/l/ - The Lounge

Non board-specific discussion

[Make a Post]
[X]





Antinatalism Nanonymous No.12349 [D][U][F][S][L][A][C] >>12401
File: 4ab58de0797d9863f2d057fd193c97e583ef498d07f8ad27995bead4f87bfd81.png (dl) (477.00 KiB)

Do you agree with this statement?

Suffering is inherent to existence. We can only learn because negative stimuli exists. Therefore, giving birth to any new life that experiences pain is not ethic.


Discuss.

Nanonymous No.12350 [D] >>12358

No, since it is possible to create a being that does not understand suffering or pain nor experiences it. The second statement seems reasonable if you consider understanding a statement to be false as a negative stimuli. And, the third statement is irrelevant to the previous two.

Nanonymous No.12351 [D]

While I wont argue about the ethics of every single birth I would say that unintelligent and poor people breeding is surely unethic

Nanonymous No.12353 [D]

In Western culture, unnecessary suffering is seen as unethical, not all suffering. This is why the West typically criticize other cultures (like China) that seem to have no concept of animal cruelty and have no problem boiling animals alive and the like.

Nanonymous No.12355 [D] >>12358

How is not having children going to lessen suffering? Humanity exiting the scene just leaves a void to be filled by others. Will suffering end?
Even if the Earth dies, it's a big universe out there. How much suffering exists at any given moment in time on a universal scale?
How can the actions of humans have any significance at all?

Nanonymous No.12356 [D] >>12358

This statement of yours is based on the premise that preventing suffering is the highest good. I do not accept that premise, for several reasons.
First off is the obvious: without life there is no suffering, but also no happiness. Even the most autistic utilitarian would agree that preventing all suffering at the cost of preventing all happiness is not the optimal outcome.
Second, most religions would disagree, except perhaps Gnosticism and Buddhism. If humanity is here for a reason, it obviously can't be "preventing suffering."
Lastly, perhaps most importantly, antinatalists are obviously less likely to reproduce. It's all but impossible to persuade or kill everyone on earth. That means the genes that predispose people to antinatalism will quickly die out, making the next generation more natalist (whether that means full of conservatives who breed on principle, or 65IQ niggers who breed like rabbits). Essentially, the idea eliminates itself. Put another way, Antinatalism is against GNON's will.
TL;DR You're full of shit.

Nanonymous No.12358 [D][U][F] >>12363
File: aace95e2ea5e3f755051a4cac9bc2d96ab5967be12a86bfc5f8fb5c830996cc8.jpg (dl) (1.33 MiB)

>>12350
>possible to create a being that does not understand suffering or pain nor experiences it
The statement refers specificaly to giving birth to those who do suffer.
>the third statement is irrelevant to the previous two.
It is not, because you're making other people suffer.
>>12355
>How is not having children going to lessen suffering?
If you don't give birth to other being, this being can't suffer.
>Will suffering end?
Antinatalism is not about ending suffering, it's about preventing more from happening.
>>>12356
>without life there is no suffering, but also no happiness.
Happiness is a ilusion. Suffering is not.
>most religions would disagree
Using religion is not an argument.
>antinatalists are obviously less likely to reproduce.
True.
>It's all but impossible to persuade or kill everyone on earth.
Antinatalism =/= Pro-death.
>the genes that predispose people to antinatalism will quickly die out
Not sure if genes play a important hole in this. Different from a disease, antinatalism is a conclusion you get when you think about existence. But, then, that is another discussion (nature vs nurture).
>making the next generation more natalist
Non-sequitur.

Nanonymous No.12363 [D]

>>12358
>If you don't give birth to other being, this being can't suffer.
It just creates space and frees up resources filled and utilized by other creatures. Not having children creates more suffering, even if you're not directly responsible, you're still indirectly responsible by enabling others to create it in your place.
>Antinatalism is not about ending suffering, it's about preventing more from happening.
You're not preventing it at all. The net effect will be more suffering.
If all humans disappear, the earth will just be filled with even more savage creatures which create more suffering than anything humans have ever done. Millions of years of savage, painful murder.
There's no escape.
http://axqzx4s6s54s32yentfqojs3x5i7faxza6xo3ehd4bzzsg2ii4fv2iid.onion/watch?v=fmwC9HzcWbQ

Nanonymous No.12366 [D][U][F]
File: e042882399e98f3e6077862f8fc1c39c10f0b39c79d97a12973f30f6d292035a.jpg (dl) (40.52 KiB)

>>12364
>"I'm so bothered that I will reject any thought from others and call them pseudointelectual when, in fact, I'm the one who is too tired to engage in basic arguments"
>this place has degenerated
Do you know how imageboards work? Make a better thread. Release your "true intelectual" powers.
>Perhaps I shouldn't bother writing new software.
Then don't. I even tried to help you on the /meta/ thread. You just wanted attention. When everyone stopped giving you that, you vanished.

