KAYTRANADA

5y

Ethically it makes complete sense tho

The ratio of pleasure and pain is completely skewed towards pain. Better to ensure someone feels nothing than the inevitability of deep and sustained pain

Also im saything this as someone who would not want to have been born lol

KAYTRANADA

5y

back to the mma thread for me

dudes got no interesting arguments for me

KAYTRANADA

5y

back to the mma thread for me

dudes got no interesting arguments for me

Tkken

5y

ok sure

So there’s two threads behind antinatalism as its traditionally understood. the first is benatars assymmetry principle, which argues that the absence of pain is “good” while the absence of pleasure is merely “not bad” ethically speaking. hence, it is inherently better to not exist

But benatar is employing a double standard here. his argument for why the absence of pain is good is a counterfactual i.e. if a person comes into existence, they will suffer which is bad. But you can establish the same counter-factual for pleasure - if a person doesn’t come into existence, they will miss out on pleasurable experiences which is also presumably bad

So any fundamental assymmetry disappears and you’re left with the second thread of the argument - that there is more pain within a human lifetime than pleasure. The first question is what constitutes pain. It cannot merely be a physical stimuli of some sort, because people often feel fulfilled doing strenuous and superficially painful things i.e. weight lifting. We cannot assume that, simply because a person’s life is mostly made up of exerting activity, that person is unhappy — pleasure as most people truly conceptualize it is a long-term state of fullfillment

Now, most people are clearly unfulfilled in late capitalist society, but this configuration has only existed for a few centuries. Human beings have spent millennia prior in different states of organization, as well as existing as hunter-gatherers untethered to the pressures of capitalism. By all accounts, these hunter-gatherers worked less and had more leisure time than we do, and lived in harmony with nature rather than being alienated from it. I would imagine that, despite the lack of modern physical comforts in their lives, they felt far more healthy and fulfilled than modern human beings

Thus, you have to win that our current mode of organization (capitalism or something worse) will more likely than not exist until the extinction of human civilization. This is a big and most likely false IF. There is more to say here but my general point is that you can’t generalize the conditions of capitalism to human existence writ-large

the fundamental assumptions of antinatalism are also wrong. For one, antinatalists assume that pleasure and pain are stable quantities that a self accumulates over time. But this isn’t actually the case - once a person dies and presumably reaches a state of oblivion, they do not have the faculties of memory or consciousness necessary for the pleasures and pains they experienced to leave a “trace” on them

That is to say, there is no meaningful distinction between a person who dies and fades into oblivion, and a person who simply never existed at all - regardless of how much pleasure or pain the former person experienced. Thus, if there is ANY non-zero chance of there being value to existence other than pleasure and pain, it is net better for people to exist. This is a pretty low bar that the world probably surpasses given how uncertain we are about what the correct ethical theory is and how little we know about the origins of life and consciousness

That brings me to my final point, which is that hedonism is entirely arbitrary. Why even assume that pleasure and pain are the ultimate moral goods and bads? Humans value many other things, such as art, philosophy, competition, and so forth

So ultimately anti-natalism is a consequence of a long and highly particular set of assumptions, each one less likely than the last. In my personal opinion, its current popularity is mostly an artifact of late capitalist society and the despair it creates rather than any rigorous justification/argument

Synopsis

5y

Damn this whole philosophy is just based around pain and pleasure lol?

KAYTRANADA

5y

life in itself, whether animal or human is just a constant state of averting pain for survival

how fruitless is that?

you can distort this fact through a complex civilization or narrow it down to an animal escaping a predator. it doesnt change what is fundamentally there

and capitalism is far from the only source of strife lol

coltrup

5y

Enlighten us as to what the other sources of strife are then, and why they make your claims true.
Also, your first sentence is patently false. Human beings routinely accept and even embrace pain and sacrifice to fulfill broader goals.

KAYTRANADA

5y

you want me to tell you other sources of strife beyond capitalism?

maybe i could tell a fifth grader who doesnt know s*** about the world, but to an adult? give me a break

patently false? what broader goals have humans acheived that as ever lead to a sustained peace? absolutely nothing, nor will there ever will be. everything is chaos.

there is no justification for willing someone into the world without their explicit consent. and this is impossible

Tkken

5y

ok sure

So there’s two threads behind antinatalism as its traditionally understood. the first is benatars assymmetry principle, which argues that the absence of pain is “good” while the absence of pleasure is merely “not bad” ethically speaking. hence, it is inherently better to not exist

But benatar is employing a double standard here. his argument for why the absence of pain is good is a counterfactual i.e. if a person comes into existence, they will suffer which is bad. But you can establish the same counter-factual for pleasure - if a person doesn’t come into existence, they will miss out on pleasurable experiences which is also presumably bad

So any fundamental assymmetry disappears and you’re left with the second thread of the argument - that there is more pain within a human lifetime than pleasure. The first question is what constitutes pain. It cannot merely be a physical stimuli of some sort, because people often feel fulfilled doing strenuous and superficially painful things i.e. weight lifting. We cannot assume that, simply because a person’s life is mostly made up of exerting activity, that person is unhappy — pleasure as most people truly conceptualize it is a long-term state of fullfillment

Now, most people are clearly unfulfilled in late capitalist society, but this configuration has only existed for a few centuries. Human beings have spent millennia prior in different states of organization, as well as existing as hunter-gatherers untethered to the pressures of capitalism. By all accounts, these hunter-gatherers worked less and had more leisure time than we do, and lived in harmony with nature rather than being alienated from it. I would imagine that, despite the lack of modern physical comforts in their lives, they felt far more healthy and fulfilled than modern human beings

