You make it seem like everyone's daily life is one of transforming earth into a possible paradise. No. Collective achievements are not daily life. Naming off things like indoor plumbing and air conditioning do not make life thus utopia. Pointing to some future time of things being utopia due to technological innovations would also miss the point of necessary suffering involved in the human animal. Contingent sufferings, as things that I've listed, are not going to end any time soon either — schopenhauer1

What about a garden of Eden built here on Earth is impossible? I agree that things like natural instincts, human and animal, technological hurdles, and the list goes on and on, are not on our side but these are, by my reckoning, temporary obstacles. Yes, overcoming them is not going to be easy but, the what matters is it's not an impossibility.

Coming to "necessary suffering" and "contingent suffering", I suppose, given the current body design and our technological backwardness, pain is absolutely necessary, serving as warning signs of potential life-threatening physical and mental perturbations. However, technology will, with some amount of luck and a whole lot of sweat and toil, make our pain sensory apparatus obsolete. Just as our vermiform appendix is a vestigial organ serving only to remind us of our herbivorous ancestry, our nociceptive system will become nothing more than a curiosity to our descendants.

I don't think anyone is exempt from knowing their situation and then having to keep going. — schopenhauer1

You'd be surprised. There are many people that fit this description; narcissism is one of many.

But I suppose it's what you mean by "knowing their situation," .. What do you mean by this?

Even so, animals are capable of feeling distress, mistreatment, agony, and so forth. They are capable of "disliking every moment," like the human. Unless you mean something beyond this in a higher degree, which is why I posed there are humans that lapse out of these degrees and function at lower levels than others, or not at all. They would be "exempt".

Rather, we can know we dislike a situation, but know we have to do it.

We have evolved this consciousness which in turn can resent any moment. — schopenhauer1

Well, now you are talking about resentment. Are we discussing resentment or simple dislike? Resentment is a complex emotion that was not mentioned in your OP.

But, you seem to be saying two different things here. What do you mean by "knowing"? Do you mean understanding? Animals do not need to "know" their situation (if you're using know how I think you are), nor do they need to know "why" - to express distress or prolonged dislike. Other primates and dogs are a notorious example, specifically the intelligent breeds like Shepards. We've also observed symptoms of clinical depression in many mammals.

Yes, overcoming them is not going to be easy but, the what matters is it's not an impossibility. — TheMadFool

Necessary suffering. People are not to be used as bridges for your idea of a possible future utopia. Utopia means nowhere. The point was that it doesn't exist anyways.

However, technology will, with some amount of luck and a whole lot of sweat and toil, make our pain sensory apparatus obsolete. Just as our vermiform appendix is a vestigial organ serving only to remind us of our herbivorous ancestry, our nociceptive system will become nothing more than a curiosity to our descendants. — TheMadFool

Again, people aren't to be used for future schemes. But necessary suffering doesn't go away unless we are no longer self-conscious beings. We are beings that need to survive, get more comfortable, and entertain ourselves. In short, we are dissatisfied to some extent at almost every moment, and know of this disutility, by way of trying to change it. Necessary suffering doesn't just go away in your year 2300 scenario. Besides which, it seems like we seem to be going the opposite way than a utopia, even if we were to indulge your sci-fi tendencies. But that is a different topic for a different thread.. global warming, pandemics, pollution, overpopulation, etc. etc.

But I suppose it's what you mean by "knowing their situation," .. What do you mean by this?

Even so, animals are capable of feeling distress, mistreatment, agony, and so forth. They are capable of "disliking every moment," like the human. Unless you mean something beyond this in a higher degree, which is why I posed there are humans that lapse out of these degrees and function at lower levels than others, or not at all. They would be "exempt". — Cobra

Knowing the situation is any time you dislike a situation you are in and know there can be a better one. It is knowing the present situation in its broader context of understanding more ideal circumstances. Generally, I would think you need a brain similar to ours, a linguistic one for this type of thing. Perhaps people don't think much about things, I would agree. They don't see the bigger picture, but they can certainly understand disutility of not being in a more optimal state. Other animals might feel pain, but they don't know to the extent of resent not being in a more optimal state.

