Poll: Do you want kids?

edit: meaning ever, not necessarily right now.


Poll: Do you want kids?
(Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
(Vote): Probably, but maybe not
(Vote): Probably not, but maybe
(Vote): Already have them (woops)
(Vote): Already have them (on purpose!)

yea definitely at some point

Have 3, have had thoughts of making more as I get older

Where's the fuck you I don't want to think about it option?

Yes. Need to find south korean woman and create a gamer

not for a long time, if ever

Yup. Definitely.

On April 23 2015 15:17 NMcNasty wrote: Where's the fuck you I don't want to think about it option?

this

yeah i just dont want to raise them

On April 23 2015 19:50 Rinny wrote: yeah i just dont want to raise them

father of the year award :D

looking forward for loco's post

michaeljacksonpopcorn.gif

Theyre great if you have them but even more amazing if you didn't lol

Probably, maybe not

It's funny how being an unmarried adult male culturally used to make you a bit of a weirdo/outcast, and a married couple having no children or even only one child made them selfish. Of course that's changing now that cultural attitudes are more liberal, economic conditions for young people are tighter in many rich-world countries, overpopulation and climate change are more of a global concern, etc. As Loco pointed out by linking that funny Doug Stanhope video at some point in the past on here, people have a pretty massive negative environmental impact through the resources they consume over a lifetime, so the more children you have the more damage you'll do.

Ofcourse there's an ethical tradeoff. Letting everyone have as many children as they want could make things irreversibly worse for everyone but on the other hand having children is a joy and regarded as a basic human right which is ethically difficult to limit. My personal view is it's a good idea to limit yourself to one or two, and I generally tend to look down upon people who choose to have more (especially if my taxes and the future taxes paid by my one child will be used to keep them above the poverty line!).

Finally if you choose to not have any kids, pat yourselves on the back and I hope you have an awesome life.

On April 23 2015 15:37 VanDerMeyde wrote: Yes. Need to find south korean woman and create a gamer

fun fact: elite bw/esports players are disproportionately south korean because of cultural factors not genetics. it's a rigidly hierarchical system where background and especially school test scores and university determine your life success and there is not much upward social mobility. for the poorly educated desperate, uncompetitive and poor kids who don't have access to top private schools and private tuition, esports presents the mirage of a chance to make a better life for yourself. The difference between these kids and your average 'foreigner' hobby player (who has better life options than to try and make it in bw) is hunger.

ofcourse I recognise you're joking, but this realisation was quite eye-opening for me since i too enjoyed bw as a teenager and casually followed the scene. dropping out of highschool for esports is not a life you want to wish upon anyone, least of all your own child.

slightly offtopic post but maybe people will enjoy reading it

we do

On April 24 2015 08:00 Romm3l wrote: It's funny how being an unmarried adult male culturally used to make you a bit of a weirdo/outcast, and a married couple having no children or even only one child made them selfish. Of course that's changing now that cultural attitudes are more liberal, economic conditions for young people are tighter in many rich-world countries, overpopulation and climate change are more of a global concern, etc. As Loco pointed out by linking that funny Doug Stanhope video at some point in the past on here, people have a pretty massive negative environmental impact through the resources they consume over a lifetime, so the more children you have the more damage you'll do. Ofcourse there's an ethical tradeoff. Letting everyone have as many children as they want could make things irreversibly worse for everyone but on the other hand having children is a joy and regarded as a basic human right which is ethically difficult to limit. My personal view is it's a good idea to limit yourself to one or two, and I generally tend to look down upon people who choose to have more (especially if my taxes and the future taxes paid by my one child will be used to keep them above the poverty line!). Finally if you choose to not have any kids, pat yourselves on the back and I hope you have an awesome life.

This is flawed thinking. A society needs to have an avg of 2.1 kids per couple just to SUSTAIN (not grow) the population. A fertility rate of 1.3 is considered irreversible and the society will eventually cease to exist. No society has ever reversed a fertility rate of 1.6. So if everyone until the end of time only has 1-2 kids. Eventually humanity ceases to exist. So no. People who have more then 2 children don't deserve to be looked down upon. The only reason you look down upon them is because you are ignorant.

On April 24 2015 09:07 Trav94 wrote: Show nested quote + On April 24 2015 08:00 Romm3l wrote: It's funny how being an unmarried adult male culturally used to make you a bit of a weirdo/outcast, and a married couple having no children or even only one child made them selfish. Of course that's changing now that cultural attitudes are more liberal, economic conditions for young people are tighter in many rich-world countries, overpopulation and climate change are more of a global concern, etc. As Loco pointed out by linking that funny Doug Stanhope video at some point in the past on here, people have a pretty massive negative environmental impact through the resources they consume over a lifetime, so the more children you have the more damage you'll do. Ofcourse there's an ethical tradeoff. Letting everyone have as many children as they want could make things irreversibly worse for everyone but on the other hand having children is a joy and regarded as a basic human right which is ethically difficult to limit. My personal view is it's a good idea to limit yourself to one or two, and I generally tend to look down upon people who choose to have more (especially if my taxes and the future taxes paid by my one child will be used to keep them above the poverty line!). Finally if you choose to not have any kids, pat yourselves on the back and I hope you have an awesome life. This is flawed thinking. A society needs to have an avg of 2.1 kids per couple just to SUSTAIN (not grow) the population. A fertility rate of 1.3 is considered irreversible and the society will eventually cease to exist. No society has ever reversed a fertility rate of 1.6. So if everyone until the end of time only has 1-2 kids. Eventually humanity ceases to exist. So no. People who have more then 2 children don't deserve to be looked down upon. The only reason you look down upon them is because you are ignorant.

lol perhaps i didn't qualify, i mean specifically right now while there exists overpopulation, high global population growth rate, and an unsustainable rate of resource depletion+climate change. Nobody said anything about wanting to continue a low birth rate environment to extinction lol. Of all the things that threaten human extinction, dangerously low birth rates have no chance of ever being one of them - just look at the postwar baby boom to see what's possible when nations are worried about underpopulation.

low birth rates and stagnating/declining population are only a problem if you're the japanese government and have huge national debt and unfunded pension liabilities to your ageing population, and need your young people to have lots of japanese babies so their future economic activity and tax receipts will pay for it all. ofcourse they could also stop being such massive xenophobes and reform their immigration policy. welcoming highly skilled migrants and providing a good place to live worked out great for the USA.

interesting responses, i also wonder what the results would look like 7, 8, 9 years ago when a lot of LP's members were a bit younger.

i didn't vote in the poll, i wasn't sure whether to put No or Probably not, but maybe. i'm fairly certain i don't want kids; the only thing preventing me from saying No unequivocally is that i currently have opinions and beliefs at age 27 that i wouldn't have predicted 10 years ago, so who's to say i couldn't change my mind about this in the next 10 years. it does seem like a stretch though.

kind of a bummer because i'm in a relationship now that seems perfect in every way imaginable, except she definitely wants kids someday. fml

