Earth Entering New Extinction Phase

But is suffering a necessity for development? Total satisfaction with the current state usually means stagnation. And for example pain has a completely valid function to make living organisms avoid things that cause pain. It's far from perfect of course, there's lots of unnecessary pain.

Maybe the modern western search for some unidentifiable permanent bliss is a bit misguided venture.

Having no kids is a pretty good plan. Just ask Japan! They've pre-empted the extinction phase by extincting themselves before it can happen. That'll show Mother Nature what for.

  On 6/25/2015 at 7:47 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 6/25/2015 at 5:41 PM, peace 7 said:

There is no suffering in Nirvana.

 

...and I have surfed the cosmos, lived for hundreds of years over thousands of years, been nothing and everything, but really, I thought Gauntlet was programmed to not be beatable with one quarter, so to those who did it when it was still in arcades, kudos.

It took a lot of quarters to get to that state.

 

  On 6/25/2015 at 6:47 PM, Jev said:

 

 

The point is, the whole debate, that it is not about you at all.

 

 

So it's all about you? Talk about selfishness...

 

Nice example of your misunderstanding.

Explained: "The point is, the whole debate, that it is not about you at all. It's about the kids we create. Your happiness does not matter."

  On 6/25/2015 at 8:03 PM, coax said:

 

It's pretty clear to me that humans ignore vast amounts of reality in order to focus on their own lives, and suffering is one of those things. You could say the same thing about not going vegan or ignoring knowledge of sweat shops still buying the products etc. I'm open to discussing the idea of the life enterprise as a whole, but the problem has always been what to do about it practically. And from an antinatalist perspective, we still haven't solved the problem of animals in the wild who also experience suffering. I personally think a good start would be to have much higher standards for having kids, and much more care needs to be taken with having kids. There's a lot one can do practically but even then, you're taking a big risk cause you have no idea what kind of suffering the kid will go through out of your control

 

Good points, although for me it is quite clear "what to do about it practically". I will not breed and will die naturally (if possible). Nothing difficult really.

  On 6/25/2015 at 8:11 PM, mokz said:

But is suffering a necessity for development? Total satisfaction with the current state usually means stagnation. And for example pain has a completely valid function to make living organisms avoid things that cause pain. It's far from perfect of course, there's lots of unnecessary pain.

 

Maybe the modern western search for some unidentifiable permanent bliss is a bit misguided venture.

Non-existence = no care. No need for development, no need for pain, no need for anything at all (or at least anything alive at all).

.

  On 6/25/2015 at 8:52 PM, Hoodie said:

 

  On 6/25/2015 at 6:47 PM, Jev said:

 

To me, this is more like:

 

1) I have a problem.

2) What can I do in order to make the problem go away, to solve it?

3) The solution: Non-existence.

 

 

 

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WellIntentionedExtremist

 

How my personal intention to die naturally without having offspring goes along with the definition you have posted?

  On 6/25/2015 at 8:49 PM, Jev said:

 

  On 6/25/2015 at 8:11 PM, mokz said:

But is suffering a necessity for development? Total satisfaction with the current state usually means stagnation. And for example pain has a completely valid function to make living organisms avoid things that cause pain. It's far from perfect of course, there's lots of unnecessary pain.

 

Maybe the modern western search for some unidentifiable permanent bliss is a bit misguided venture.

 

Non-existence = no care. No need for development, no need for pain, no need for anything at all (or at least anything alive at all).

 

I am not disagreeing with the content of your argument Jev but aren't you undermining the core of it somewhat by remaining a living being? I mean, what's keeping you going? I recall you mentioning 'neurology' earlier when this was posed but that doesn't seem particularly sound in terms of 'logic' to just acquiesce to the whims of your ancestral survival instincts.

For the record I am not asking or suggesting that you should jump off a bridge, I am just curious what your motivation is for continuing to exist as a sentience?