I do agree though that many people don't consider that life is not optimal as a whole and that we should try to not procreate so as to not put more people in non-utopian circumstances. Something we can reflect on and other animals cannot, yet we keep doing despite our own possibility of this knowledge.

Necessary suffering. People are not to be used as bridges for your idea of a possible future utopia. Utopia means nowhere. The point was that it doesn't exist anyways. — schopenhauer1

I'm not using people as bridges to my personal fantasia. I'm offering you a possible direction humanity, as a whole, might take in the coming centuries. I'm not 100% certain this will be our collective choice but the comforting truth is there's nothing impossible in this vision of humanity's future. I know my position on the issue is a far cry from being, what some might label as, realistic - practicality is a major issue - but what keeps my spirits up is there's nothing impossible, no insurmountable barrier that could prove to be the final resting place of the hopes of people like myself.

Again, people aren't to be used for future schemes. But necessary suffering doesn't go away unless we are no longer self-conscious beings. We are beings that need to survive, get more comfortable, and entertain ourselves. In short, we are dissatisfied to some extent at almost every moment, and know of this disutility, by way of trying to change it. Necessary suffering doesn't just go away in your year 2300 scenario. Besides which, it seems like we seem to be going the opposite way than a utopia, even if we were to indulge your sci-fi tendencies. But that is a different topic for a different thread.. global warming, pandemics, pollution, overpopulation, etc. etc. — schopenhauer1

I agree, we're the kind who never are satisfied - contentment is a word that fails to describe any one in the entire history of humanity. However, this major issue shouldn't hold us back from fixing the minor problems, right? There's the phrase "to settle for..." and we should appreciate its underlying spirit.

I agree, we're the kind who never are satisfied - contentment is a word that fails to describe any one in the entire history of humanity. However, this major issue shouldn't hold us back from fixing the minor problems, right? There's the phrase "to settle for..." and we should appreciate its underlying spirit. — TheMadFool

Stuff has to get done. You have to do it or externalities will get you. Survival. You feel an itch, you feel cold, you feel bored, you feel dirty, you feel you need an extra item you are missing. Comfort. You are lonely, your mind needs something active. You need to be more "mindful", you need to exercise, you need to go on a vacation, you need to, you need to, you need to. Entertainment. It isn't going away.

I call of this "dealing with". Many people unthinkingly resent much of this but can't make the connection to being born itself. It's just too global. They have been enculturated to think just right near their noses. Hard-nosed realists, pragmatists, etc. But the problem is global. It is getting people to see that it is the problem with life itself. It is existential, not situational. Not circumstantial. It's whack-a-mole. You think you fix the problem, but it is unceasing. It is part of the structure. AND now add all the contingent suffering I mentioned.

I guess you might want to see this too.

Antinatalism, anyone?

However, technology will, with some amount of luck and a whole lot of sweat and toil, make our pain sensory apparatus obsolete. — TheMadFool

I would agree that humans will eventually escape the limits of their own suffering. As long as we strive to master our own bodies, sooner or later, we will flip the pain switch into the "off" position. It would be hard to imagine a scenario in which we could resist doing so. This would apply to both physical and psychological pain. Indeed, our caveman minds can hardly imagine what this painless generation would be like. Suffering has always been part of the definition of "human".

However, I would also agree that our current generation is not in, or near, achieving a utopia. So such pursuits would not be relevant to the discussion of today's suffering; even if the realization that suffering will someday cease, brings a sense of comfort with it.

I don't think anyone is exempt from knowing their situation and then having to keep going. — schopenhauer1

Ignorance is bliss, right? I think complete ignorance is the starting point for every human. As children, we all started out in paradise. To some extent, all humans have experienced that animal-like unconscious state. It may have been brief, and we couldn't fully appreciate it at the time, but we were there.