On April 24 2015 09:43 Romm3l wrote: Show nested quote + On April 24 2015 09:07 Trav94 wrote:   On April 24 2015 08:00 Romm3l wrote: It's funny how being an unmarried adult male culturally used to make you a bit of a weirdo/outcast, and a married couple having no children or even only one child made them selfish. Of course that's changing now that cultural attitudes are more liberal, economic conditions for young people are tighter in many rich-world countries, overpopulation and climate change are more of a global concern, etc. As Loco pointed out by linking that funny Doug Stanhope video at some point in the past on here, people have a pretty massive negative environmental impact through the resources they consume over a lifetime, so the more children you have the more damage you'll do. Ofcourse there's an ethical tradeoff. Letting everyone have as many children as they want could make things irreversibly worse for everyone but on the other hand having children is a joy and regarded as a basic human right which is ethically difficult to limit. My personal view is it's a good idea to limit yourself to one or two, and I generally tend to look down upon people who choose to have more (especially if my taxes and the future taxes paid by my one child will be used to keep them above the poverty line!). Finally if you choose to not have any kids, pat yourselves on the back and I hope you have an awesome life. This is flawed thinking. A society needs to have an avg of 2.1 kids per couple just to SUSTAIN (not grow) the population. A fertility rate of 1.3 is considered irreversible and the society will eventually cease to exist. No society has ever reversed a fertility rate of 1.6. So if everyone until the end of time only has 1-2 kids. Eventually humanity ceases to exist. So no. People who have more then 2 children don't deserve to be looked down upon. The only reason you look down upon them is because you are ignorant. lol perhaps i didn't qualify, i mean specifically right now while there exists overpopulation, high global population growth rate, and an unsustainable rate of resource depletion+climate change. Nobody said anything about wanting to continue a low birth rate environment to extinction lol. Of all the things that threaten human extinction, dangerously low birth rates have no chance of ever being one of them - just look at the postwar baby boom to see what's possible when nations are worried about underpopulation. low birth rates and stagnating/declining population are only a problem if you're the japanese government and have huge national debt and unfunded pension liabilities to your ageing population, and need your young people to have lots of japanese babies so their future economic activity and tax receipts will pay for it all. ofcourse they could also stop being such massive xenophobes and reform their immigration policy. welcoming highly skilled migrants and providing a good place to live worked out great for the USA.

I don't know if you're actually from Germany or not. But I think Germany's fertility rate is 1.3 or close to as of a few years ago if I remember correctly. So hypothetically there will be no more ethnic Germans sooner or later. It's not just Japan. The earth itself is not even close to being overpopulated. Just certain areas of it are. China and parts of the Middle East for ex. Do some research instead of just listening to propaganda..

to answer the question, yeah. preferably two, preferably at least one boy, and preferably not for another 2-3 years but also in less than 5.

to add to the discussion on overpopulation, we're gonna go up to 10-11 billion unless a billion or more unexpected deaths happen. the demographic change has largely happened in most of the world, but people are still growing older than they used to and if they keep growing older than they used to, even if people are only getting 2 kids per family, we're still gonna go up to 10-11 billion. The only way you can politically fight against a real world containing 10-11 billion people is through killing people. That's not an option. Decreasing western consumption to match sustainable levels is really the only thing we can do.

then whoops we run out of phosphorus and everything goes to hell lolz

What means phosphorus

Rommel said it all

Does batman want kids?

I think the ideal age for a male to have kids is probably 40+ years old

Something to consider as most of the people in this forum are probably younger than 40 years old and not about 'that life' yet.

Who are you going to pass your inheritance to?
Then theres the intrinsic value of passing on your legacy, family roots blah blah blah.

My mentality was to enjoy the most of life first then when i got past that age and rdy to settle down then have kids. In reality how long can you really party and live the 'bachelor life' ?

Theres going to be a point in my life where i know im going this say life kinda boring unfulfilling, 'whats the next step in life?' This is personally for myself but also serves in conjuction with cultural and social responsibilities imo.

If you wish to be that couple that does everything yourselves or that guy that is always on his own, then more power to you. But eventually, there are going to be times when your at parties when your 40 and see your friends and family with kids running around and it will be just you or you and your partner sitting together on the couch.

The question will come up eventually. 'when are you going to give me grandchildren, cousins etc'.
It would just feel wrong to me if i told them all 'never', which would be the case if i never planned to have kids.

Also if you do want kids, most women will be most fertile from 25-35 in terms of their biological clock before complications arrive. Which is the time most woman want children. So you also have to consider your partner, (it would be easier if it was just your choice haha.)

Yes, I'd like a kid or two someday. However, I want to be married first, or at least be with a woman long enough to where I know I want to have a kid with her and eventually get married not too long after.

I want to make sure that if I do have a kid, the kid will have both parents in his or her life. Coming from an American, I know that sounds ridiculous.

Then you better do the flip for one billion

What's fucked up is that we've designed our economies around these growth models that witll either:
*Collapse the economy if there weren't enough people being shit out of wombs
*Collapse the economy if there are too many people vs resources available

We fucked ourselves guys.

--- Nuked ---

On April 24 2015 18:32 VanDerMeyde wrote: What means phosphorus

phosphorus is a chemical element found in and necessary for all life. It's also important for the production of fertilizer.
it's kinda contested scientifically, apparently there are huge differences both in perception of how much phosphorus is left and how much we can recycle. But there seems to be an agreement to that without phosphorus, we would only be able to produce food for like, 2.5 billion people. Knowing that the world population will increase to at least 10 billion, it would obviously be quite tragic if only 25% of the population could eat. Anyway, some scientists claim that we're gonna hit peak phosphorus in like 20 years, others claim that currently known reserves can easily sustain us for another 75-200 years and that we're likely to have found much more before those are depleted.

Definitely hoping the latter group is correct cuz a real global food shortage resulting in the starvation of billions wouldn't be nice for anyone.

Only if it's a good ROI

On April 24 2015 00:48 Raidern wrote: looking forward for loco's post michaeljacksonpopcorn.gif

I was going to say that regardless of my views, I wouldn't make a good parent, and pretty much leave it at that. Then I remembered this quote from Thomas Bernhard, and evidently felt the need to say a bit more:

“There are absolutely no parents; there are only criminals who are progenitors of new human beings, whose procreative act with all its absurdity and stupidity is directed against those who are created.”

It's evident that most people will say that the quote is overly harsh and unjustified. I think that out of those people, those who can think for themselves should honestly ask themselves if it is so, and reflect on Schopenhauer when he says, “History shows us the life of nations and can find nothing to relate except wars and insurrections; the years of peace appear here and there only as short pauses, as intervals between the acts. And in the same way, the life of the individual is a perpetual struggle, not merely metaphorically with want and boredom but actually with others. Everywhere he finds an opponent, lives in constant conflict, and dies weapon in hand.” In that light, it is absolutely accurate, since you are responsible for the fate of the gladiator you created and put in the arena.

I think it's an even more interesting question to ask on a poker forum though, because we have all gambled for money, and having kids is a completely different and more serious gamble. Within the question "do you want kids" is also the implied question: "how much risk are you willing to take?". Ethically it's obviously a problem. Put simply, we all agree on this forum that it would be problematic if we were to gamble with other people's money without their consent. But this is specifically what procreation involves; we roll the dice, and someone else pays in the end. And i'm not even talking about the literal end; about the fact that giving birth is giving a death sentence as well; I'm talking about what goes on between womb and tomb, about all of the potential suffering and unhappiness that we can't possibly prevent. That's the real deal breaker for me. I'm just not a gambler; I could only consent to giving life if I were absolutely guaranteed that my child would not be faced with extreme horror. (And that would only be one part of the problem solved, since that existence would be responsible for harming others as well.)

I thinks it's quite curious that we would feel wronged if someone gambled with our money without our consent, yet we are willing to gamble with someone else's welfare in a situation where consent can't be had. It's that ingrained "look on the bright side and hope for the best" attitude and nothing can be done about it.

