On November 30 2016 03:06 Baalim wrote:
all right, lets discuss another topic and one that you will like.
What do you people think about having children in general?
I think the morality on it is very questionable, bringing a life to a world where suffering is abundant, casting him to a vampiric existance that can only sustain its existence by causing pain and taking life, and while I am not absolutely set on the pessimistic philosophical reasons of anti-natalism, overpopulation is currently humanity's biggest problem and having another chlid is a burden on an already withering ecosystem, it is the biggest sin in ecology and the ultimate act of egoism.
Another good reason for not reproducing is that apparently it is incredibly unsatisfying and causes misery to the couple and decreases happiness according to many studies (if someone want them I can look them up I guess), turns out it was just another silly biological trick that parents are unable to judge objectively because of love.
And the last reason why its a terrible idea is because children fucking suck, they are obnoxious, loud, dirty and stupid.
Actually kids are great, and there hypothetically wouldn't be a problem if no person was responsible for more then 1 of them being born, and a couple responsible for more then 2 (orgy when the population dips too low obv. ).
Bringing kids into the current state of affairs raises moral questions, sure, but in the end kids are a way of influencing our future. Do you want a future fostered by people who don't think about these things ?
People who view having kids as a bad thing should be the ones having them.
Lol, there is hypothetically no problem with rolling dices and creating a biological experiment that can go completely wrong. Good one. I guess in your world the parents of a serial killer did the responsible thing by having an only child.
Actually I think the last part is my favourite. I've heard that argument a lot. It seems to make sense on the surface, but it really doesn't upon examination.
1) There is no reason to believe they are going to be better equipped to handle parenthood just because they think and are prudent. The only thing this says is just how precarious it is for kids when the standards are so unbelievably low that a person who thinks about the consequences of having kids should be having them.
2) It's an illusion to think that a better person will have more control over how the kid turns out and what happens to him/her.
3) Just because someone would be better at doing it doesn't suddenly make it right. It's just less bad. Adoption in an overpopulated, collapsing world where there are so many unwanted kids is the only ethical way to have children.
It's just bullshit rationalizations. If you really want kids it's because you believe your life would be empty and meaningless without them. If you really want biological kids it's because you fear the future and your eventual demise and you're under the delusion that you'll somehow continue to live on through your progeny. I have more respect for people who embrace their narcissism like Drone than people who come up with these rationalizations.
I used to think like that when I was around 11, not even kidding lol
On December 01 2016 13:05 Mortensen8 wrote:
Charities will ultimately cause more suffering since they are artificially increasing populations beyond their naturally occuring level if anything happens to the western economy these countries will decrease in population through starvation etc.
I don't agree with keeping human suffering to a minimum nature and evolution has to be left to do its thing surely.
Anything below 2.2 is not replacement levels. The average European birthrate is 1.6 and much lower in some countries if it continues then that is 'extinction level'. Those countries are people living longer and the old immigration which is never discussed as an environmental question because it doesn't fit their narrative.
I used India as an example of an overpopulated country but maybe a bad example their birth rates are declining and currently at 2.5 (still positive though which is absure given their overpopulation). If current trends continue Africa will have an increase of 1,5 billion in 50 years, Asia 1 billion, Europe will decrease by 6 million and eventually in 100 years by 200 million. Latin America will increase too.
I have no kids and I never said anything about having 8 kids. African women are the most fertile and their men have the highest testosterone levels. They also double ovulate the most out of all the races along with having twins the most. This is a reoccuring theme which goes like this Africans/Whites/Asians. In nature some animals survival strategy is to have many offspring without taking much care of them while others have few and care for them much more.
charity might increase pain long term but its another topic.
What you are wrong are on 2 points, you speak as if depopulation was a bad thing, the world is already overpopulated, less people in pretty much anywhere is a GOOD thing.
Yes of course this is a problem worse in the 3rd world but your mistake is thinking in countries as isolated systems, we are 1 planet we share resources and actually a 1st world kid consumes far more than one from a poor country so he has an even bigger negative impact resource wise.
Pay extra for more kids. The amount goes up up up geometrically. Extra kids not paid for equals fine and abortion. Like parking tickets fines go up up up. I am not sure if that is the best way to deter. Maybe put a rehabilitation class together on the importance of not overpopulating this finite mass of stuff.
Oh, and if fat kids (and adults) hit a certain level of body fat % they have a certain amount of time to get to a better range or they are murdered. Fat tax will be paid in certain ranges. Their will be rehabilitation classes offered and personal trainers to help.
Is vitamin B12 deficiency a thing? For everyone? We should care because it is a thing and it is serious to daily life? It will make us feel great and energized?