Kids are exempt from knowing their situation. Adults are the ones that tolerate the misery of survival. Some parents continue to exist solely to (vicariously) experience the joy of their children. We are addicted to the pursuit of knowledge, yet we admire the ignorant. I suppose we are conflicted, to say the least.

Antinatalism, anyone? — Bird-Up

:lol: :rofl: . I'm laughing because of the irony. Almost all my discussions center around antinatalism or philosophical pessimism, so thought it was funny you brought it up as if I've never heard of it haha. Look at my discussion history :smile:.

We are addicted to the pursuit of knowledge, yet we admire the ignorant. I suppose we are conflicted, to say the least. — Bird-Up

Interesting. We are always put in a position of "dealing with". Yet, we know we are dealing with. I think it's the same thing with pets like dogs. We sort of live vicariously through the notion that they are in the moment it seems, quite often.

We are never fully satisfied, and constantly in need and want. We can't stay long in boredom. We need to be entertained. We strive, struggle, deal with in complex social arrangements to maneuver. We can know every moment that we need to get something done, or something is not satisfying, or simply life itself is empty. We are the animal that knows our situation. Yet, we keep putting more people into it. We know when we experience contingent suffering- physical and emotional pain too. Both necessary suffering of striving, and contingent suffering of the external world impinging on us, we never seem to put the full picture together to realize it's life itself. It can be prevented for future generations. We can acknowledge this fact of our constant "dealings with" the world, and knowing we have to deal with it lest die, be uncomfortable, and bored/lonely. A sort of therapy is acknowledging the situation and going from there. There is nothing one can do about it, but at least the acknowledgement would a) not pretend that there is something going on that is not (some grand scheme like technology, happiness utility maximizing, or the like), and b) act as a sort of catharsis for the suffering where one can feel fine complaining about the situation and knowing others understand too.

We are never fully satisfied, and constantly in need and want. We can't stay long in boredom. We need to be entertained. We strive, struggle, deal with in complex social arrangements to maneuver. We can know every moment that we need to get something done, or something is not satisfying, or simply life itself is empty. — schopenhauer1

“constantly in need and want” – a definition of life.
Do you remember one moment where you didn’t needed or wanted anything?
If so (and that’s a very big ‘If’) how long did it last?
And how long did and does the opposite state last, constant need and want?
Is being in a state constantly deprived of whatever things there are, a good state of being – or a bad one?


“Life is empty” is a great existential-nihilist statement, though from a perspective of pessimism I think one could even say it is worse than empty, because suffering isn’t nothing, it’s negative – to adapt the picture, one could say life isn’t just an empty room, it is a sewer.

Yet, we keep putting more people into it. — schopenhauer1

I surely won’t, and I think we should be more exact on this.
There really is no single entity called ‘the human race’ but only a bunch of individuals and saying things like “humans rape, murder, birth” is this fuzzy, collectivist mindset, especially if you (semantically) identify with this collective ("we").
I don’t. And many others neither (and then there are many who do the right thing for completely wrong reasons or even accidentally).
I don’t even identify with all living humans as a group and for sure not with this concept of “the human race” as a whole.

Excuse my semantic rant, that was besides the point you made, that life is inherently a bad thing.

We are the animal that knows our situation. — schopenhauer1

You do for sure, but for how long are you really aware, and how many others are similarly aware?
There are quite some inherent human biases that need to be overcome, like the appeal to nature-fallacy (“nature is great because it sometimes looks nice, even though it’s a torturous death-colosseum”) and this brutal naivity in children – getting rid of these two alone is a very painful process to go through, and this is only what comes down to putting some glasses on.