Maybe one day I'll change my mind, if I read some persuasive arguments which I have yet to have found, or if we live in the world that the transhumanist philosopher David Pearce envisages. But for now, as with Zapffe, "In accordance with my conception of life, I have chosen not to bring children into the world. A coin is examined, and only after careful deliberation, given to a beggar, whereas a child is flung out into the cosmic brutality without hesitation."

meh; I'd rather fight suffer and die, if it meant I got to get high and fuck first. Especially as opposed to nothing all. Not even really close for me; I've gone through tough times, poverty, drug addiction, almost died of a suicide attempt at one point. Ultimately however I chose to be and am happy. Experiencing love outweighs any of the lesser negative states we enter such as depression, despair, pain. For some the negative states CAN outweigh the positive but I believe only in the small minority such as the terminally ill or those forever in pain. For them unfortunately something like compassionate euthanasia may be the only option i don't know but I'm not against it. You have a really dark view on life Loco. I understand the anti-natalist argument but the way you act like it should be taken as common sense and that for others to believe otherwise is to entertain logical fallacy kind of irks me.

At bad times I have been pissed at life and thought "fk you I didn't ask to be here I didn't agree to enter this society and abide by these rules". When laws or whatever didn't suit me and I broke them and got in trouble. And it might technically be true. I'm not sure as I can't remember what I got myself into before birth but for all I know my spirit knew just what I was getting into. Nobody is sure if we exist beyond the flesh but what if we do Loco, and I'm not talking religion here loco but what of your argument then. There is a possibility we chose our parents upon incarnation.

Anyways it is a bullshit argument because it is ultimately beside the point. We are here now so be happy and make the best of it. It doesn't have to be a shitty life; we clearly are growing collectively over the generations through accumulated knowledge and there is a chance we are able to obtain a relatively utopic society at some point. Nothing indicates humans are intrinsically incapable of that so it is worth shooting for. Part of living a happy life, whether fair or not to the baby, is having children and the insurmountable love it brings. If we do a good job as parents and everyone starts doing better as humans we should feel no guilt about bringing new life into this beautiful planet.

And we might not let other people gamble with our money Loco but we don't seem to have much problem allowing corrupt politicians to gamble with our well being

Not meaning to insult, but Loco's post sounds a lot more like intellectual masturbation..complete drivel..rather than anything mildly intelligible.


How can you take yourself seriously and say something like 'I could only consent to giving life if I were absolutely guaranteed that my child would not be faced with extreme horror."?

"I could only consent to the very basis of all organic existence if I could be guaranteed something that's only fortune tellers and seers are capable of."

Do you ever get tired of reading overly verbose blocks of paper and print that are really just a series of words with arbitrary meaning which have absolutely no relevance to reality?

I dunno, sorry. I don't really post here anymore, but I find intellectualism as a lifestyle to be nauseating. Perhaps instead of soaking up philosophy and regurgitating quotes, you attempt original thought :/

Before anybody responds to me, please absorb what it actually means to view exposing something to life as a gamble. Giving life is giving a death sentence? Womb and tomb? Give me a break.

Death is a part of life. Suffering is a part of happiness. They don't exist exclusively of one another. The melancholy, solemn, ominous, try-too-hard psuedointellectual is an old, tired role. There's a reason you all seem to gravitate towards one another.

On May 08 2015 07:15 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Not meaning to insult, but Loco's post sounds a lot more like intellectual masturbation..complete drivel..rather than anything mildly intelligible. How can you take yourself seriously and say something like 'I could only consent to giving life if I were absolutely guaranteed that my child would not be faced with extreme horror."? "I could only consent to the very basis of all organic existence if I could be guaranteed something that's only fortune tellers and seers are capable of." Do you ever get tired of reading overly verbose blocks of paper and print that are really just a series of words with arbitrary meaning which have absolutely no relevance to reality? I dunno, sorry. I don't really post here anymore, but I find intellectualism as a lifestyle to be nauseating. Perhaps instead of soaking up philosophy and regurgitating quotes, you attempt original thought :/ Before anybody responds to me, please absorb what it actually means to view exposing something to life as a gamble. Giving life is giving a death sentence? Womb and tomb? Give me a break. Death is a part of life. Suffering is a part of happiness. They don't exist exclusively of one another. The melancholy, solemn, ominous, try-too-hard psuedointellectual is an old, tired role. There's a reason you all seem to gravitate towards one another.

I take loco money-line here.

On May 08 2015 07:15 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Not meaning to insult, but [ad hom, ad hom, red herring, etc]

seriously what was the point of your post? Loco obviously has a strong point of view on this subject, i'm sure others disagree with him too and that's fine, but your hostility is really weird. not to mention you don't really make any point except that you really dislike intellectualism.

Traxa, in one sentence you claim to understand the anti-natalist arguments and another you imply that I hold this position because I'm pissed at life, not because it's the logical, risk-averse thing to do, and you say it just because it has been your experience to be pissed at life at some point and you got over it. Obviously you don't understand it at all. It's especially obvious when you end with "it's a bullshit argument, we're here now, let's be happy.", casually dismissing a whole conversation that clearly deserves a bit more thought than that. When have serious issues ever been dealt with intelligently with this kind of hippie laissez-faire attitude? If you want to be happy go be happy, no one is forcing you to try to fix things in the world, but don't present this as some kind of argument as if the world would be a better place if we just ignored everything that makes us unhappy.

You start your post with "I'd rather suffer and die than nothing at all." Notice how you casually dismiss my points by starting with your own desires, which have nothing to do with the subject that I brought up which is the ethics of procreation. The subject is choosing for someone else, not for yourself. Your values and your outlook doesn't carry through your sperm. That means that you inevitably always have to take the risk that this person will not be thankful to have been born. As far as your own experience goes, even if you're thankful now, you'll still suffer, and you can't know right now that you might not be thankful later, so it doesn't accomplish anything for you to say it. I'm just saying that I can't go wrong by not taking the risk. I'm not depriving anyone of pleasure, since you have to exist in the first place to be deprived of something. If for some reason I became a responsible adult who could competently be responsible for another human life and I felt a strong need to have children, I would want to adopt, because it makes more sense to me than this narcissistic attachment of passing down my own genes and name. I'm sorry if that makes me sound like as asshole, but it's simply the truth. I don't hate people for it, it is how it is.

I don't see how my arguments would need to change if we "existed beyond the flesh" like you say. The argument is about the flesh itself. Even if we grant the Catholic heaven to be real, it wouldn't change anything, since we still have to pass by the flesh, and the asymmetry argument and the consent argument still applies.


"Nothing indicates humans are intrinsically incapable of that and there is a chance we are able to obtain a relatively utopic society at some point."

History and biology both tell us the opposite. People of all ages have hoped and talked about an utopia being around the corner, if it wasn't in the afterlife. The kind of cumulative growth and progress you believe in is a myth, and there are many events that prove that such as Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. Biologically, we know that we're a product of evolution, which was nothing but a bloodbath of lifeforms exploiting and consuming each other for no purpose other than reproducing. We evolved to dominate each other, not to get along. Civilization hasn't changed that; despite possessing what is the most complex structure in the universe, our brain power is still largely being used for purposes of exploitation and domination. Certainly no trace of a utopia there.