On December 04 2016 07:32 RiKD wrote:
Pay extra for more kids. The amount goes up up up geometrically. Extra kids not paid for equals fine and abortion. Like parking tickets fines go up up up. I am not sure if that is the best way to deter. Maybe put a rehabilitation class together on the importance of not overpopulating this finite mass of stuff.
Can you picture a first world enacting something that remotely resembles cops dragging a pregnant woman to force an abortion on her? It is not going to happen, ever, thats why I said only a totalitarian iron fist regime can enact antinatalist measures.
Timely education on the issue could help a lot, but to date almost nobody is talking about, much less politicians and can you imagine how long it would take this to get enough attention that it passes legislation and then how long till it actually reaches schools? it will be simply too late when it happens.
We will correct this problem because we will be forced, but we will react too late and Its almost certain that mankind will experience some harsh times with mass starvation, severe problems with drinking water and energy too before this century is over.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Dec 05 2016 13:20. Posts 3093
On November 30 2016 18:23 Liquid`Drone wrote:
kids are awesome and I want at least one, prolly two. I'd adopt, but I really think my genes are so exceptional that I have a duty to procreate.
On December 04 2016 07:37 RiKD wrote:
Oh, and if fat kids (and adults) hit a certain level of body fat % they have a certain amount of time to get to a better range or they are murdered. Fat tax will be paid in certain ranges. Their will be rehabilitation classes offered and personal trainers to help.
Very funny
But i think the state of Texas would revolt if this was implemented
brambolius Netherlands. Dec 17 2016 15:36. Posts 1708
On December 04 2016 05:44 Baalim wrote:
you were a smart kid, what happened?
My upbringing in a tiny nutshell
>you dont see the point in anything son ?
>watch Koyaanisqatsi with your 12 year old
>Feeling suicidal/murdereous yet son ? Good. Let's begin.
I realized viewing life as a wall of rationalities is both highly arrogant and rather useless. "if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you" isn't some cool, edgy, philosophical idea, it's a serious warning.
I wanna hear some arguments about adopting being the only ethical way of having a child in those times. You really don't see how such behavior would be self-destructive, do you? There is nothing rational or ethical about dealing with the results of a problem rather than its source.
Also
2) It's an illusion to think that a better person will have more control over how the kid turns out and what happens to him/her.
You have to be joking right? I'm guessing statistics are an illusion. There s a higher chance of us living in a virtual reality than this quote having any sense.
I get that you've embraced the whole Rust Kohle role and all, but even he realized he did some major bad decisions when it comes to beliefs and world view.
I get it we live in a fucked up world. Yet we're still at humanity's peak and we will continue improving as species. Thats a fact. Don't believe me ? Pick a history book. Are things still really fucked up ? Sure, but good luck changing the behaviour, morals, psychology and about 150 other major factors in different cultures in our population faster. Just because the changes for the better are slow does not mean they are non-existant.
On many levels I truly did believe the things you believe, then I realized I'm an idiot and probably a weak human being mentally for me to just give up just cause the world is not as I'd expect it to be. Nihilism is counter productive and stands against everything of what seem to be your beliefs, yet you preach it. What a fucking paradox right?
China tried it. Obviously not the forced abortions part.
@Baal
Yes of course this is a problem worse in the 3rd world but your mistake is thinking in countries as isolated systems, we are 1 planet we share resources and actually a 1st world kid consumes far more than one from a poor country so he has an even bigger negative impact resource wise.
Yeah except the 1st world child has a much bigger % chance of him actually giving those resources back to society with taxes on them so to speak, than the 3rd world child or it wouldnt be called the 3rd world... thats what progress is... like literally its based on investing resources into a human who returns them with added value. Even if you think of it as a one whole system it still works the same way. Yeah there would be more resources spent on him, but the returns would also be higher.
You guys are so stuck thinking in absolutes, when absolutes don't even exist. Honestly all of those things are super obvious. I did not believe I'd have to explain such stuff in this forum.
P.S. I do agree on fat people, get efficient or fuck off is a good policy, plus we could use the meat
Last edit: 17/12/2016 23:00
1
jeremy5408 United States. Dec 17 2016 23:59. Posts 122
Spitfiree: all their beliefs about children stems from their philosophical viewpoint that living/life is primarily pain and suffering. Statistics and history won't really be useful in this context. In my opinion check out some philosophy videos on youtube about the anti - natalism stance. I'm not sure enough in my beliefs/experiences in the world to have a viewpoint either way.
disclaimer: haven't actually watched the above video yet, but i do like most of his videos
Yeah, but they are not coming out from that standpoint. If they truly embraced the nihilistic ways then there would be no arguments about ethics and morality, cause they would not matter either.
On December 17 2016 20:57 Spitfiree wrote:
I wanna hear some arguments about adopting being the only ethical way of having a child in those times. You really don't see how such behavior would be self-destructive, do you? There is nothing rational or ethical about dealing with the results of a problem rather than its source.
