwise.
Maybe you need a strong Ni-Ti to get it.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[StripeDog]

	Originally Posted by Tocsin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	While fewer people may be considered a "solution" in regards to maintaining an ecosystem, or solving problems of resource shortages, on the individual level, suicide doesn't seem so much as a solution than it does merely as a terminus.

A problem I believe mankind faces, is the belief that the majority of humanity, being destructive in the entirety of Earth's ecosystem, resounds a kind of influence that leads many to think that the actions of humanity's destruction is placed upon the whole of mankind, and then make such anti-existential barterings to sort of justify their own existence, in which they seem ashamed of.

I tell you, there is no reason to get caught up in the negative actions of the human race thus far. You're not doing it, I'm not doing it. It's nobody's fault but the people giving orders, then the people committing it.
That's my direction, and that it will stay.

[scorpiomover]

As a philosophy, it does seem to have a few problems with it. On the one hand, if you're preaching it, then you're still alive, and so you're in hypocrisy of it. If you're following it faithfully as an individual, then you aren't alive to preach it, and so no-one hears of it.

Of course, you COULD claim that it only applies to a group. But then you'd be trying to advocate extinction of many individuals. We've already had people who preached that, like that guy in Waco. They're considered a danger to humanity, because many of those people in Waco, were deemed to be persuaded as part of the group, and not choosing for themselves. So ultimately, the only thing you can bring to the table is that the philosophy can only be chosen on an individualistic basis.

So then we are back to the top, and then either way, it doesn't make sense to listen, because if you are doing as you say, you're not around to say it.

[Tocsin]

	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.
	Point is non-sentience is better than sentience.

So Fox News serves a worthwhile purpose, after all.

[Fin]

	Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you're following it faithfully as an individual, then you aren't alive to preach it, and so no-one hears of it.

Only reason I´m alive (well not the only but since you´re asking for it) is the pain I will impose on my parents if I commit suicide.

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





EDIT: This is a solid post about Antinatalism
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[StripeDog]

	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.
	Point is non-sentience is better than sentience. There´s no logical, non-emotional argument that says otherwise.

You say that as if you know it's truth, but you haven't explained why, other than a vague equation that quantifies the un-quantifiable.
But just like any other metaphysical theory, it's just as possibly true as the next.

[OwenF]

Be patient.

[Kisai]

	Only reason I´m alive (well not the only but since you´re asking for it) is the pain I will impose on my parents if I commit suicide.

Kill your parents first.

[scorpiomover]

	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.
	Only reason I´m alive (well not the only but since you´re asking for it) is the pain I will impose on my parents if I commit suicide.

Almost ALL people have friends and family that feel ripped apart, when one of their family members or friends kill themselves, even those who haven't seen them for years. If that is an argument for anti-natalism for even one person, then almost everyone would have that argument against it, and it would not be a viable ideology for humanity in general.

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

Yes. I'm not sure exactly which bias it is. But there is a bias, when someone wants to do something for personal reasons, but claims that they are doing it for noble reasons. Like claiming to go to war for reasons of national security, or to protect the world from an evil dictator, when one is really going to war to take control of natural resources like petroleum.

The argument for acting on anti-natalism would be an ideological basis. Wanting to off yourself because you feel like life isn't personally worth living for you, would not be doing it for anti-natalism, but for personal reasons. So realistically, you can't really fulfil anti-natalism, until you really have a great life, and you want to off yourself anyway. So sort out your issues with life, and then argue this.

But if you want help to work out your issues objectively, and allow for independent evaluation of your situation, to see if it really is bad enough that suicide would be a reasonable option, or if it's just a matter of perspective, then I am happy to provide such a service, as I suffered with wanting to off myself for over 20 years. Good thing I'm a P, because that kept me from doing anything until I was sure, and by the time I was sure, I had discovered a lot more than I knew when I first felt like that, that totally changed my perspective.

[Othesemo]

I oppose it, on the grounds that a life can have positive value, which is then decreased by death.

	Originally Posted by Fin
	Only reason I´m alive (well not the only but since you´re asking for it) is the pain I will impose on my parents if I commit suicide.