  On 6/25/2015 at 9:36 PM, Goiter Sanchez said:

 

  On 6/25/2015 at 8:49 PM, Jev said:

 

  On 6/25/2015 at 8:11 PM, mokz said:

But is suffering a necessity for development? Total satisfaction with the current state usually means stagnation. And for example pain has a completely valid function to make living organisms avoid things that cause pain. It's far from perfect of course, there's lots of unnecessary pain.

 

Maybe the modern western search for some unidentifiable permanent bliss is a bit misguided venture.

 

Non-existence = no care. No need for development, no need for pain, no need for anything at all (or at least anything alive at all).

 

I am not disagreeing with the content of your argument Jev but aren't you undermining the core of it somewhat by remaining a living being? I mean, what's keeping you going? I recall you mentioning 'neurology' earlier when this was posed but that doesn't seem particularly sound in terms of 'logic' to just acquiesce to the whims of your ancestral survival instincts.

For the record I am not asking or suggesting that you should jump off a bridge, I am just curious what your motivation is for continuing to exist as a sentience?

 

Actually, a good question, Goiter.

I guess I simply have a fear of death that is stronger than my desire to not exist. Sometimes, this clash of motivations feels like a prison. Also, I currently find most parts of my life worth living (but it comes and goes in waves). I have a good job, a great, loving, long-time girlfriend and a passion for the music. This keeps me going, at the moment. But when shit hits the fan, the fear is the main obstacle. The uncertainty what happens when the death comes. It might be my spiritual/religious part of my brain that does this (and seems to be out of my control in those situations). But also, I would hate to leave my loved ones here to suffer. I know I would cause a lot of pain to some close ones if I died. Without them it would be much easier decision-making for sure.

I hate the contradictions in the human brain. Amygdala, unconsciousness VS logic and "decision-making". I feel like a prisoner when in need to think/talk about it. Amygdala is really something like a parasite to me but I don't know that much about neurology and the research is still ongoing so I am not able to really develop this much more.

However, just so you know (and to complicate stuff even more), I actually believe there is no free will at all (there is apparently a lot of neurological evidence for this, which, surprisingly, leaves many scientists remain completely calm) but I somehow learned (was forced by "the parasite") to ignore this thinking because it caused me a lot of problems and had a strong suicidal thoughts around that time (that had to be the ultimate clash of logic VS subconsciousness). The true understanding (on both logical and emotional level) of what absence of free will really means is extremely difficult and painful to cope with (at least for me it was). So I guess my autonomous brain decided it was a lot of trauma and suppressed its chemical impact whenever it occurred ever since. I believe it did so in order to keep my organism alive... but there is no point in discussing free will any more. It is a trap. One knows that every evidence and logic say the free will does not exist and yet he still keeps talking about it as if it was just somebody else's problem. Crazy, really.

lol how many true detective threads do we need already lol

  On 6/25/2015 at 8:11 PM, mokz said:

But is suffering a necessity for development? Total satisfaction with the current state usually means stagnation. And for example pain has a completely valid function to make living organisms avoid things that cause pain. It's far from perfect of course, there's lots of unnecessary pain.

 

Maybe the modern western search for some unidentifiable permanent bliss is a bit misguided venture.

Yeah it is, but development is also a completely arbitrary goal that we created on top of existence. As far as we can tell, there is no design or purpose to life, it is a happy accident in nature. The main question is if the development and progress is more important than millions of years of sentient beings being hurt, killed or tortured either on purpose or just cause they fell of a cliff and didn't die right away and so forth. I completely agree that if life reached this kind of technological goal, progress would stagnate, but what is the reason for the progress? We added it on top because we exist, that is all.

I mean what your argument really means is that we need suffering and we shouldn't get rid of it even if we could, and I'm not sure I'm morally okay with that especially since new lives are created without consent (human babies). Animals have no choice at any level as far as I know. The "background suffering level" goes up and down at different times in history I would assume (related to technology and welfare of living and attitudes I guess), but it still frightens the fuck out of me, and it's ALL a random accident! No plan, no design, no meaning, it just perpetuates itself based on instincts that occurred at random.