Antinatalism, anyone? — Bird-Up

Wait until you hear of Efilism.
(Basically Antinatalism applied to all sentient life instead of humans only)

I would agree that humans will eventually escape the limits of their own suffering. As long as we strive to master our own bodies, sooner or later, we will flip the pain switch into the "off" position. It would be hard to imagine a scenario in which we could resist doing so. This would apply to both physical and psychological pain.
[...]
So such pursuits would not be relevant to the discussion of today's suffering; even if the realization that suffering will someday cease, brings a sense of comfort with it. — Bird-Up

How could you possibly be so delusional* optimistic about this?!
Are we talking about the same group of humans that has gone through unimaginable torture because power-hungry psychopaths in that group tortured countless of others in that same group (concentration camps, gulags, world wars, etc. etc.).
There is enormous evidence to the contrary, so what on earth would make you so sure about humans alleviating one another of all suffering? (If it were even possible in the first place, which is very unlikely.)

And from another angle - how were this state of being different from nonexistence (Antinatalism applied)? The solution is already here!


*sorry, not a nice thing to say but still true from my perspective

“constantly in need and want” – a definition of life.
Do you remember one moment where you didn’t needed or wanted anything?
If so (and that’s a very big ‘If’) how long did it last?
And how long did and does the opposite state last, constant need and want?
Is being in a state constantly deprived of whatever things there are, a good state of being – or a bad one? — Zn0n

Temporary cessation from wanting, if at all. Constant need and want is the through-line of life itself. Practically a definition of, from the animal point of view.

As far as good or bad, that is a question some try pose to disagree with deprivation=suffering. Deprivation just is, they might say and thus does not/cannot be given a value one way or the other. I like to answer this in terms of dissatisfaction. If we do not have something now, there is a state of unfulfillment. This to me, generally seems "bad", as we are not "whole" so to say, in the moment. As you stated, the times we are "whole", seem temporary, if at all.

“Life is empty” is a great existential-nihilist statement, though from a perspective of pessimism I think one could even say it is worse than empty, because suffering isn’t nothing, it’s negative – to adapt the picture, one could say life isn’t just an empty room, it is a sewer. — Zn0n

Yes, agreed. Good point!

I surely won’t, and I think we should be more exact on this.
There really is no single entity called ‘the human race’ but only a bunch of individuals and saying things like “humans rape, murder, birth” is this fuzzy, collectivist mindset, especially if you (semantically) identify with this collective ("we").
I don’t. And many others neither (and then there are many who do the right thing for completely wrong reasons or even accidentally).
I don’t even identify with all living humans as a group and for sure not with this concept of “the human race” as a whole.

Excuse my semantic rant, that was besides the point you made, that life is inherently a bad thing. — Zn0n

No, I actually agree here as well. In fact, I think the locus of ethics is the individual and not some "third-party" cause like "the human race", "civilization", "group utility-maximizing", etc. For example, if we had a child because it supposedly benefits X third-party cause (e.g. the human race), we have negated the individual we are causing harm to. We are causing harm/suffering to an individual, but to enhance a conceptual/group entity outside this individual. I would say it would be unethical to treat people as means like this.

You do for sure, but for how long are you really aware, and how many others are similarly aware?
There are quite some inherent human biases that need to be overcome, like the appeal to nature-fallacy (“nature is great because it sometimes looks nice, even though it’s a torturous death-colosseum”) and this brutal naivity in children – getting rid of these two alone is a very painful process to go through, and this is only what comes down to putting some glasses on. — Zn0n

Completely agree.. Don't forget Pollyanna tendencies, and group-think. If people are ridiculed for stating these things enough, it will be "picked up" from the rest of the group to also denigrate those who have this awareness.

It's funny you bring up children. I have less empathy than others perhaps on this. Yes, there is naivete, and one can say closer to "animal like' in this but there is a dark side to the child experience. The child is also less aware of how sociopathic he/she can be, not having fully developed brains. So I am not predisposed to provide a rosy view on this period in human development.

I'm laughing because of the irony. Almost all my discussions center around antinatalism or philosophical pessimism, so thought it was funny you brought it up as if I've never heard of it — schopenhauer1

Well the discussion was giving off a strong scent of Antinatalism, so I just had to throw the word in there. I'll try to get caught up on those 4,500 other posts when I have the time. Wow, you could have written a book by now! (Maybe you have?) Not bad for a Cardinal with a keyboard.