You start your criticisms of my position with quite a few wrong assumptions that I have to clear up. If you want to argue about the logic of my conclusion, then you should first get my premises right. Obviously, the conclusion I put forth isn't going to follow if you are using your own premises instead, but that doesn't make my conclusion not rational.
First, let me address this statement: "There is nothing rational or ethical about dealing with the results of a problem rather than its source."
The irony is you are making my point here. This is exactly the question that I want to ask to you and others who are voting for life. "Yay, life, yay humans! Go team!" But why? You just don't seem to realize that this is all humanity ever truly does and can do if we are not anti-natalists - we deal with the results of a problem we are perpetuating with our folly. What do you think is being accomplished by humans on Earth? Are we on our way to a discovery of God and immortality? Name your fantastical utopia! What, exactly, is this big pay off you are expecting? That which will make up for all of the striving and suffering we have experienced and continue experiencing? Or are you not expecting anything? Life is good enough as it is? Surely, if you're voting for life, and you are aware of all the suffering and the injustice in the world, you should have a better response than "it's good enough". If you're being realistic, then you can't help admit that your idea of progress means nothing if not for coming up with better ways to fix problems that 1) we created or 2) are inherent to biological life. Antinatalism, despite being impractical, is the only way to get at the source of the problem, because it sees life as the problem. An unpopular opinion to be sure, but that's where rationality leads in the end if you care to follow it.
An analogy. When a faucet is turned on and you can't possibly turn it off because it's out of reach, then it's rational to find the best way to efficiently clean up the mess it makes. But they're not mutually exclusive; you don't have to do one or the other. That's the case I'm making. We should worry about not creating more faucets that make a mess, but we can also help with the mess. Not breeding is simply not turning another faucet on when you know ahead of time that it has a life of its own and can't be controlled, i.e. it becomes out of reach. It's a biological experiment, it's uncontrollable. You have some semblance of control over which environment you dump it in and that's it. You don't control the environment either. You can't lose by being prudent and not doing it. How, exactly, is not playing the game "self-destructive"? In my view, the game is rigged against us, especially so in the modern world. Those fat people you complain about are the perfect example -- there's nothing wrong with them, they're not fat by choice. They were simply thrown in a rigged game. Had they been thrown into the game at any other point in history before the 20th century they could not have possibly been obese if they hadn't been born in royalty.
It's simple enough. The problem being tackled by antinatalist is the avoidance of unnecessary suffering. We can't ask new lives for consent and we can't predict that their suffering (and the suffering they cause to others) will be compensated for, and so we should not force them into it. It's the minimum we can do. It's not the best, it's the minimum. If you absolutely want children, then yes, it's more ethical to adopt them. They were already thrown into it. You're not destroying anything by making a life less miserable instead of creating a new one. It's not this great thing that everyone should aspire to though, since it is unnecessary suffering that is the enemy, and the time and resources spent on one or two privileged lives could be used to alleviate a lot more of it through effective altruism. I'd argue that there is no world in which not having kids doesn't prevent unnecessary suffering, but we can just talk about this world. You have to come up with some fantastic idea of needing to keep breeding in order to breed a genius who can cure cancer in order to justify it. (Which proves my point that all humanity ever does is try to fix things -- there is no great teleological purpose here.) And that's not rational. For all we know, humanity could end tomorrow. Using a "means justify the ends" vision for life where people are sacrificed for some imagined future that may not be actualized isn't rational and it's the very definition of unethical behavior (following Kant).
You have to be joking right? I'm guessing statistics are an illusion. There s a higher chance of us living in a virtual reality than this quote having any sense.
This is in response to my second point, in which I said, "It's an illusion to think that a better person will have more control over how the kid turns out and what happens to him/her". You're not even addressing my point here. I said the person has no more control <-- key word. Your allusion to statistics is that there are going to be better outcomes, statistically, when people are more prepared. Not that they have more control. We're not disagreeing here. I was more likely to have a better life than a crack baby born of a whore mother. But I also might have taken my life in crippling depression, which was just one of the things my parents never had any control over. Here I am saying that I am not going to take that risk with someone else's life and you are telling me I'm being self-destructive.
I get that you've embraced the whole Rust Kohle role and all, but even he realized he did some major bad decisions when it comes to beliefs and world view.
I haven't embraced a fictional character that was born out of the literature I was already familiar with. I was making these points before the show aired and that's easily verifiable. I don't have a share in his bad decisions and I'm not an alcoholic. I don't drink and do drugs and my faculties are intact. And if you want to talk about his "epiphany" at the end, it was laughable and completely inconsistent with the rest of the show. That's TV for you... it's easy to know that people watch it to escape their dreary lives, so soothing the conscience of the populace matters in the end if you plan on being renewed. That and the fact that Pizzolatto had a baby daughter at home during the writing and producing of it, so we can't exactly expect him to treat the literature appropriately and in an unbiased manner.