Nanonymous No.12367 [D][U][F] >>12373 >>12390
File: 5628ad8539ed2826a0d8a50a9e71b6754f7c31314ec7b295dd61d8089b855a95.mp4 (dl) (1.13 MiB)

Can a being that does not yet exist experience pain and suffering? Can it experience happiness? We do know that once it has come into existence it can though and since there's an asymmetry between suffering and happiness in the world--it will experience more suffering than happiness, therefore, creating life is inflicting net suffering. If humans are the apex animal then human suffering is greater than other animals suffering and thus, preventing human suffering is more important than preventing pain and suffering of other animals, fish, and plants.

Nanonymous No.12369 [D]

The only way to prevent suffering is death so kill yoursel. Umm, You live with cats dont you?

You need to kill your cats and move to a fresh non-infected environment. theyve given you a little gift because you didnt clean up properly.

Stop seeing yourself as one entity, you are a microbiome of organisms that you cant even exist without (try to faggot, just try). You are also a host to toxo and it wants you to kill yourself so mice will eat you and continue their lifecycle.

Thats what the OP needed to know, anyway. Sorry your brain is being controlled by toxoplasmosis OP, dont drive too fast and stay away from steep edges.


Nanonymous No.12370 [D][U][F] >>12371
File: 32c6a829195a5a5153f988e230d8850d3e643aea4eed5628e938a26c674419b8.jpg (dl) (269.59 KiB)

It is interesting to see how people easily feel offended by antinatalist arguments.

Nanonymous No.12371 [D]

>>12370
I was 12369, i agree with you but i wanted to point out the fact that cat piss and shit can control your mind and that it may infact have some merit as a potential explanation as to why self defeatiam exists in the first place. Some things just are biological and there is no way to twist your head around it. :)

Nanonymous No.12372 [D]

And further to that, i wish everyone would kill themselves and stop reproducing. You can be sure im not offended by antinatalism. Its sweet.

Nanonymous No.12373 [D] >>12393

>>12367
Is that Hapase trying to beat up her mom on a train but got her butt kicked instead?

Nanonymous No.12377 [D] >>12392 >>12398 >>12399 >>12402 >>12404

>Happiness is a ilusion. Suffering is not.
How would you define illusion?
>Not sure if genes play an important role in this
IQ is ~80% heritable. Antinatalism is dependent on IQ. There are large swaths of the population who simply cannot spend their spare time pondering philosophy due to having low IQ. If antinatalism were to successfully propagate, the people with high enough IQ to consider antinatalism would reproduce much less, and the previously mentioned low IQ population would take their place. Antinatalism would not prevent any suffering, in fact it would probably create more.
(Someone's likelihood of believing antinatalism is probably also affected by personality and time preference, and whatever genes modify those, I just don't know any bulletproof statistics about that offhand.)

Nanonymous No.12390 [D] >>12391

>>12367
Animals and plants have more acute senses than humans, ergo, they experience more suffering than humans.
Preventing animal suffering is more ethical than preventing human suffering. Humans suffer less and have many methods for lessening and eliminating pain. Animals and plants don't have that luxury.

Nanonymous No.12391 [D] >>12396

>>12390
>Humans suffer less
I disagree with this. Humans have psychological pain.
>Animals and plants don't have that luxury.
Plants don't feel pain.
>Preventing animal suffering
I agree too. I'm not vegetarian, but I do agree with the philosophy.

Nanonymous No.12392 [D][U][F] >>12399
File: b6b34d67308714888247b496da7de6b4d107e3c13544c73322d36f95426584da.jpg (dl) (55.33 KiB)

>>12377
>Antinatalism would not prevent any suffering, in fact it would probably create more.
Antinatalists are infact preventing net suffering by not reproducing. Natalists are the ones causing suffering by forcing the human condition onto innocent humans that didn't even ask for existence.

Nanonymous No.12393 [D] >>12402

>>12373
>Is that Hapase
No, but beating up her mom on a train is something Hakaze would do.

Nanonymous No.12396 [D] >>12400

>>12391
Anyone who's ever owned a dog or cat knows full well that animals can experience psychological pain and happiness. Animals grieve and there's been many scientific studies on this. Look it up.
Plants do feel pain. They possess analogs to animal neurons and, again, there's been research on this. Look it up.