Wait until you hear of Efilism. — Zn0n

That was an inspiring read. So what, functionally speaking, differentiates an Antinatalist from an Efilist? Does the Efilist also assert that preexisting life should not be lived? That continued existence itself is a crime? It seems like Efilism demands suicide, murder, or possibly both. Anyone who truly subscribes to Efilism must already be gone.

How could you possibly be so optimistic about this?! — Zn0n

What do you mean specifically? Are you saying humanity is more likely to become extinct before they reach that technological milestone?

Humans are the only animal that can really hate any and every moment.

@schopenhauer1

Is that really true? Not the any moment claim, the every moment claim? Is it truly possible for any human to go through life hating every moment?

What is so special about humans, as an animal, that they and only they, have the potential to hate every moment?

I feel a lot of assumptions have been made in your OP, as to our knowledge of the inner emotional lives of animals.

This is my first comment since joining this forum. I ask these questions in the hopes you will have a strong answer.

One really important question, I have for you, I do; emotions we have, because we are human or because animals we be? (Question is asked in the style of Yoda... Because why the F*** not?)

What is so special about humans, as an animal, that they and only they, have the potential to hate every moment? — MSC

Self-awareness, not just awareness. My guess is this comes about from linguistic brains.

I feel a lot of assumptions have been made in your OP, as to our knowledge of the inner emotional lives of animals. — MSC

Yep, I assume animals don't have self-awareness. I can't tell what an animal is feeling, but I know it is not the same type of awareness as human, which is generally able to have the ability to generate conceptually based, linguistic ideas, probably necessary to form the kind of assessment of a situation such as "resentment". This is not just sad, angry, and emotions like this, but the reflection about this, and its relation to things like "better", "worse", "I don't want this". All things that need linguistic formulations of some kind usually. And no, this isn't about having a sense of self like the mirror test or anything like that.

Rule of thumb, assume nothing.

Yep, I assume animals don't have self-awareness. I can't tell what an animal is feeling, but I know it is not the same type of awareness as human,

How do you know this? What evidence do you have that proves this exactly? I think the mistake that has been made is thinking of awareness and self awareness by kind, instead of degree.

Comparatively, I'd say we know enough to claim that humans have a higher degree of self-awareness than other animals. This doesn't suggest all other animals have no self-awareness, just that the degree to which other animals are aware of themselves is lesser. A male silverback Gorilla is obviously aware that bodily, he is not his mate nor his offspring. A dog smelling out another dogs urine knows that it is not his urine, and proceeds to mark his own scent.

As for your use of the term "linguistic brains", this term is ultimately misleading, if used to suggest that only humans have language, syntax and grammar, when those things have been observed in species of birds, whales and dolphins. Even whale song has been found to have hierarchical structure in language, in which phrases are embedded in larger, recurring themes. At one point in time, it was thought that Hierarchical structure in language was unique to humans. This is not the case.

The linguistics of bird-song is also a place where we can find similarities to ourselves. Although both
birdsong and human language are hierarchically organized according to particular syntactic constraints, bird-song structure is best characterized as phonological
syntax, resembling aspects of human sound structure. Many species of birds share with humans a capacity for vocal learning, a crucial factor in speech acquisition.

There are shades of gray and not black-and-white differences between humans and other animals in cognitive abilities. While animals might not ponder life and death the way humans do, they still may have some sense of self.

Some people don't want to acknowledge the possibility of self-awareness in animals, because if they do, the borders between humans and other animals become blurred and their narrow, hierarchical, anthropocentric view of the world would be toppled.

My question for you now, even though you ignored a few of my questions in my previous comment; Why do you want to believe animals have no sense of self? Forget what you think you know, and focus on why you want to believe that. If you ignore this question I'll not bother to reply to your next response as I'll assume you aren't taking this seriously and just want to be right instead of wanting to have an open discussion.