  On 6/25/2015 at 8:47 PM, Jev said:

 

  On 6/25/2015 at 8:03 PM, coax said:

 

It's pretty clear to me that humans ignore vast amounts of reality in order to focus on their own lives, and suffering is one of those things. You could say the same thing about not going vegan or ignoring knowledge of sweat shops still buying the products etc. I'm open to discussing the idea of the life enterprise as a whole, but the problem has always been what to do about it practically. And from an antinatalist perspective, we still haven't solved the problem of animals in the wild who also experience suffering. I personally think a good start would be to have much higher standards for having kids, and much more care needs to be taken with having kids. There's a lot one can do practically but even then, you're taking a big risk cause you have no idea what kind of suffering the kid will go through out of your control

 

 

Good points, although for me it is quite clear "what to do about it practically". I will not breed and will die naturally (if possible). Nothing difficult really.

 

And that's good as far as potential kids you could have had, but it doesn't solve anything on a big scale. And especially not for animals. All humans could in theory decide not to reproduce, but we still are left with a lot of animals with a neocortex and by all observation conscious experience and I feel we have a duty to them too

  On 6/25/2015 at 8:42 PM, Jev said:

 

  On 6/25/2015 at 7:47 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 6/25/2015 at 5:41 PM, peace 7 said:

There is no suffering in Nirvana.

 

...and I have surfed the cosmos, lived for hundreds of years over thousands of years, been nothing and everything, but really, I thought Gauntlet was programmed to not be beatable with one quarter, so to those who did it when it was still in arcades, kudos.

It took a lot of quarters to get to that state.

 

  On 6/25/2015 at 6:47 PM, Jev said:

 

 

The point is, the whole debate, that it is not about you at all.

 

 

So it's all about you? Talk about selfishness...

 

 

Nice example of your misunderstanding.

 

Explained: "The point is, the whole debate, that it is not about you at all. It's about the kids we create. Your happiness does not matter."

 

Man if only your parents could have thought the same way.

What if my kids are happy?

Edit:

Since consent cannot be given (or denied) before existence, and without an understanding of what consent means, this whole debate is pretty bleeding pointless.

Edit 2: Suffering is necessary to understand what happiness is. You cannot have happiness without sadness or suffering.

  On 6/25/2015 at 11:43 PM, chenGOD said:

 

 

Edit:

Since consent cannot be given (or denied) before existence, and without an understanding of what consent means, this whole debate is pretty bleeding pointless.

 

Edit 2: Suffering is necessary to understand what happiness is. You cannot have happiness without sadness or suffering.

 

Absolutely. I mean it is a black hole for me personally since I want to live and by any measure have to live since I have no internal or good reason to end my life, but at the same time I can see what a totally fucked up existence we live in.

The meaning of your edits is predicated on the continued cycle of birth -> death -> birth. We cannot give or deny consent without first being born. We cannot feel happiness or sadness before being born either. So basically once we are born, we have to take into account both happiness and suffering. But what that means is that we have to continue the cycle indefinitely to keep asking and answering the question. The way to stop it is to say that we don't need to ask the question, because a non-existence can't be positive OR negative. So rather than continuing the cycle and never reaching a satisfying answer, we decide to stop the cycle so we don't have to ask the question. There's also evidence that we as living things aren't equipped to ask / answer the question. We want to live like all animals do, by instinct. So we are trapped in the cycle and mostly will attempt to justify it

  On 6/25/2015 at 11:43 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 6/25/2015 at 8:42 PM, Jev said:

 

  On 6/25/2015 at 7:47 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 6/25/2015 at 5:41 PM, peace 7 said:

There is no suffering in Nirvana.

 

...and I have surfed the cosmos, lived for hundreds of years over thousands of years, been nothing and everything, but really, I thought Gauntlet was programmed to not be beatable with one quarter, so to those who did it when it was still in arcades, kudos.

It took a lot of quarters to get to that state.