All the better. If you decrease the value of their life, they'll be more likely to commit suicide! Win Win!

[Typhon]

The problem is that we are actually dealing three assumptions, not two. Your A1 is, in fact, A2. The real argument that you're pushing would look like this:

A1: Suffering, or experiencing pain, is a negative quality.
A2:

	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.
	Assumption 1: “Pleasure” and “Suffering” are not mutually exclusive concepts. In fact, they are not possible to separate from one another.

A3:

	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.
	Assumption 2: The overall wellbeing of any given human being is fundamentally quantifiable, at least in a relative sence. (i.e. life on earth for any given human being.)

So when we frame it like this, it becomes obvious that the entire case for pro-extinction rests upon my A1. If my A1 is false, then the rest of the argument now lacks a valid ground to stand upon.

Maybe instead of wishing extinction upon ourselves we just learn to cope with pain and use strife to develop ourselves in better individuals. If you want to die so bad so that you don't need to cope anymore, just wait until you die or kill yourself.

[Fin]

Posts that answers all your questions about suicide, the negative value of life, procreation, etc:


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

[wolfyx]

Life has no meaning in the absolute, at a Universal scale.

You must find or create a context in which your life and your actions gain meaning.

In the world abstract thoughts you are doomed. Even the “strongest” fall into depressions.

You need outside references, anchor points. People and ideals to drive you towards reachable goals.

[Othesemo]

	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.
	Posts that answers all your questions about suicide, the negative value of life, procreation, etc: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Given the remarkable volume of that post and your apparent unwillingness to answer for yourself, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and leave that question be.

However, skimming through the pages, I find no rebuttal to the claim that life can have positive value. Would you mind providing that (here, in your own words)?

[zibber]

We're not all fuckin' pessimists.. is the only hole in that theory.

[Seablue]

Meh. Perhaps non-sentience is preferable to sentience. But then I'll have the eternity to be non-sentient once I'm dead. So right now why not try to make the best of sentience? That's just being pragmatic.

[Fin]

	Originally Posted by Othesemo To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	However, skimming through the pages, I find no rebuttal to the claim that life can have positive value. Would you mind providing that (here, in your own words)?

Yeah, I´ll give it a try.

The public notion that non-existence/death is some “neutral” state relative to a human life is completely flawed. If we assume “neutral” states such as going out for a walk with your dog or reading the newspaper in the morning, I think moste people would choose an eternity with non-existence to an eternity with taking a walk with the dog. That even if your memory were erased every five minutes so you that you couldn´t get bored.

The conceptually best possible life for a sentient being includes Zero suffering.
All human lifes includes suffering to more or less extent.
And since you can never experience “good”(pleasure) without “bad” (suffering), it follows that life can never have positive value relative to non-existence.

[OwenF]

There are at least hundreds of things to be enjoyed while walking a dog.

Even if I accepted the premise that the bad is equal to or greater than the good (which I don't), I would still take the suffering, the hills and vales. Evenness is for wimps and Flatlanders. Nonexistence is for no one.

[BlackMita]

It's unethical to procreate because it imposes a condition of suffering on someone else.

Nobody can ask to be born, so life cannot be a gift, as it cannot be refused. Some people like to believe suicide is the way to refuse it, but they unwittingly concede to finding it permissible to create people who suffer enough to want to self terminate in spite of their company's misgivings. Particularly malevolent when you factor in the suicide taboo, laws that punish you if you fail, and the idea that anything other than an optimistic view must speak to an underlying mental illness, instead of a desire for improved circumstances.[1]

There is no selective mechanism to only give birth to people who'll appreciate it. Too many ethical quandaries surface regarding the risk of what can happen between birth and the age where sanctioning the suicide of the born is permissible. Obviously you'd just tell a 14 years old who wanted to die to buck up until their bone cancer kicks in at 16. Life is unpredictable, and parents are rapidly losing ground to make any positive guarantees on an increasingly overpopulated planet full of people who must acclimate to shittier and shittier conditions as the mechanisms that drive industrial civilization collapse.

Antinatalism is the position that birth is something to be prevented on principle. This is actually a pragmatically weak position to have, because the only ethical application of it is to refrain from bringing sentient creatures into existence yourself, and to make the same case to others.