Because you totally ignored or didn't understand what I was getting at, and this is huge tangent that I wasn't even trying to debate... I just don't care enough to pursue this.

No, I didn't misunderstand. The issue is that this entire discussion is based on a false premise and is therefore pointless.

Edit: Pointless, unless you can counter any of my counter arguments to your unbacked up claims. I think if you could do that, you would have by now. So what you meant to say instead of "I just don't care enough to pursue this" was actually "I am too arrogant to see the faults in my own argument and can't back up even one of my premises in order to keep my discussion open, so I'll say you're the problem, even though you were just being honest with me and trying to help but I make bad faith arguments based on assumptions that I'm not willing to address because I'm too insecure to ever admit that I might be wrong about anything while I try to ship antinatalist bs."

Well done proving my point that you don't take this seriously. Goodbye.

Humans are the only animal that can really hate any and every moment. Other animals may feel pain in their own way, but they don't seem to despair of their situation, or not to the full understanding we do, with our linguistic, self-reflective brain. Yes, you can have depressed animals, but not ones that wish they were never born. Not ones that know they don't live in a utopian world. Not ones that can at any moment, hate what they have to do to get by. — schopenhauer1

Humans are also the only ones that think they know everything. Could you please explain how you know all of this. It is kind of funny to think that this is almost the same reasoning that people used to justify slavery. But it turned out that it was the white man that was ignorant.

We certainly are driven by survival, comfort, and entertainment, but we know our own disutility in all these areas. — schopenhauer1

I am inclined to disagree, most animals know their abilities and inabilities. Even a hungry dog will not try to pull a floating carcass from a swollen river, they do know it could kill them.

We know it sucks to be very hungry, that we need to make various goals in a complex world to gain items to consume for our survival, comfort, and entertainment. — schopenhauer1

Are animals not aware of the need to acquire food and shelter? Or is it just an instinct that makes them do it.

Finally! I thought I was the only one who was gonna pick at these ridiculous premises for this discussion. Sir, I salute you.

Completely agree.. Don't forget Pollyanna tendencies, and group-think. If people are ridiculed for stating these things enough, it will be "picked up" from the rest of the group to also denigrate those who have this awareness. — schopenhauer1

Yes, very good point, all these cushy biases (“what an opportunity to be alive :)”) are shielded by their own brutal, bias-like enforcer-mechanism: group-think and what strikes me as fascist tendencies (“purge the outsider, there is only the group, and the group is everything”), but “collectivism” describes this as well.

It's funny you bring up children. I have less empathy than others perhaps on this. Yes, there is naivete, and one can say closer to "animal like' in this but there is a dark side to the child experience. The child is also less aware of how sociopathic he/she can be, not having fully developed brains. So I am not predisposed to provide a rosy view on this period in human development. — schopenhauer1

I changed my perspective on them over the years but am too generally rather low on empathy*, but still know they are victims.
Very true that they don’t even realize how cruel they can be, f.e. if they are ripping out the legs of some spider, without even realizing what they are doing to this spider.
(And it’s even kind of the same with spiders, I’m very, very low on empathy with creatures that hunt and chemically liquify other insects, but know they too are still victims).
And it’s very likely that every single human does unknowingly countless atrocities like this as part of their development.

* does that sentence even make sense for an antinatalist, because how low on empathy have you to be to trap them into this world


What I’m now struggling with regarding children is how often they scream and cry.
My neighbors created two, and one is a toddler now, and he screams and cries out pretty much every single day, often even several times. Some people may think once a day doesn’t even sound too much, but when was the last time you screamed and cried because you were in such agony.

It’s a torturous sound and I can’t help but project my own suffering that is caused by his screams onto him and think -STFU!-, but know at the same time he is in so much suffering that he screams out and cries because of it, and nobody takes it serious, for one because of how “normal” and “expected” it is that children constantly severly cry.