Look, our disagreement can be basically summarized with this. Suppose we have an amusement park where there are a hundred rides. Out of those, only one is defective, and will undoubtedly collapse while there are people on it, injuring some and giving some a painful death. My argument is that this park should ideally stay closed, because it's nowhere efficient enough. Even in bigger numbers, the good is clearly not worth the bad. With the arguments that you have put forth, you are saying that this amusement park is good enough; that it's worth it to have 99 functional rides because of all the pleasure there is to be had there, and the 1% of the horror is well worth it. I'm telling you that I'm not willing to choose to put someone I love into one of those rides, especially without their consent, and you think it's because I'm pissed at life. No, I'm not pissed, I'm just acknowledging that it's not intelligently designed and I won't willingly put someone in it.

On May 08 2015 07:15 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Not meaning to insult, but Loco's post sounds a lot more like intellectual masturbation..complete drivel..rather than anything mildly intelligible. How can you take yourself seriously and say something like 'I could only consent to giving life if I were absolutely guaranteed that my child would not be faced with extreme horror."? "I could only consent to the very basis of all organic existence if I could be guaranteed something that's only fortune tellers and seers are capable of." Do you ever get tired of reading overly verbose blocks of paper and print that are really just a series of words with arbitrary meaning which have absolutely no relevance to reality? I dunno, sorry. I don't really post here anymore, but I find intellectualism as a lifestyle to be nauseating. Perhaps instead of soaking up philosophy and regurgitating quotes, you attempt original thought :/ Before anybody responds to me, please absorb what it actually means to view exposing something to life as a gamble. Giving life is giving a death sentence? Womb and tomb? Give me a break. Death is a part of life. Suffering is a part of happiness. They don't exist exclusively of one another. The melancholy, solemn, ominous, try-too-hard psuedointellectual is an old, tired role. There's a reason you all seem to gravitate towards one another.

Someone once told me that you used to be much more interesting when you were a rebellious, goth kid. I see now where he was coming from. Now this makes me think that this post is more like an attack against what you think is in me and which was in your own past self than anything that has to do with me in actuality and what I've talked about here. But I might be wrong of course.

But enough with the personal stuff. It's not exposing something to life that is a gamble, it is the assumption that what you expose your progeny to will be well worth it for him/her. That's the main gamble. Of course there's also the gamble that the child might suffer and die of some illness or accident before it's even aware enough to come to contemplate life, and that's on you as well. If my pseudointellectual language and verbosity (Hegel has nothing on me!) is too much for you, here is a visual example of such a gamble.

"Death is a part of life. Suffering is a part of happiness. They don't exist exclusively of one another."

I'm sorry, but since I lack the ability to come up with original thought, I'll have to respond with a quote:

“Without pain, how could we know joy?' This is an old argument in the field of thinking about suffering and its stupidity and lack of sophistication could be plumbed for centuries but suffice it to say that the existence of broccoli does not, in any way, affect the taste of chocolate.” - John Green

If there's one person who is playing an old, tired role here I think it's you with your attempt at the Wise Man who understands and accept the unity of all things.

"There's a reason you all seem to gravitate towards one another."

Except I'm not friends with anyone else who holds my views, or any strong views at all really. I guess if I could I would be friends with Doug Stanhope, though. Not exactly the intellectual type. The few friends I have are more the 'watch hockey and play video games' types who don't read books. Nice read there, Freak. Actually, I'll add a bit more personal stuff, since it seems fitting: with reads like that, it's no wonder to me that you failed as a poker player. Fwiw, I also remember the reaction of various people, including some philosophers, over the things said by Rust Cohle in True Detective, which are in line with my own thinking, and most of which is quite disparaging. It's funny to think that it's probably the last position you'd want to take if you want to be part of some intellectual club.

I've had a very, very bad week. So I'm just going to start by apologizing for my post. Some parts of it rubbed me the wrong way. I should have been attacking the ideas, not the person saying them. With that being said, I'm sorry. Not that that excuses being an obnoxious prick, but figured it should be said.


Anyways...


I've no role here. I don't understand life, having children, or a great many things. And I don't pretend to. I can appreciate the thought exercise, but beyond that it's just empty words by men with big vocabularies. Intelligent people are very good at making things thought provoking. However, and this is just my perspective, I just find speaking definitively about topics that are fairly intangible to be foolish.

Perhaps I'm reading your post and the quotes within it incorrectly, but the tone comes across as condescending and macabre to me. That seems completely off base when talking about one of the most basic aspects of life. I find a person's view is fairly narrow when it consists mostly of looking down their nose.

I'm fairly certain the only opinion I've stated is that exposing something to the unpredictability of life, which is a simple reality, is no gamble. If we apply gambling to that, it can be applied to almost everything, in which case we would just have to agree to disagree.

Either way, I know most of what I said was uncalled for and extremely antagonizing. While I do find psuedointellectualism nauseating, and it is not hard to find in philosophy circles, I know that doesn't apply to you.

And yeah, I do have a past. I've made a lot of mistakes. I do owe people money, and that's something I'm not particularly proud of. I did fail as a poker player, for various reasons. However, I've not been around for a long time. You've no idea where I'm at now, what I'm doing, or anything about me anymore. I've changed a lot in the last 3 years. I've plans to make it up to the people I owe, when I'm able.



I've no intention of engaging in a pissing contest. So, if that's what this is going to turn into, I'll have to tag out. I understand I peed on your shoes first, but I'll have to put my dick away here. You're welcome to continue bashing for what you knew of me. We both know I can't defend against that, so feel free.


Anyway, sorry again. Was an immature response, and I'd probably have pissed on almost anybody's feet. Glad it was somebody who would slap me back.

Regarding pain and joy, broccoli and chocolate. I think that's an oversimplification of appreciating contrast and the depth it can bring to a number of things. I view them as different points on a spectrum, not as clearly defined opposing ideas and/or feelings.

And to be honest, I think his criticism falls apart when you use pain and pleasure, sadness and joy, broccoli and candy, and to be honest, I can't think of the proper contrast to chocolate. The more of the spectrum we experience, the better we understand it. They aren't independent of one another, I don't think appreciating one end, with or without any other part of it, makes it untrue.

And I would think somebody fixated on one end to have a limited perspective. Which is a big part of the reason I dislike a lot of philosophy. I suppose it's more interesting and engaging to read when somebody takes a stand one way or another, but it's a skewed view of reality. Which is why I know you read many sides of the same ideas.

"Regarding pain and joy, broccoli and chocolate. I think that's an oversimplification of appreciating contrast and the depth it can bring to a number of things. I view them as different points on a spectrum, not as clearly defined opposing ideas and/or feelings."

I think the point is that one part of the spectrum could exist while the other one is no longer effective. In theory, it's not absolutely necessary to have known absolute misery in order to know pleasure/ecstasy. In theory again, we could potentially feel different intensities of only negative or positive feelings, depending on the chemicals running through our system. But yes, if your argument is that in normal life the depth of one can affect the other, I agree. If someone deprives himself of something he likes for some time, he is much more likely to enjoy it more the next time as a result. We get used to things that we do so much and part of enjoying it is the time that is spent between both instances. I'm pretty sure if I slept on the floor tonight I would enjoy my bed a lot more the next night. But this detracts from my argument that the avoidance of harm has more moral weight than the creation of or augmentation of pleasure, which I tried to point out to traxa, and which is something that I think almost everyone on this forum feels is true intuitively.

