What do you make of this book?
Hard mode: only those who have read it are allowed to respond.
What do you make of this book? Hard mode: only those who have read it are allowed to respond.
What do you make of this book?
Hard mode: only those who have read it are allowed to respond.
https://www.abolitionist.com/anti-natalism.html
>Benatar's policy prescription is untenable. Radical anti-natalism as a recipe for human extinction will fail because any predisposition to share that bias will be weeded out of the population. Radical anti-natalist ethics is self-defeating: there will always be selection pressure against its practitioners. Complications aside, any predisposition not to have children or to adopt is genetically maladaptive. On a personal level, the decision not to bring more suffering into the world and forgo having children is morally admirable. But voluntary childlessness or adoption is not a global solution to the problem of suffering.
>Yet how should rational moral agents behave if - hypothetically - some variant of Benatar's diagnosis as distinct from policy prescription was correct?
>In an era of biotechnology and unnatural selection, an alternative to anti-natalism is the world-wide adoption of genetically preprogrammed well-being. For there needn't be selection pressure against gradients of lifelong adaptive bliss - i.e. a radical recalibration of the hedonic treadmill. The only way to eradicate the biological substrates of unpleasantness - and thereby prevent the harm of Darwinian existence - is not vainly to champion life's eradication, but instead to ensure that sentient life is inherently blissful. More specifically, the impending reproductive revolution of designer babies is likely to witness intense selection pressure against the harmfulness-promoting adaptations that increased the inclusive fitness of our genes in the ancestral environment of adaptation. If we use biotechnology wisely, then gradients of genetically preprogrammed well-being can make all sentient life subjectively rewarding - indeed wonderful beyond the human imagination. So in common with "positive" utilitarians, the "negative" utilitarian would do better to argue for genetically preprogrammed superhappiness.
Man I can't stand that homosexual. There's always these reddit Sci for losers always hanging round the edge of every philosophy, promising some sort of technological revolution where we're all blissed out and it's a utopia
I tell yoy even if that were possible, which it isn't, it would be like elysium, capitalism would destroy society in having a stratified wealth based access to it.
And guess what the fent addicted Black folk in the street already follow this hedonic imperative shit and look how far they get? Dying in a pool of drool and diahreah
>I tell yoy even if that were possible, which it isn't,
What makes you think it's impossible?
>it would be like elysium, capitalism would destroy society in having a stratified wealth based access to it.
And how is that a bad thing? Even if only a privileged minority have access to superhappiness, that's a lot better than no one having access to it at all.
Relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/QfJh_kWorBs
>And guess what the fent addicted Black folk in the street already follow this hedonic imperative shit and look how far they get? Dying in a pool of drool and diahreah
Except that's not what David Pearce advocates. His whole idea of gradients of bliss is to create a system where superhappiness is possible in such a way that DOESN'T cause you to become the equivalent of a heroin addict.
https://www.hedweb.com/object33.htm
https://qualiacomputing.com/2016/08/03/information-sensitive-gradients-of-bliss/
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3xYuJcjbWZQ
Don't care. Not reading.
Sci fi reddit gays promising utopia aren't worth listening to.
Oxford wants to destroy humanity, no matter what angle they're coming from. Whatever angle they're coming from, it's bleak. Whether it's publishing the Scofield bible or picrel.
All it shows is that reducing existence to a calculus of pleasure and pain results in nonsensical conclusions.
>results in nonsensical conclusions
How are the conclusions nonsensical?
They're based on reducing existence of a calculus of pleasure and pain.
And why is reducing existence to a calculus of pleasure and pain nonsensical?
These emotions are too complicated to reduce into a calculus of pain and pleasure. For instance, people can find pleasure in pain for feel pain under pleasurable circumstances.
Because it leads to nonsensical conclusions
>nonsensical conclusions
Such as?
Such is that life is not worth living (but mysteriously they don't kill themselves)
I know it's a meme, but when anti-natalistggers talk about life being fricked, they're almost never talking about their life. If your life is great or okay, why should you commit suicide?
Pic related was an antinatalist and actually killed himself.
https://vitrifyher.wordpress.com/2019/12/19/antinatalism-in-purgatory/
>I’m an antinatalist. I think it’s unforgivable to bring new people into this world given that there is suffering. The thing is that lately I’ve been thinking and feeling that people aren’t real. This would partially solve the problem of evil. There is just my suffering and everyone else is a simulation designed to spite me. This should cause me to not feel so antinatalist since the breeders are disgusting alien mockeries of a true human being, namely myself. Yet somehow I still feel very antinatalist. When I see children with their parents I am disgusted at the entire concept. They are probably just facets of the simulation and not souls brimming with the inner light of awareness like myself. And yet they still move me enough to cause disgust. I suppose that was the intention of the designer(s), to create something that appeared so real that it was actually disturbing. Dr. Miller says I have some sort of syndrome after finding out about my solipsism. I think he’s an imbecile who deserves to be burned on a stake. But out of my bodhisattva-like compassion I would instead grant him a consciousness and send him to heaven forever.
It seems that he was a very very repressed gay, that killed him.
He was extremely obsessed with a girl named Lindsey
He's just like me
Sounds like a whiny homosexual, no one chooses to be born and they simply have to deal with it. It's not all that bad and reproduction/having kids gives us a chance to make a better future not only for us but for animals too.
>It's not all that bad and reproduction/having kids gives us a chance to make a better future not only for us but for animals too.
This but the opposite
I agree with alot of it. My friend who grew up wealthy, pretty and popular didn't.
Hmmm you're back! And its has only been 2 months!
Literally just have a nice day.
How long until antinatalist effective altruists start a cult focused on nuking the planet so that nothing can suffer ever again? Serious question
Already happened. Check put Gary Mosher and the efilist crowd. That is literally their goal
>For instance, people can find pleasure in pain for feel pain under pleasurable circumstances.
Aren't they a minority? Intersubjectively speaking, pleasure is a pleasant/good experience and pain is an unpleasant/bad experience.
Early life section
Just read my me-me instead, saves you wasting your time with that piece of shit book.
I don't consider myself antinatalist. But my conclusion is almost the same. Everything is bad, therefore doing what is right is equivalent to actions that achieve an absence of evil.
Antinatalism is a mene for people who haven't matured intellectually beyond the age of 14
I would have told him:
>Okay but you have to promise me that you will unload at least 5 bullets into my skull.
I'm not antinatalist, but I think I'm pretty suicidal.
So what's the actual counterargument to it? "You are le immature" is not an argument.
>"You are le immature" is not an argument.
My argument is you should kys you're intellectually honest and not being a performative edgegay