And I really wonder how people have more than one child. One child may be because of naivity or some the-human-race™-must-be-dragged-out-indoctrination that they fell for, but I hear their screams muffled through (relatively thin) walls, so for them it’s even worse.
And yes they get the “positive parts” of some helpless creature being completely dependent on them and can be bossed around as they see fit. But how does that balance.


And especially Infants’ experience is pretty much pure torture (that they can’t help but spread it onto their surroundings**), I think nobody can possibly deny this, because nearly everything of what they communicate all day every day is in how much agony they are , and it starts with a birth that severly hurts them physically (deformed head, lots of bruised joints and bodyparts, sometimes broken bones, etc.).


**I really wonder how very early, primitive societies without stone-walls(!) and diapers(!) even procreated at all. There had to be multiple people in every one of those societies that weren’t flooded by hormones but tortured by the constant screams of these ever-shitting infants and toddlers, and I wonder how these humans didn’t simply secretly threw the child into a lake in some burst of anger, especially if they could get away with it without anyone knowing it was them.


How can anyone decide “yeah great let’s have another one of those children that are screaming in agony every day for years(!) – that’s what we (and them!) really want”.
And the price for these children are even enormous in every other aspect as well.
It doesn’t make sense whatsoever, and I’m truly disgusted by anyone who dragged children into suffering, especially multiple.


And don’t get me started on those that want sympathy because the child they created with their sick genes is now crippled, and how hard this is for them..

It is kind of funny to think that this is almost the same reasoning that people used to justify slavery. But it turned out that it was the white man that was ignorant. — Sir2u

Ignoring what a ridiculous statement that is in context to the comment you replied to, are you saying white (male) humans enslave? Because that's blatantly racist (and sexist).
Ironically it's infact racism and sexism that is one of the excuses that was and is used to enslave others.

The tendency to enslave others has nothing to do with skin color but level of psychopathy/sociopathy and/or how much they obey a cruel system.

That was an inspiring read. So what, functionally speaking, differentiates an Antinatalist from an Efilist? — Bird-Up

I obviously already answered that in my post. But you stated it again as a starting point for some rather lame strawmen, namely:

Does the Efilist also assert that preexisting life should not be lived? — Bird-Up

No he doesn't it's the natalist who thinks nonexistence needs to be pained because it could possibly miss out on (all the suffering of) life if it weren't.

That continued existence itself is a crime? — Bird-Up

It definitely is, the creator of life, or more specifically suffering, is the criminal.

It seems like Efilism demands suicide, murder, or possibly both. — Bird-Up

It doesn't, Natalists are the ones who demand the continued existence of suicide and murder.
Efilists/Antinatalists want an end to all suffering, including those.

Anyone who truly subscribes to Efilism must already be gone. — Bird-Up

"You haven't climbed out of the cage somehow, so that must mean you like to be imprisoned."

What do you mean specifically? Are you saying humanity is more likely to become extinct before they reach that technological milestone? — Bird-Up

I made all that extremely clear.

Stuff has to get done. You have to do it or externalities will get you. Survival. You feel an itch, you feel cold, you feel bored, you feel dirty, you feel you need an extra item you are missing. Comfort. You are lonely, your mind needs something active. You need to be more "mindful", you need to exercise, you need to go on a vacation, you need to, you need to, you need to. Entertainment. It isn't going away.

I call of this "dealing with". Many people unthinkingly resent much of this but can't make the connection to being born itself. It's just too global. They have been enculturated to think just right near their noses. Hard-nosed realists, pragmatists, etc. But the problem is global. It is getting people to see that it is the problem with life itself. It is existential, not situational. Not circumstantial. It's whack-a-mole. You think you fix the problem, but it is unceasing. It is part of the structure. AND now add all the contingent suffering I mentioned. — schopenhauer1

I don't think it's as bad or impossible-to-deal-with as you make it out to be. For you to be correct suffering, that which we don't like, even hate, should be a necessary aspect of life.