For those not familiar with it, this is Karl Popper's classic counterargument against utilitarianism and in favor of negative utilitarianism, and for which I base a lot of what I'm saying here:

"There is, from the ethical point of view, no symmetry between suffering and happiness, or between pain and pleasure… In my opinion human suffering makes a direct moral appeal, namely, the appeal for help, while there is no similar call to increase the happiness of a man who is doing well anyway. A further criticism of the Utilitarian formula "Maximize pleasure" is that it assumes a continuous pleasure-pain scale which allows us to treat degrees of pain as negative degrees of pleasure. But, from the moral point of view, pain cannot be outweighed by pleasure, and especially not one man's pain by another man's pleasure. Instead of the greatest happiness for the greatest number, one should demand, more modestly, the least amount of avoidable suffering for all..."

I'll have to say that I'm mostly disagreeing with you because I don't think it accurately represents reality. I don't mind arguing ideas, it's a good thought exercise, but if it doesn't accurately describe what the vast majority of people actually experience, that's all it really is. Which I guess I just think there's a time and a place for.

Exploring aspects of the human experience that skews that experience in an effort to understand it as an isolated portion is great, but not in a thread about whether or not people want kids. Honestly, I don't think that's the real reason you don't want children. I could be wrong, but it seems like something said with the intent of driving home a particular point. People's reasons for having or not having children tend to be very simple. Obviously that doesn't apply to everybody, and I could be wrong in this case, but it probably says a lot about where I'm speaking from.

We've lost focus here. I'm not sure what you're referring to. What is it that doesn't accurately describe what people actually experience? That life is a struggle which involves suffering and conflict? Surely this is as basic as it gets and you will agree that every existence has plenty of both. Take this quote then:


“Fulfilled desires, like pleasures (even of the intrinsic kind), are states of achievement rather than default states. For instance, one has to work at satiating oneself, while hunger comes naturally. After one has eaten or taken liquid, bowel and bladder discomfort ensues quite naturally and we have to seek relief. One has to seek out pleasurable sensations, in the absence of which blandness or discomfort comes naturally. The upshot of this is that we must continually work at keeping suffering (including tedium) at bay, and we can do so only imperfectly. Dissatisfaction does and must pervade life. There are moments, perhaps even periods, of satisfaction, but they occur against a background of dissatisfied striving. Pollyannaism may cause most people to blur out this background, but it remains there.”

I'm guessing here that you agree with the first part but not the latter? Do people not experience these states of dissatisfaction by default unless they can find things in their environment to provide satiation/gratification? What is it that you think I'm missing, that the good of the average life outweighs the bad? That people tend to be more gratified than not? If so, how do you think it should affect my previous arguments regarding being risk-averse?

I don't disagree with what you say for the most part, but I think the people you quote tend to focus more on the negative side of things. As I've said before, it could just be how I'm reading them. I see an underlying pessimism, and I find it to be very common when these topics come up.

What you just quoted seems to suggest a default state of dissatisfaction and suffering, and that's just not something that I agree with. I think whether we feel positively or negatively, it's predominantly a product of our current environment and whether or not our current state of mind is in tune with it. I think the disconnect between the environment and our current state is what causes most suffering.

As an example, how I feel during an evening where I'm being apathetic and unmotivated can be vastly different based on what my environment is driving me to do. I could be extremely relaxed and content or feeling unproductive and anxious. And sometimes when I'm constantly busy, I couldn't be happier and other times I wish it would end.

I suppose you could argue that my default state is one of dissatisfaction and suffering, since typically if I'm having negative feelings about the situation it's because I'm not doing what I actually want or feel I should be doing. I feel like this implies conscious decision plays a bigger role than it actually does.

How I read it is that there is a default state that makes us feel bad, and we override this state by making choices that make us feel good, or changing our environment to trigger us to feel good. I just think what I feel like as a base changes over time, or soemtimes on a day to day basis, and whether or not my actions reflect how I feel on any given day has little to do with anything I've actually decided to do. (Not that I'm not making decisions, and my decisions are often in tune with how I feel, but how I feel changes, and my decisions don't always reflect that, and when that happens I'm unhappy)

I dunno, I think it's just either how I'm reading it, or I'm describing virtually the same thing but just choosing to view it slightly differently because I dislike the tone it's presented in. And that tone could just be completely in my head...

I should probably go to bed because I'm not entirely sure how much sense I'm actually making. It's been a long 48 hours.

That being said, I'm not particularly risk-averse, and that could be a product of how I experience things and function. Which could be vastly different from how most people do, for all I know.

Too much Aristotle in this thread. Yes, there's a chance something bad could happen when having a child, but there is that risk with everything in life. Are you not going to drive in a car because of the risks of putting others endanger?

Suffering and pain... Chocolate and burritos. These things are beyond your control and to simply avoid it all together, is going through life playing the 'what if' game.

You either want kids or not. Yeah you can say no and that would be OK, but i believe most people in this thread are saying not yet. Some are not ready to settle down yet, some fear the unknown, others lack confidence in their ability to raise a child at this point in their lives.

But to flat out deny one of life's biggest choices in life, especially when you havent lived through it, is a bit arrogant imo. How would you know what you want in 10-20 years? Your saying you have life all figured out, to be making this important choice at this very moment. Your saying, I dont care if I meet my future wife and she wants a child more than anything in the world, Im going to be selfish and not bat an eye.

At least keep your options open people.

Who wants to live in a world without chocolate and amusement parks btw? Not me!!

On May 08 2015 03:22 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On April 24 2015 00:48 Raidern wrote: looking forward for loco's post michaeljacksonpopcorn.gif I was going to say that regardless of my views, I wouldn't make a good parent, and pretty much leave it at that. Then I remembered this quote from Thomas Bernhard, and evidently felt the need to say a bit more: “There are absolutely no parents; there are only criminals who are progenitors of new human beings, whose procreative act with all its absurdity and stupidity is directed against those who are created.” It's evident that most people will say that the quote is overly harsh and unjustified. I think that out of those people, those who can think for themselves should honestly ask themselves if it is so, and reflect on Schopenhauer when he says, “History shows us the life of nations and can find nothing to relate except wars and insurrections; the years of peace appear here and there only as short pauses, as intervals between the acts. And in the same way, the life of the individual is a perpetual struggle, not merely metaphorically with want and boredom but actually with others. Everywhere he finds an opponent, lives in constant conflict, and dies weapon in hand.” In that light, it is absolutely accurate, since you are responsible for the fate of the gladiator you created and put in the arena. I think it's an even more interesting question to ask on a poker forum though, because we have all gambled for money, and having kids is a completely different and more serious gamble. Within the question "do you want kids" is also the implied question: "how much risk are you willing to take?". Ethically it's obviously a problem. Put simply, we all agree on this forum that it would be problematic if we were to gamble with other people's money without their consent. But this is specifically what procreation involves; we roll the dice, and someone else pays in the end. And i'm not even talking about the literal end; about the fact that giving birth is giving a death sentence as well; I'm talking about what goes on between womb and tomb, about all of the potential suffering and unhappiness that we can't possibly prevent. That's the real deal breaker for me. I'm just not a gambler; I could only consent to giving life if I were absolutely guaranteed that my child would not be faced with extreme horror. (And that would only be one part of the problem solved, since that existence would be responsible for harming others as well.) I thinks it's quite curious that we would feel wronged if someone gambled with our money without our consent, yet we are willing to gamble with someone else's welfare in a situation where consent can't be had. It's that ingrained "look on the bright side and hope for the best" attitude and nothing can be done about it. Maybe one day I'll change my mind, if I read some persuasive arguments which I have yet to have found, or if we live in the world that the transhumanist philosopher David Pearce envisages. But for now, as with Zapffe, "In accordance with my conception of life, I have chosen not to bring children into the world. A coin is examined, and only after careful deliberation, given to a beggar, whereas a child is flung out into the cosmic brutality without hesitation."