On many levels I truly did believe the things you believe, then I realized I'm an idiot and probably a weak human being mentally for me to just give up just cause the world is not as I'd expect it to be. Nihilism is counter productive and stands against everything of what seem to be your beliefs, yet you preach it. What a fucking paradox right?
If I was "preaching Nihilism" then I'd be saying that none of it matters. Have children, don't have children, it makes no difference. Is that what I'm doing? No, I'm making the case that avoiding unnecessary suffering matters. Negating your vision of human progress =/= Nihilism. Granted I am a weak human being in many ways, but my views are hardly the views of a coward running from responsibility. If anything, it is the ultimate act of cowardice to place the burden on a new generation of people to solve the problems you couldn't solve yourself. "Either solve these many intractable problems or live with the consequences of our actions! Oh and did we mention we love you deeply?"
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
The fat people thingy was a failed joke, don't know why I even wrote it.
As I expected you base your main ideology on prevention of suffering and that's the big problem for me. The only way suffering is prevented is by wiping out every human being so we won't exist at all. It's a part of life and so is injustice and any other imperfection we can think of. I would not state my utopia simply because utopia is something to strive upon, but you have to realize you will never achieve it. Achieving utopia is an oxymoron by itself. I honestly would find no meaning in life at all if we were born into this perfect society from day 1 and live happily ever after in a fairy tail, without having to deal with problems.
Why would you think that we are supposed to live in a perfect world? And what's intriguing me the most is, that you try to rationalize everything revolving around life, yet you give the most meaning towards the negatives of it and spend none on the virtues. Rationalizing everything puts them at the same EV at the end when summed up or at least it does seem so to me.
Also, explain how exactly is it not the control of a parent that raises children. If they turn out to be much better persons, because they were raised in a better environment, then surely it was the control of the environment and figuring out how to move through obstacles that put them through? I brought statistics because you obviously cant have a 100% success rate there due to having a brutal amount of factors.
True Detective's character was just and example, I did not mean that you are drunk and/or high 24/7, was a remark made about his world view being similar to yours. His epiphany wasn't laughable, not at all. We as humans are programmed to be "consecutive", it's a main virtue of being trustworthy so you can fit into society. This consistency happens even in negative beliefs. In his case, seeing hope is going out of his comfort zone, which is why the ending was as it is.
As an end, I'm guessing that you do have a social life and friends bluh bluh. In order to have close people you have to accept both their virtues and imperfections as they are, it's the same with life except it's on a macro level. We're not supposed to have figured everything out or to only feel positive emotions. In fact, if you think about it, its the bad things that enable goodness to be felt. If you have an utopic test where a generation is raised in a perfect environment and are satisfied to their every last need without any negativity of any sort there, they would not experience any of the positive stuff the same way and I'm guessing generations ahead won't experience them at all. Change is what gives meaning to societies and we fear change because its an unknown and could indeed lead to suffering. It also seems quite unlogical to me for you to have such beliefs while striving for a better society. Even if I allow them in my mind to be a theoretical solution to that, surely that's not practical and would not be able to be implemented ever, which makes it useless.
You also completely disregard genetics, but its not a standpoint I could defend, but It feels right to mention it.
P.S. Did about 15 edits, and I see that you are already replying so putting this here to know i've ended
On December 17 2016 22:59 jeremy5408 wrote:
Spitfiree: all their beliefs about children stems from their philosophical viewpoint that living/life is primarily pain and suffering.
That's really a gross oversimplification and misrepresentation of the antinatalist position. That sounds more like the philosophy of a goth. You could say it's Buddhism too, but it's just one noble truth, for which there is an answer. For antinatalists, life does not have to be mostly suffering in order to advocate against having children. In fact, it's the opposite, Benatar argues that no life should be started if there will be any amount of pain at all. His arguments are designed to be valid whether life is just a very small amount of pain or a great amount since the concern is about creating a life, not continuing one. The obvious problem with this is that it can be reduced to absurdity. You could say, what if you knew ahead of time that a life would be 99.9%+ absolute bliss the whole way but the price to pay for it is one single pinprick? That's the problem if you take negative utilitarianism as an absolute. Most antinatalists don't think like that and wouldn't say, "that sounds awful, a pinprick, no way we should impose that."
Most antinatalists aren't people who are experiencing intense suffering every day or who have ever experienced such misery. That's not how they got to this worldview. If they're not very misanthropic, it's simply that they are 1) concerned with the environmental damage caused by having children or 2) they are risk averse. Or at least they believe that if they want to take risks they should do so with their own welfare, not someone else's.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
). 
United States. Dec 04 2016 08:32. Posts 8539