Nanonymous No.12398 [D] >>12399 >>12404

>>12377
You just showed your hand, m8. You really have no genuine concern for suffering in general, you are just going through your own "fuck you, dad" phase, and are projecting the "human condition" as something innately painful because you are depressed and likely hate yourself.
The good news is that, even using your own logic, suicide is always an option, and whatever momentary fear or pain you would experience gets eternally cancelled out once death occurs. The moment someone regrets existing, they have the choice to immediately end their life and no one can really stop them if they have possess even average intelligence and forethought in planning.
People who are strongly fearful of death can successfully off themselves by slowly taking sleeping pills over a period of time, getting used to the nightly ritual, yet not dying, gradually increasing their dosage until one night they will have taken one too many and will simply never wake up. Or you could pay someone to inject your veins with air after you drink yourself unconscious. There's lots of creative solutions to dealing with fear.
So there is really no excuse for you to go on living if you don't want to. Plants and animals don't really have that option.
Oh wait, actually they do:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_suicide
Even more evidence that humans have no excuse to continue living if they can't bear the "human condition".

Nanonymous No.12399 [D]

Sorry, this >>12398 was meant for >>12392 not >>12377

Nanonymous No.12400 [D] >>12412 >>12414 >>12427

>>12396
>Anyone who's ever owned a dog or cat knows
I never said other animals can't suffer. I was counterargumenting your point that "animals suffer more than humans".
>Plants do feel pain.
Nope, they don't. They release compounds in the air, as a signal for other plants around. But they do not feel pain. Pain is processed by the nervous system and plants don't have it.

Nanonymous No.12401 [D]

>>12349
>Do you agree with this statement? Suffering is inherent to existence.
Suffering is only part of existence, you seem to think that we should eliminate suffering but i disagree, suffering is necessary to live an healthy life:
first, suffering is needed as a stimuli to stay alive, for example when you are hungry yur body is signalling you that you need to eat same with most other human needs, without these kind of suffering people would not bother to mantain their body
second, suffering is needed as a way to stay away from risk, people are already bad at judging risk, without the fear of negative consequenses like pain people would take huge risks and this is bad
third, suffering is needed for happiness to exist, the same positive stimuli we can experience now could not exist without negative stimuli, for example the satisfation you get when eating after you were hungry could not exist without hunger in the first place
fourth, suffering is needed to have an healthy society, without it empathy couldn't exist and people would become(even more) self absorbed and egoist, cause why would i help you if you're not suffering? i wonder if you could even understand how others feel without experiencing suffering, a huge part of bonding with others and understanding each other is sharing your sufference with other to find relief and comfort

So for these reasons(and more) you should not want to eliminate ALL sufference and should instead accept what is NECESSARY and try to minimize the UNNECESSARY suffering, personally i think that we should minimize suffering by enhancing the human body and mind, i recommend you check the Transhumanism thread(>>>/g/3966).

Nanonymous No.12402 [D]

>>12377
>>12393
That is not hapase, hapase is in my sex dungeon right now, oh sorry guys i need to go feed her some cum, brb.

Nanonymous No.12404 [D] >>12413 >>12429

>>12398
You went from
>>12377
>Antinatalism would not prevent any suffering, in fact it would probably create more.
to
>>12398
>death is how you escape the human condition(which is true)
Do you have a point you'll stick to or you just like running around discussions like a headless chicken.


Nanonymous No.12412 [D] >>12414

>>12400
>Pain is processed by the nervous system and plants don't have it.
Yes they do.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2688289/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2634130/
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/plants-communicate-distress-using-their-own-kind-nervous-system
http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants

Nanonymous No.12413 [D]

>>12404
Why can't both of those statements be true?
Do I have to be restricted to only one point in the course of a discussion?

Nanonymous No.12414 [D][U][F] >>12421 >>12426
File: 30adbd913e6914066b3030c3ebe9e04495e0780354091158663705ac068b8626.png (dl) (274.08 KiB)

>>12412
No, it doesn't. You didn't even read the papers/articles you linked. As I said before, plants comunicate between them releasing compounds in the air and between cells using hormones. This doesn't mean they feel pain, this mean they communicated. To feel pain you need specific brain regions to process it. That's also why some invertebrates can't feel pain or only have limited reactions (reflexes) to it.
From your first link:
>[we] "made it clear that we do not take for granted animal brains and synapses in any dogmatic sense, but rather use terms such as `brain-like plant command centre' and `plant synapse' in plant-specific senses"
Followed in the bottom with:
>"We can only hope that plant sciences will accept our new view of sensitive plants"
They "hope" because their view is not widely accepted in scientific community.