Thus, you have to win that our current mode of organization (capitalism or something worse) will more likely than not exist until the extinction of human civilization. This is a big and most likely false IF. There is more to say here but my general point is that you can’t generalize the conditions of capitalism to human existence writ-large

the fundamental assumptions of antinatalism are also wrong. For one, antinatalists assume that pleasure and pain are stable quantities that a self accumulates over time. But this isn’t actually the case - once a person dies and presumably reaches a state of oblivion, they do not have the faculties of memory or consciousness necessary for the pleasures and pains they experienced to leave a “trace” on them

That is to say, there is no meaningful distinction between a person who dies and fades into oblivion, and a person who simply never existed at all - regardless of how much pleasure or pain the former person experienced. Thus, if there is ANY non-zero chance of there being value to existence other than pleasure and pain, it is net better for people to exist. This is a pretty low bar that the world probably surpasses given how uncertain we are about what the correct ethical theory is and how little we know about the origins of life and consciousness

That brings me to my final point, which is that hedonism is entirely arbitrary. Why even assume that pleasure and pain are the ultimate moral goods and bads? Humans value many other things, such as art, philosophy, competition, and so forth

So ultimately anti-natalism is a consequence of a long and highly particular set of assumptions, each one less likely than the last. In my personal opinion, its current popularity is mostly an artifact of late capitalist society and the despair it creates rather than any rigorous justification/argument

KAYTRANADA

5y

· edited

"So ultimately anti-natalism is a consequence of a long and highly particular set of assumptions, each one less likely than the last. In my personal opinion, its current popularity is mostly an artifact of late capitalist society and the despair it creates rather than any rigorous justification/argument"

see this is why im not even gonna bother with this. attributing all woes on earth to capitalism is so f***ing near sighted

but lemme one thing straight. This life is all there is. And trying to justify someone's suffering, because they will inevitably die and forget all of it, is a sickening concept. Death that occurs as a consequence of life is a completely different thing than nothing at all. Like how obvious can this be

all of these philosophical roundbouts are just a self defense mechanism to justfy some philosophy student's pontification on a kanye west forum.

the absence of everything renders all arguments pointless. Nothing is the most peaceful state that will ever be possible

and how can someone justify a life theyve enjoyed when someone down their family tree will suffer immeasurably? sounds selfish to me

coltrup

5y

It is genuinely impressive how you managed to skirt around or completely misconstrue almost every point they made.

Ironically, your comment about how responses to anti-natalism are just a psychological defense mechanism betray that the exact opposite is true. You're attempting to project your personal feelings of inadequacy and existential despair upon the past and future of humanity writ-large, and passing it off as an argument. A truly impressive lack of humility and understanding

I'm gonna leave it at that.

coltrup

5y

It is genuinely impressive how you managed to skirt around or completely misconstrue almost every point they made.

Ironically, your comment about how responses to anti-natalism are just a psychological defense mechanism betray that the exact opposite is true. You're attempting to project your personal feelings of inadequacy and existential despair upon the past and future of humanity writ-large, and passing it off as an argument. A truly impressive lack of humility and understanding

I'm gonna leave it at that.

KAYTRANADA

5y

"So ultimately anti-natalism is a consequence of a long and highly particular set of assumptions, each one less likely than the last. In my personal opinion, its current popularity is mostly an artifact of late capitalist society and the despair it creates rather than any rigorous justification/argument"

see this is why im not even gonna bother with this. attributing all woes on earth to capitalism is so f***ing near sighted

but lemme one thing straight. This life is all there is. And trying to justify someone's suffering, because they will inevitably die and forget all of it, is a sickening concept. Death that occurs as a consequence of life is a completely different thing than nothing at all. Like how obvious can this be

all of these philosophical roundbouts are just a self defense mechanism to justfy some philosophy student's pontification on a kanye west forum.

the absence of everything renders all arguments pointless. Nothing is the most peaceful state that will ever be possible

and how can someone justify a life theyve enjoyed when someone down their family tree will suffer immeasurably? sounds selfish to me

Tkken

5y

i didnt say all our woes are because of capitalism, I said that just because our current system is filled with suffering doesn't mean human beings lived like that in the past or have to live like that in the future

and I explained why there isn't actually a difference between dying and entering oblivion versus not existing at all. also you cant say im justifying suffering when your beliefs also justify suffering by implying its pointless to try and end it

then you talk about philosophical roundabouts, bro you baited me into responding for a half page and now you want to duck the smoke ?

then your next argument is circular, nothingness is only the "most peaceful state" if you win that life can never have ethical value, which is the entire controversy to begin with. otherwise it would be better to exist

also tf is this self-defense mechanism stuff you keep repeating, theres thousands of people that think like you do and millions that use s*** like birth control. people do tons of things that have nothing to do with or directly conflict the "desire to propagate"

KAYTRANADA

5y

life in itself, whether animal or human is just a constant state of averting pain for survival

how fruitless is that?

you can distort this fact through a complex civilization or narrow it down to an animal escaping a predator. it doesnt change what is fundamentally there

and capitalism is far from the only source of strife lol

Synopsis

5y

This sounds like intro to philosophy

KAYTRANADA

5y

Sorry to say but youre never acheiving communism on a large scale just like antinatalism

Synopsis

5y

This sounds like intro to philosophy