It's a ridiculous proposition on a massive scale like legislation. Anything other than a careful transition of convincing people to births unethical implications would create worse problems. A government enforced zero child policy is not only unworkable (the state is just a tool for bad people to make exceptions for themselves, like justifying approved people being born to pass judgment on unapproved people breeding underground) but baby making is already subsidized with things like welfare in 1st world countries, and labor in 3rd world. States also do business with each other by selling the futures of the unborn, so it's just fantasy to believe the state would cut off its own money supply of indebted folk.

Under freely chosen conditions, the best one can hope for is an insistent series of arguments and truth statements directed at people considering having kids, starting an animal farm, genetically engineering life forms besides insects, etc. Social ostracism will be an appropriate measure as well, but there are more understandable ways of expressing the same things, such as arguing from a pro-abortion position (as opposed to pro-life or pro-choice) and providing all the facts about having to raise children, and making contraceptives freely available. Being a more decentralized and extreme Planned Parenthood I guess.

I've also considered that breeders in the disparaging sense is something to leave out of serious discourse, since there's no reason having had children should prevent one from advocating antinatalism. It may be one of the strongest angles to make the case from: “I have kids, I love them to bits, and they'd better never to have been."[2]

In practice it's not too different from espousing child-free ideas, except the foundation is an assessment of sentient existence being fundamentally negative, and our lack of altruistic intention when perpetuating the human species, not just a notion that someone may prefer a different lifestyle that excludes babies.

The urgency to get the truth out comes from the fact that an anti-birth position must compensate for it's inability to “cheat” by raising people from childhood to regard it favorably, or appealing to political infrastructures in the hopes of becoming legislated and shielded from criticism. Law enforcement cements ideas as acceptable over generations without actual discourse, since nobody wants to be arrested or put on watch.

---

[1] Coping strategies always seem like thought stopping exercises to me.
[2] There are self described antinatalists online with parenthood experience. How they arrived at their position is usually enlightened.

[Fin]

	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.
	It's unethical to procreate because it imposes a condition of suffering on someone else.

Perfectly correct.

	Originally Posted by OwenF To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There are at least hundreds of things to be enjoyed while walking a dog. Even if I accepted the premise that the bad is equal to or greater than the good (which I don't), I would still take the suffering, the hills and vales. Evenness is for wimps and Flatlanders. Nonexistence is for no one.

This is not about suicide which you´re implying. Suicide is a tough thing to go through with unless your emotionally cold and/or very depressed. I´m not against it at all but it should be left up to the individual.

Procreation on the other hand should be prohibited by law. We need to try make the human species to go extinct ASAP so that no future suffering will come into existence.

---------- Post added 06-20-2012 at 06:30 PM ----------

[OwenF]

	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.
	about suicide which you´re implying.

No. I was making a general statement about nonexistence. I prefer existence to nonexistence and don't understand why you're so terrified of suffering. Or, to be a little less jerkish about it, I don't understand why you see suffering as an evil that can't be overcome or outweighed. You're giving it too much credit.

Plenty of people live valuable, fulfilling lives and suffer a hell of a lot more than I do. On balance, I think they're behaving reasonably and ethically in judging their lives to be worthwhile. I think they're also behaving reasonably and ethically if they choose to spawn little sufferers.

I'm not sure if you're really talking about suffering or about post-industrialized listlessness. In my experience, post-industrialized listlessness is most common among people who know the least about suffering. This is one of the reasons they're so mind-numbingly boring.

	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.
	Procreation on the other hand should be prohibited by law. We need to try make the human species to go extinct ASAP so that no future suffering will come into existence.

Because you are entitled to control people's lives and to make the cost-and-benefit calculations for this and all future (hypothetical) generations?

No.

[Fin]

	Originally Posted by OwenF To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think they're also behaving reasonably and ethically if they choose to spawn little sufferers.

Well, you think because you're a speculator. Im an investor when it comes to the creation of new human lifes. I know existense is not to be prefered to non-existence.

Never speculate, or, even worse, gamble with human lifes.