Is suffering really an unavoidable fact of life? In the past and in the present, certainly "yes". This within the context of present realities like the design of our bodies and the nature of our minds. The future needn't be the way things were and the way things are though. You, and others who think like you, are missing a crucial element of reality viz. the future.

To drive the point home imagine the situation is reversed from the way it is now - there was/is no suffering and the world was/is paradisaical. What, in your opinion, is the right way to deal with this? Should we say to ourselves that our past has been wonderful, so is our present, and therefore there's no reason to worry about the future - nothing's going to change, happiness is guaranteed - and then assume a complacent, self-satisfied attitude? Or is it advisable to develop a plan for the future to ensure that paradise remains a paradise?

Clearly, if you think we should do the latter - plan to keep paradise a happy place - then you recognize the importance of the future, specifically the fact that it's possible for the situation to be completely reversed. In this realization is the key that unlocks a refutation of antinatalism. Antinatalists are assuming, erroneously, the future will be no different from the present or the past. The Problem Of Induction

Antinatalists are assuming, erroneously, the future will be no different from the present or the past. The Problem Of Induction — TheMadFool

No Antinatalists know that nonexistant people don’t crave anything, not even paradise.
So even if your literally impossible claim were actually correct, it’s still completely irrelevant, because craving an impossible paradise is suffering in itself – and that befalls only the living, not empty void obviously.


Apart from that, what you are saying is also “induction isn’t perfect so it’s always wrong”, and base your completely made up claim, that the future will allegedly certainly be paradisical on absolutely nothing, not even induction, because induction very clearly proves the complete opposite.


And why do you think you have the right to throw others in suffering because you believe in something that allegedly will happen at some point.
How many victims is throwing down the meat-grinder to achieve something that is a) impossible and b) completely unnecessary justified? Is that number bigger than 0 for you? If so why?

And if so, is there any limit to this cruelty, any amount of numbers of torture victims that are thrown into this sewer that you think weren’t justified anymore? 10 people? 100? 1.000.000? 10 billion?
Is there any limit of victims for you, or is the alleged goal of ending suffering sometime in the future worth unlimited suffering for you?

Not dragging others needlessly into suffering is already the solution that you claim to want sometime in the future.

@Zn0n
+
@schopenhauer1
=
Same person. Try covering your tracks better and don't be so transparent. The sheer level of stupidity and projection here is embarrassing to watch.

Well the discussion was giving off a strong scent of Antinatalism, so I just had to throw the word in there. I'll try to get caught up on those 4,500 other posts when I have the time. Wow, you could have written a book by now! (Maybe you have?) Not bad for a Cardinal with a keyboard. — Bird-Up

Ha.. Just a cardinal and a keyboard here :). Peck, peck peck...

Zn0n
+
@schopenhauer1
=
Same person. Try covering your tracks better and don't be so transparent. The sheer level of stupidity and projection here is embarrassing to watch. — MSC

Obvious diversion attempt, you have nothing left to say so you desperately try to construct nasty ad hominems.

What's ironic is MSC reminds me of an old poster, S/Sapentia who used to flame and troll all the time. Very hostile. Hard to have a respectable conversation. Being civil while disagreeing is hard for some people. I can imagine MSC being a sock puppet of him ha.

There are shades of gray and not black-and-white differences between humans and other animals in cognitive abilities. While animals might not ponder life and death the way humans do, they still may have some sense of self. — MSC

Did you not read here when I said:

And no, this isn't about having a sense of self like the mirror test or anything like that. — schopenhauer1

I thought that took care of the exact type of arguments you were trying to make. The argument is not about animal consciousness. It is about how humans are animal with the kind of thoughts and mental functional capacity to resent a situation they are in (any/many/every in theory). There isn't doing and being, but rather knowing that we are doing and being, evaluating it, comparing it and deeming it negative, and hence resenting it. You know what, if other animals can do that, all the more pessimism added to my claim. The claim was rather for pessimism not about animal cognition, is the key here.