Nice article (talking about anti-natalism is so in). But I think anti-natalists would push back and argue that, contra what most people claim, life is much worse than we’re letting on.
I really think it is the opposite: if an ethical view commits you to perpetuating a net suffering state (with the added risk of even greater suffering arising) *then* something has gone wrong! Painless, instant annihilation of all sentient life would actually be an extremely great thing. (I can see why this may sound crazy, btw)
"eternity of unconscious darkness"? Darkness implies an observer of said darkness to experience it for eternity. Please explain why you imagine that, right now, there are countless beings experiencing this endless darkness you speak of. You might say you were just being poetic, but if so why did you land on the word "darkness"? Why would "darkness" be the best word to convey what you want to say? So, I don't think it's poetic. I think you literally believe we were in a black void before we existed, resting in peace... But let me ask you: If not existing is best, why wasn't not existing able to stop you from coming to exist? David Benatar implies that not existing is better, and will prevent a life from being "imposed". But if you imagine a universe completely devoid of all life, but then you, a life, comes to exist, then that's the life that's "imposed". But if an animal like a bear or a dog came to exist, in this thought experiment, then *that* individual life would have been the one imposed... In this way, there's no escaping the imposition of one life or another. Just as your lack of existing was unable to stop a life from being imposed (the life that's reading this); your lack of existing wouldn't have been able to stop some *other* life from doing the imposition of a life. In that thought experiment, the consciousness being done by the one and only brain is the only experience there is... There is no black void experience anywhere. There is only that conscious experience that exists, that's occuring.
So now it comes to the question: what's going to happen after this universe ends? Will another universe come to exist? Are there already other universes right now? These are things we cannot know yet. Either way, even if all life in the universe ended for good, there'd still not be an endless experience of "Darkness", since there wouldn't be anyone to experience the lack of experience. So, without someone to appreciate the lack of experience, what's the point of even talking about it as if something has been obtained? The point is moot, irrelevant. The idea that not existing is preferable only makes sense if there's something to prefer. Otherwise there isn't anything offered.
Only Experience is what's experienced. There's no escape. Will the universe revert back to not existing? If so, isn't that the way things were before this universe came to be? So what's stopping the same thing from happening again?
Hilarious subtitle!
Nice article (talking about anti-natalism is so in). But I think anti-natalists would push back and argue that, contra what most people claim, life is much worse than we’re letting on.
I’m not exactly sure what to make of that.
Clearly they're not out chugging brewskis and baggin' babes like the rest of us
Hey, synchronicity! I just wrote about antinatalism and touched on the wild animal suffering paradox--surely it'd be irresponsible to go extinct before we destroyed the planet, right? I'm gonna have to edit it to link to this article. https://outlandishclaims.substack.com/i/148106410/babies-arent-an-exception-either .
Wild idea - if an ethical view commits you to nuking everything to death, something has gone wrong
I really think it is the opposite: if an ethical view commits you to perpetuating a net suffering state (with the added risk of even greater suffering arising) *then* something has gone wrong! Painless, instant annihilation of all sentient life would actually be an extremely great thing. (I can see why this may sound crazy, btw)
I just wrote this response to an antinatalist:
"eternity of unconscious darkness"? Darkness implies an observer of said darkness to experience it for eternity. Please explain why you imagine that, right now, there are countless beings experiencing this endless darkness you speak of. You might say you were just being poetic, but if so why did you land on the word "darkness"? Why would "darkness" be the best word to convey what you want to say? So, I don't think it's poetic. I think you literally believe we were in a black void before we existed, resting in peace... But let me ask you: If not existing is best, why wasn't not existing able to stop you from coming to exist? David Benatar implies that not existing is better, and will prevent a life from being "imposed". But if you imagine a universe completely devoid of all life, but then you, a life, comes to exist, then that's the life that's "imposed". But if an animal like a bear or a dog came to exist, in this thought experiment, then *that* individual life would have been the one imposed... In this way, there's no escaping the imposition of one life or another. Just as your lack of existing was unable to stop a life from being imposed (the life that's reading this); your lack of existing wouldn't have been able to stop some *other* life from doing the imposition of a life. In that thought experiment, the consciousness being done by the one and only brain is the only experience there is... There is no black void experience anywhere. There is only that conscious experience that exists, that's occuring.
So now it comes to the question: what's going to happen after this universe ends? Will another universe come to exist? Are there already other universes right now? These are things we cannot know yet. Either way, even if all life in the universe ended for good, there'd still not be an endless experience of "Darkness", since there wouldn't be anyone to experience the lack of experience. So, without someone to appreciate the lack of experience, what's the point of even talking about it as if something has been obtained? The point is moot, irrelevant. The idea that not existing is preferable only makes sense if there's something to prefer. Otherwise there isn't anything offered.
Only Experience is what's experienced. There's no escape. Will the universe revert back to not existing? If so, isn't that the way things were before this universe came to be? So what's stopping the same thing from happening again?