 

  On 6/25/2015 at 6:47 PM, Jev said:

 

 

The point is, the whole debate, that it is not about you at all.

 

 

So it's all about you? Talk about selfishness...

 

 

Nice example of your misunderstanding.

 

Explained: "The point is, the whole debate, that it is not about you at all. It's about the kids we create. Your happiness does not matter."

 

 

Man if only your parents could have thought the same way.

 

What if my kids are happy?

 

Edit:

Since consent cannot be given (or denied) before existence, and without an understanding of what consent means, this whole debate is pretty bleeding pointless.

 

Edit 2: Suffering is necessary to understand what happiness is. You cannot have happiness without sadness or suffering.

 

  Quote

 

Man if only your parents could have thought the same way.

Unfortunately, that was not the case.

  Quote

 

What if my kids are happy?

What if they get into a terribly bad situation in the future (God forbid, I wish only the best to your children)? War, car accident, rape, illness. Would their birth and general happiness be still worth the price?

  Quote

 

Edit 2: Suffering is necessary to understand what happiness is. You cannot have happiness without sadness or suffering.

No for the non-existent ones.

A summary by David Benatar:

.

Paradox: Jev's girlfriend loves his approach to non-existence so much, she demands to have his babies

find it staggering that someone so adamant about these subjects doesnt read philosophy or at least talk to an experienced Rabbi

  On 6/26/2015 at 1:07 AM, Jev said:

 

  On 6/25/2015 at 11:43 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 6/25/2015 at 8:42 PM, Jev said:

 

  On 6/25/2015 at 7:47 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 6/25/2015 at 5:41 PM, peace 7 said:

There is no suffering in Nirvana.

 

...and I have surfed the cosmos, lived for hundreds of years over thousands of years, been nothing and everything, but really, I thought Gauntlet was programmed to not be beatable with one quarter, so to those who did it when it was still in arcades, kudos.

It took a lot of quarters to get to that state.

 

  On 6/25/2015 at 6:47 PM, Jev said:

 

 

The point is, the whole debate, that it is not about you at all.

 

 

So it's all about you? Talk about selfishness...

 

 

Nice example of your misunderstanding.

 

Explained: "The point is, the whole debate, that it is not about you at all. It's about the kids we create. Your happiness does not matter."

 

 

Man if only your parents could have thought the same way.

 

What if my kids are happy?

 

Edit:

Since consent cannot be given (or denied) before existence, and without an understanding of what consent means, this whole debate is pretty bleeding pointless.

 

Edit 2: Suffering is necessary to understand what happiness is. You cannot have happiness without sadness or suffering.

 

 

  Quote

 

Man if only your parents could have thought the same way.

Unfortunately, that was not the case.

 

  Quote

 

What if my kids are happy?

 

What if they get into a terribly bad situation in the future (God forbid, I wish only the best to your children)? War, car accident, rape, illness. Would their birth and general happiness be still worth the price?

 

  Quote

 

Edit 2: Suffering is necessary to understand what happiness is. You cannot have happiness without sadness or suffering.

 

No for the non-existent ones.

 

A summary by David Benatar:

 

(1) The presence of pain is bad. (2) The presence of pleasure is good. (3) The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone. (4) The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation. If someone exists, there is the presence of pain and the presence of pleasure. If no one exists, nothing bad happens and pain is avoided. They miss out on pleasure, but it seems 'ignorance is bliss' with the nonexistent. For Benatar, “any suffering at all would be sufficient to make coming into existence a harm”. The harm that coming into existence creates is avoidable and pointless. According to Benatar, it is always good to avoid harm whenever possible and therefore it is always good not to come into existence.

 

Yes it would still be worth the price. Having gone through some fucked up shit in general when I was younger, and depression more recently, life is still preferable to not living.

My brother got into a terrible car accident, was in a coma for almost 2 weeks, has titanium rods in his leg, and the bitch that was the reason he got into the accident divorced him literally the day after she got her citizenship. He'd still rather be living than dead. Is it so hard for you to find joy in small things?