Thanks for a great post.. although I've read some of your previous posts on the subject (probably without fully understanding and not even realising I didn't really understand correctly), I think I now understand your position much more clearly with the gambling analogy. I don't have much to add other than I decided to have a child because i was looking on the bright side and hoping for the best, but now I have one I feel very risk-averse and recognise her welfare will be largely beyond my control, and the best I can do is to equip my little gladiator with some reasonable weapons and fight training and hope for some good luck.

I think trax raises a good thing to think about in response though, is it better to never have existed or to exist and have a life with plenty of sadness and horror but also some relief, joy and happiness in there? How do you put a value on these things, and is your sense of value skewed/biased by the fact you currently exist and are having a not-too-bad experience right now, to be sitting in front of a computer and taking part in leisurely idle discourse on an online forum?

I like this thread.

It reminds me of how much I love LP and is one of the reasons I keep coming back.

I currently can not sleep. Insomnia is a mother fucker. Writing helps. I am writing this post because I am selfish, self-centered, and I can not sleep and this may aid in that... or at least aid in soothing the aches and pains of boredom, half groggy, can not achieve deep REM sleep with nothing to do at middle of the moon out consciousness. I hope someone can find something in here. If not, oh well, there is plenty of dope shit to be found on the interwebz.

Just my thoughts at the time:

Is it better to never have existed or to exist and have a life with plenty of sadness and horror but also some relief, joy and happiness in there?

This is such a hard fucking question. I tend to lean towards the latter:

Why?

I am not sure.

I am still here. Existing. To be rigorously honest and thorough: I have thought about suicide many times in my life. I have thought about suicide today. I have thought about suicide while contemplating this thread and writing this post. Today, not seriously in a I would like to kill myself, how am I going to do this sort of way but a how do I deal with this question and the angst of existence kind of way. In the past, I have seriously thought about killing myself. I have thought about jumping from buildings. I have thought about jumping from bridges. I have thought about swerving off of a mountain on the turnpike. I have thought about jumping into a ladle full of hot steel. I have thought about shooting myself in the head with a shotgun. I have thought about stabbing my gut with a santoku knife. I have thought about hanging myself. I have thought about overdosing on drugs. I have overdosed on drugs.

So, why do I keep existing?

I am not sure.

I am still unsure if it is because I am and was always too afraid of death or at least too afraid of killing myself. All the suicidal thoughts I have had were always met with "Not now. Not yet." The times I overdosed they were not conscious choices to overdose but more so out of carelessness. I did not seem to consciously care if I died. I was too lazy or depressed to monitor any sort of responsibility. I was using to escape responsibility. To escape consciousness. Get me to that place where my brain shuts off and get me to that place as soon as possible. Many of those times my heart and my lungs continued to function. Many of those times I did not care if my heart or lungs continued to function.

The thing is, at least for me, there has always been that glimmering, glistening crack of light. Even in my deepest despairs there always seemed to be some semblance of hope. In my deepest sadness, always some prospect of joy.

Sometimes I wake up and am just fucking pissed that I have to eat food, then I have to fucking shit some already digested food out, and then my penis starts acting up and urges me to seek out a wet vagina or at least a wet mouth. Most times he is not all that excited about the prospects of a dry handy. Sexual frustration fucking sucks. Even if he is in the mood for some moisturized self massage the hunger keeps coming back. Even if he gets some filet mignon in the form of phenomenal femininity the hunger keeps coming back. And now, he wants fucking filet mignon all the time!

Then I have to clean house on all sorts of shit. Shit gets clean then it gets dirty. It never stays clean. I have to have my shit together if I want to continue eating food, have a reasonably clean, comfortable place to inhabit and rest, and have chances at healthy, sustainable sexual relationships.

If I get to the bottom of things, if I really realize my situation from a humble place, the situation of being able to sit in front of a computer and take part in leisurely idle discourse on an online forum I feel blessed.

I feel blessed. There is no other way for me to express it.

Blessed by a grandfatherly God sitting up in heaven dictating my conscious?

Fuck no.

But, I feel blessed. I am thankful for my existence. I am thankful for love. I am thankful for fellowship. I am thankful for hope. I am thankful for joy. I am thankful.

I am thankful that on days I can accept the universe for what it is, get some shit done, and love and tolerate and be of service to my communities and fellows that on those days I can typically be more reasonably happy than not.

we have such little understanding of existence that to make a logical argument about it (as you have LOCO) does not imply truth if our most basic assumptions prove false later. We don't actually know why we are here. Maybe it is just the random result of a cosmic maelstrom but I have reason to doubt that. With your beliefs Loco i think your thoughts on adoption are very reasonable and admittedly there is always going to be some narcissism involved in that drive to have a child. However, if I believe there is intrinsic value to this life experience (as I do), then to refuse to have a child at any point when afforded the opportunity would have a cost. There is an opportunity costs that prospective life must pay for my selfish/selfless (which side are you on) beliefs.

On May 10 2015 12:08 Romm3l wrote: Show nested quote + On May 08 2015 03:22 Loco wrote:   On April 24 2015 00:48 Raidern wrote: looking forward for loco's post michaeljacksonpopcorn.gif I was going to say that regardless of my views, I wouldn't make a good parent, and pretty much leave it at that. Then I remembered this quote from Thomas Bernhard, and evidently felt the need to say a bit more: “There are absolutely no parents; there are only criminals who are progenitors of new human beings, whose procreative act with all its absurdity and stupidity is directed against those who are created.” It's evident that most people will say that the quote is overly harsh and unjustified. I think that out of those people, those who can think for themselves should honestly ask themselves if it is so, and reflect on Schopenhauer when he says, “History shows us the life of nations and can find nothing to relate except wars and insurrections; the years of peace appear here and there only as short pauses, as intervals between the acts. And in the same way, the life of the individual is a perpetual struggle, not merely metaphorically with want and boredom but actually with others. Everywhere he finds an opponent, lives in constant conflict, and dies weapon in hand.” In that light, it is absolutely accurate, since you are responsible for the fate of the gladiator you created and put in the arena. I think it's an even more interesting question to ask on a poker forum though, because we have all gambled for money, and having kids is a completely different and more serious gamble. Within the question "do you want kids" is also the implied question: "how much risk are you willing to take?". Ethically it's obviously a problem. Put simply, we all agree on this forum that it would be problematic if we were to gamble with other people's money without their consent. But this is specifically what procreation involves; we roll the dice, and someone else pays in the end. And i'm not even talking about the literal end; about the fact that giving birth is giving a death sentence as well; I'm talking about what goes on between womb and tomb, about all of the potential suffering and unhappiness that we can't possibly prevent. That's the real deal breaker for me. I'm just not a gambler; I could only consent to giving life if I were absolutely guaranteed that my child would not be faced with extreme horror. (And that would only be one part of the problem solved, since that existence would be responsible for harming others as well.) I thinks it's quite curious that we would feel wronged if someone gambled with our money without our consent, yet we are willing to gamble with someone else's welfare in a situation where consent can't be had. It's that ingrained "look on the bright side and hope for the best" attitude and nothing can be done about it. Maybe one day I'll change my mind, if I read some persuasive arguments which I have yet to have found, or if we live in the world that the transhumanist philosopher David Pearce envisages. But for now, as with Zapffe, "In accordance with my conception of life, I have chosen not to bring children into the world. A coin is examined, and only after careful deliberation, given to a beggar, whereas a child is flung out into the cosmic brutality without hesitation." Thanks for a great post.. although I've read some of your previous posts on the subject (probably without fully understanding and not even realising I didn't really understand correctly), I think I now understand your position much more clearly with the gambling analogy. I don't have much to add other than I decided to have a child because i was looking on the bright side and hoping for the best, but now I have one I feel very risk-averse and recognise her welfare will be largely beyond my control, and the best I can do is to equip my little gladiator with some reasonable weapons and fight training and hope for some good luck. I think trax raises a good thing to think about in response though, is it better to never have existed or to exist and have a life with plenty of sadness and horror but also some relief, joy and happiness in there? How do you put a value on these things, and is your sense of value skewed/biased by the fact you currently exist and are having a not-too-bad experience right now, to be sitting in front of a computer and taking part in leisurely idle discourse on an online forum?