The second article is clearly written by a retarded wannabe scientist. But first, here is a quote from a paper he himself quotes:
>[...] "And they continue, "there is no evidence for structures such as neurons, synapses or a brain in plants""
He then goes on, just to prove himself wrong:
>"off-line adaptive behavior.21 Reactive behavior differs from truly cognitive one because it fails to meet the principle of dissociation (the states of a reactive system covary continuously with external states). Off-line competencies thus mark the borderline between reactive, noncognitive, cases of covariation and the cognitive case of intentional systems."
And since the beginning he shows how retarded he is:
>"neuron doctrine (for a review see ref. 5) claims that cognitive activity can be accounted for exclusively by basic neuroscience."
No neuroscientist says that. What is his definition of "basic"? If you ask any serious neuroscientist about "how the brain works" he will say to you this is a very complicated machine. The author system to think neuroscientists simply understand the brain as "neuros", which is false. Also, the article he links is utterly bullshit that wants to discuss philosophy in scientific terms.
>"This approach ignores the integration of basic neuroscience with the rest of the cognitive science disciplines (psychology, linguistics, anthropology, artificial intelligence, and philosophy)"
Psychology is not science. Anthropology, by itself (without biology), is not science. Philosophy is not science.
The author lacks basic comprehension about what the scientific method is.

The third link goes to a article from Science Magazine. Quote:
>"A plant injured on one leaf by a nibbling insect can alert its other leaves to begin anticipatory defense responses."
>"plants sense local signals, such as herbivore attack, and transmit this information throughout the plant body to rapidly activate defense responses in undamaged parts"
Exactly what I said in >>12400

The last of your links is too big. I've read first paragraphs and it says exactly the same as the others: plants uses signals.

Plants don't feel pain. Before linking something as evidence, please read the fucking links.
I don't even know why I wasted time writing this. You probably wont even read.

Nanonymous No.12421 [D]

>>12414
>To feel pain you need specific brain regions to process it
Not exclusively.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nociceptor#Other_animals
There are plenty of academic references linked in that section. Go read them.

Nanonymous No.12423 [D][U][F]
File: 583714787e439fd614cd58d91142df194ea75ade838db3c6677dabb29a7d5ef1.jpg (dl) (300.93 KiB)

So many people in this thread just want to follow the script society programmed into them. Independent thought can be hard when you have been conditioned all your life to never think but mindlessly follow--the Prussian education model(which almost all countries use today) is working as intended.

Nanonymous No.12424 [D]

So many people post off-topic bait and /pol/ spam in lieu of an argument.

Nanonymous No.12426 [D] >>12450

>>12414
>The last of your links is too big.
>Before linking something as evidence, please read the fucking links.
Opinion discarded

Nanonymous No.12427 [D] >>12450

>>12400
Your counterargument was based on the premise that humans suffer more than animals because humans suffer psychological pain (implying animals don't).
You were wrong and I pointed that out.
You also claimed that plants don't feel pain.
You were wrong again and I pointed that out.

Nanonymous No.12428 [D] >>12429

Different person.

Nanonymous No.12429 [D]

>>12404
>>12428

Nanonymous No.12450 [D] >>12451

>>12426
>Opinion discarded
Holy shit, I'm discussing with monkeys. As I said, you wouldn't even read my last comment. I was right.
>>12427
>premise that humans suffer more
I never sais that, it was you that said the opposite:
>"they experience more suffering than humans."
>"Humans suffer less"
What I said was that your statement was wrong. Even though we do have technology to reduce pain, we have a kind of pain (existencial suffering) other animals don't have, because they are not aware they are alive (before you even start, go read about "theory of mind").
>You were wrong again and I pointed that out.
No, I was not. Read my last comment again. You linked articles you didn't even read and you don't know what you're talking about.


I'm done with this thread, really.

Nanonymous No.12451 [D]

>>12450
>I'm done with this thread, really.
Good. Your posts are misinformed, overly emotional and they add nothing of value to the discussion.

Nanonymous No.12664 [D]

>Suffering is inherent to existence
Sure, how could it be any other way. To live is to be in a state of instability that always ends in death.
>We can only learn because negative stimuli exists
True, all life needs to overcome existential threat if it wants to survive, so learning may be unconscious through gradual evolution or fast through research and development.
>Therefore, giving birth to any new life that experiences pain is not ethic.
What the fuck are you on about? You went from philosophical to retarded in one sentence.