For some the presence of pain is good.

An absence of something is neither good nor bad, it simply isn't.

Luckily the antinatalists (if they truly believe in their schtick) will eventually take care of themselves.

Anyways

  On 6/26/2015 at 2:41 AM, chenGOD said:

 

 

 

 

Yes it would still be worth the price. Having gone through some fucked up shit in general when I was younger, and depression more recently, life is still preferable to not living.

My brother got into a terrible car accident, was in a coma for almost 2 weeks, has titanium rods in his leg, and the bitch that was the reason he got into the accident divorced him literally the day after she got her citizenship. He'd still rather be living than dead. Is it so hard for you to find joy in small things?

 

For some the presence of pain is good.

An absence of something is neither good nor bad, it simply isn't.

Luckily the antinatalists (if they truly believe in their schtick) will eventually take care of themselves.

 

Anyways

 

 

But you can see the randomness and fucked up-ness of living things right? It's great that you and your brother feel good about it, but that doesn't help all the ones who don't, plus all the animals. Also it's not good to bring arguments about the person making the argument, as opposed to the argument itself. I understand the intuition, especially with topics like this, but the person and the argument are really two different things. You know how there's a big debate about suicide and when or if it is rational to commit it? Well the same can be said for living. When we do we know if it's rational to keep on living? How do we know we're in the right state of mind and we're not being meddled with or looking far enough? A lot of positive things in life are also about alleviating a need, like eating, drinking, sleeping, scratching an itch basically. So we're born to feel needs, and those needs arose simply our of random mutation to further the survival of the organism. We get relief from those needs for a while, but then they come back. A pretty dark picture if you ask me.

Yes yes, anecdotes are not data (until you get a sufficiently large n in which case they become data).

Yeah shit is random - that's part of what makes life exciting.

As for simply scratching an itch - well sure you could just eat protein bars and drink water to fulfill that itch, or you could make a choice and do something to increase your utility. Of course there is an opportunity cost associated with the choice, but by maximizing your utility you can largely negate the cost of making the choice.

Sure biology demands certain things for our continued well being as an organism, but there are many many ways to fill those needs. So it need not be so dark if you ask me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkWeMvrNiOM

Penguins live much more depressing lives than humans. Penguins are cool and all that, but don't be weaker than a penguin. Ever.

  On 6/26/2015 at 1:48 AM, Bechuga said:

Paradox: Jev's girlfriend loves his approach to non-existence so much, she demands to have his babies

Fun, but luckily, she is on the same page as me.

ChenGOD, incredibly selfish of you against your children. Who are you to decide if your kids existence is worth their suffering? To me, you feel like a frustrated being that needed a purpose in life and found it in children, pain and constant "I can withstand this" kind of attitude. A tough-like attitude basically that is so often found with soldiers and similar type of people not ready to accept that their whole suffering and sacrifice was completely and utterly pointless. That they just had a bad luck and that there is no justice on this world and instead of just accepting it and let it sink into them they become angry and "tough" ("difficult life is necessary" kind of bullshit). To me it seems as if your emotions were blocked and so it found a different way to filter itself out (a text book case in psychology and psychiatry, actually). It is also apparent from your attitude against me - as if I was your enemy or trouble for you, as if I was an obstacle in life for you. But this is just my opinion, nothing scientific of course.

I am truly sorry for your kids, because many depression-inflicting features are passed on them by genetics (just for your information). And to support this with something, I experienced a bit of a tough shit too in my life (almost died during birth, caused brain damage, difficult childhood, bullying, very difficult relationships within family) and one of my main reasons for not having kids is my knowledge that my potential kids would not benefit from my psyche at all and would probably inherit their part from it. It would be impossible for me to live with the knowledge that I am the reason they suffer. Kids truly are victims of their parents and everything bad that happens to them in their lives is, unfortunately, their parents fault.

You happily make decisions for others while I try my best to don't make decisions for anybody.

One of the most sickening things about life is that people tend to compensate their shit through others. Poor children.

.