From a purely logical point of view, it's always better not to have existed, provided you accept a couple very basic axioms like the presence of non-trivial harm is bad and not experiencing it is good (See the philosopher David Benatar's asymmetry). From a vitalist or immoralist point of view like Nietzsche, this kind of thinking is invalid, but it's sadistic. I hold the conviction that, unless we're sadistic, to believe otherwise is to believe in some illusion or another, religious or not.

The main problem is that the question of whether it's better to exist or not exist is one of living vs. committing suicide, and not one of procreating or abstaining from procreation. Some people will argue the opposite, but I believe that there is a huge gap between continuing a life and starting a new one. The latter is a different question because it involves choosing for someone else, at least until that person is able to make his or her own choices, without knowledge of how the particular life will turn out. "I have had a good life, therefore giving life must be good", it's easy to see the logical fallacy in this. First, as a person makes the statement, "life is good", they almost always have not experienced the "whole package" yet. Asking a person on their death bed would be much more sensible, for obvious reasons. Ideally, we could ask people after they died, if they would be willing to do it all over again, like in Schopenhauer's thought experiment.

Secondly, and I've said this already, just because a person affirmed their own life (at this point in their own lives), does not make it transfer to their offspring, so it's never a good argument. Lastly, you have to remember that just because we enjoy things and we put value on these experiences, they have no value in and of themselves. There is a reason why we do not mourn all of those potential children we did not have because they didn't get to experience the joys of eating, having sex and other entertainments. There is a reason why none of us ever feel like we have a duty to have sex as much as possible in order to bring more happy people into the world. The things we value, we value because they help us live and get through another day (even if they are self-destructive). These things have no higher meaning, we are not accomplishing anything more than any other animals on this planet who, like us, will become extinct sooner or later. This whole human adventure will come to an end sooner or later, and I for one can only see it as a folly to perpetuate it. Like Bill Hicks said, "We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are."

On May 14 2015 14:49 traxamillion wrote: we have such little understanding of existence that to make a logical argument about it (as you have LOCO) does not imply truth if our most basic assumptions prove false later. We don't actually know why we are here. Maybe it is just the random result of a cosmic maelstrom but I have reason to doubt that. With your beliefs Loco i think your thoughts on adoption are very reasonable and admittedly there is always going to be some narcissism involved in that drive to have a child. However, if I believe there is intrinsic value to this life experience (as I do), then to refuse to have a child at any point when afforded the opportunity would have a cost. There is an opportunity costs that prospective life must pay for my selfish/selfless (which side are you on) beliefs.

You're assuming that there is an open-ended question as to why we are here and that thoughtful people should contemplate it, but there isn't. We know how we got here, we know what we've been doing here, and if we are being frank we must admit that as soon as we got this knowledge it made this question invalid. Why should there be a 'why' behind an accident of chemistry and behind evolution by natural selection? It's a religious question. Our 'purpose' is to consume and reproduce. Why do we consume and reproduce? Because we were programmed to by evolutionary forces beyond our control. It's not a very fun answer and it doesn't allow you to sell anything. You just want to leave the door open because you're content that people are able to sell something to the ignorant. You prefer a world where people fight over the one true God (or some other illusion-filled narrative) to a world where there are those who, with somber consideration, have reflected on how it is that we got here and for whom it is obvious that by all evidence we are in the world to do nothing. Enough with the glorification of what is just a species of monkey suffering from megalomania, as Vaihinger put it.

If life has intrinsic value, how do you explain a simple phenomenon such as boredom? If life had real value boredom wouldn't be possible since we would be fulfilled just by existing, without having to distract ourselves. You've said that you have dealt with drug addiction, so you know first hand how little control a person has over his desire to escape the emptiness of life. People often prefer activities which harm them rather than no activities at all. That says a lot about the value of life.

How do you explain that you never worry about the state of the non-existent people who are being deprived a great experience in living? Shouldn't you worry about the non-existent as much if not more as those who are currently living? Why aren't you trying to procreate every day of your life if you think there is a price currently being paid by the non-existent? Why do you not cry yourself to sleep thinking about the tragedy of every planet that we know of in this universe being barren except our own?

Lastly, if pleasure outweighs suffering, then you must believe that if a cannibal were to eat you alive, his direct experience would be much more intense and valuable than yours? I don't think anyone of us here are cannibals, yet I'm quite confident that everyone knows that these two things don't balance each other. None of us can even think of a pleasurable thing being worth the agony of a slow death in being eaten alive. What if for some reason every single human life had to end this way, being eaten alive, by someone who takes extreme pleasure in eating another person alive, would you still think that the non-existent would be missing out on life? I doubt it, yet this is the logical conclusion of what you're espousing.

On May 14 2015 16:02 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On May 10 2015 12:08 Romm3l wrote:   On May 08 2015 03:22 Loco wrote:   On April 24 2015 00:48 Raidern wrote: looking forward for loco's post michaeljacksonpopcorn.gif I was going to say that regardless of my views, I wouldn't make a good parent, and pretty much leave it at that. Then I remembered this quote from Thomas Bernhard, and evidently felt the need to say a bit more: “There are absolutely no parents; there are only criminals who are progenitors of new human beings, whose procreative act with all its absurdity and stupidity is directed against those who are created.” It's evident that most people will say that the quote is overly harsh and unjustified. I think that out of those people, those who can think for themselves should honestly ask themselves if it is so, and reflect on Schopenhauer when he says, “History shows us the life of nations and can find nothing to relate except wars and insurrections; the years of peace appear here and there only as short pauses, as intervals between the acts. And in the same way, the life of the individual is a perpetual struggle, not merely metaphorically with want and boredom but actually with others. Everywhere he finds an opponent, lives in constant conflict, and dies weapon in hand.” In that light, it is absolutely accurate, since you are responsible for the fate of the gladiator you created and put in the arena. I think it's an even more interesting question to ask on a poker forum though, because we have all gambled for money, and having kids is a completely different and more serious gamble. Within the question "do you want kids" is also the implied question: "how much risk are you willing to take?". Ethically it's obviously a problem. Put simply, we all agree on this forum that it would be problematic if we were to gamble with other people's money without their consent. But this is specifically what procreation involves; we roll the dice, and someone else pays in the end. And i'm not even talking about the literal end; about the fact that giving birth is giving a death sentence as well; I'm talking about what goes on between womb and tomb, about all of the potential suffering and unhappiness that we can't possibly prevent. That's the real deal breaker for me. I'm just not a gambler; I could only consent to giving life if I were absolutely guaranteed that my child would not be faced with extreme horror. (And that would only be one part of the problem solved, since that existence would be responsible for harming others as well.) I thinks it's quite curious that we would feel wronged if someone gambled with our money without our consent, yet we are willing to gamble with someone else's welfare in a situation where consent can't be had. It's that ingrained "look on the bright side and hope for the best" attitude and nothing can be done about it. Maybe one day I'll change my mind, if I read some persuasive arguments which I have yet to have found, or if we live in the world that the transhumanist philosopher David Pearce envisages. But for now, as with Zapffe, "In accordance with my conception of life, I have chosen not to bring children into the world. A coin is examined, and only after careful deliberation, given to a beggar, whereas a child is flung out into the cosmic brutality without hesitation." Thanks for a great post.. although I've read some of your previous posts on the subject (probably without fully understanding and not even realising I didn't really understand correctly), I think I now understand your position much more clearly with the gambling analogy. I don't have much to add other than I decided to have a child because i was looking on the bright side and hoping for the best, but now I have one I feel very risk-averse and recognise her welfare will be largely beyond my control, and the best I can do is to equip my little gladiator with some reasonable weapons and fight training and hope for some good luck. I think trax raises a good thing to think about in response though, is it better to never have existed or to exist and have a life with plenty of sadness and horror but also some relief, joy and happiness in there? How do you put a value on these things, and is your sense of value skewed/biased by the fact you currently exist and are having a not-too-bad experience right now, to be sitting in front of a computer and taking part in leisurely idle discourse on an online forum? From a purely logical point of view, it's always better not to have existed, provided you accept a couple very basic axioms like the presence of non-trivial harm is bad and not experiencing it is good (See the philosopher David Benatar's asymmetry). From a vitalist or immoralist point of view like Nietzsche, this kind of thinking is invalid, but it's sadistic. I hold the conviction that, unless we're sadistic, to believe otherwise is to believe in some illusion or another, religious or not. The main problem is that the question of whether it's better to exist or not exist is one of living vs. committing suicide, and not one of procreating or abstaining from procreation. Some people will argue the opposite, but I believe that there is a huge gap between continuing a life and starting a new one. The latter is a different question because it involves choosing for someone else, at least until that person is able to make his or her own choices, without knowledge of how the particular life will turn out. "I have had a good life, therefore giving life must be good", it's easy to see the logical fallacy in this. First, as a person makes the statement, "life is good", they almost always have not experienced the "whole package" yet. Asking a person on their death bed would be much more sensible, for obvious reasons. Ideally, we could ask people after they died, if they would be willing to do it all over again, like in Schopenhauer's thought experiment. Secondly, and I've said this already, just because a person affirmed their own life (at this point in their own lives), does not make it transfer to their offspring, so it's never a good argument. Lastly, you have to remember that just because we enjoy things and we put value on these experiences, they have no value in and of themselves. There is a reason why we do not mourn all of those potential children we did not have because they didn't get to experience the joys of eating, having sex and other entertainments. There is a reason why none of us ever feel like we have a duty to have sex as much as possible in order to bring more happy people into the world. The things we value, we value because they help us live and get through another day (even if they are self-destructive). These things have no higher meaning, we are not accomplishing anything more than any other animals on this planet who, like us, will become extinct sooner or later. This whole human adventure will come to an end sooner or later, and I for one can only see it as a folly to perpatuate it. Like Bill Hicks said, "We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are."

Yeah, I like this post.

I can honestly say I do not have that much sadism in me. I do not mind being a sadist in bed and actually really enjoy it if the other person is a masochist. I would say I am more of a masochist or that many times I desperately look to trade one form of pain for another. That is not a good way to live so for me it is better to find healthy, reasonable ways of dealing with pain. Suicide, at least so far, for me, is definitely a far too extreme remedy for pain. I just started writing my thoughts on the parents as sadists idea (which I agree with) and that is what came out. *shrug* Writing has always been good therapy for me.

One of the things I have realized about having children is that people are usually super irresponsible about it or super high.

Children happen many times out of ignorance. Even if it is as simple as not understanding safe sex.

Also, when two people are in that carefree, young, and beautiful stage it is really the worst time to be making decisions like that.

When two people are magically in love it is really the worst time to be making decisions like that.

Would anyone want people making decisions when they are all speed balled up getting an enchanting blowjob from a blowjob expert?

Love is a better drug.

This is not to say having a kid is the end of the world or anything like that. It can be a beautiful thing. I love my pets and can understand it. Having a little seedling of love moving around and breathing and crying and laughing, I imagine, is the heroine to the couple glasses of wine of having a pet.

Having children is selfish. Human beings are selfish. Human beings make bad decisions all the time. Human beings have to make decisions in a universe that is run by chaos. It is a mother fucker.

Oh great universe, that likely does not give two shits about my demands, hopes, wishes, dreams, even if it is sincerely in an effort to do Thy Will (whatever the fuck that is),
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I can not change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

The funny thing is: I will go and drink some coffee, clean up around the house a bit, go for a walk in nature, maybe read some Tolstoy or some Nabokov, maybe hang out with some fellows, maybe help someone in need, and in all likelihood more times than not I will be feeling alright today.

On May 14 2015 07:27 RiKD wrote: *your first post*

Two quotes come to mind re insomnia and self-forgetfulness:

"Sleep is forgetfulness: life’s drama, its complications and obsessions vanish completely, and every awakening is a new beginning, a new hope. Life thus maintains a pleasant discontinuity, the illusion of permanent regeneration. Insomnia, on the other hand, gives birth to a feeling of irrevocable sadness, despair, and agony. The healthy man—the animal —only dabbles in insomnia: he knows nothing of those who would give a kingdom for an hour of unconscious sleep, those as terrified by the sight of a bed as they would be of a torture rack. There is a close link between insomnia and despair. The loss of hope comes with the loss of sleep."

— Emil Cioran, from “Man, the Insomniac Animal,” On The Heights Of Despair


"Work is good because it brings non-existence,
and that non-existence is the most tolerable of all the forms
of matter in life. There is no other answer to hard work.
And I know of almost no one who has studied the philosophy
of life but does not finally come up with the proposition that
the only thing that makes life tolerable, is hard work, so
you don't know you are living. So, I characterize hard work
as dope for life.


The fact that life is here, to my mind, proves nothing, excepting
that if you got a certain amount of earth and heat and water—
if they were resolved into the simple elements—given these
elements in certain proportions under certain conditions, life
will develop, just as maggots will in a cheese. Does that
prove it is worth while? I cannot see it. It does not prove
it in any meaning of the words worth while. If it does prove
it, then everything is equally worth while, and the living man
is no more a part of nature than the corpse. And the well
man is no more a part of nature than the sick man. The
pleasurable emotion is no more a part of nature than the
painful emotion. The fact that it is here simply proves it is
here, that is all.

When I look back over
life, with the many pains I have suffered that happened, and
the many more I have suffered that did not happen, the
greatest satisfaction that I find in any of it is when I am
asleep. And, intellectually, I feel it will be the best thing
that can happen to me—to go to sleep again.

Life to me is a joke. That is the way I get by.
It is an awful joke."

- Clarence Darrow