mirror of
https://github.com/fmap/muflax65ngodyewp.onion
synced 2024-07-05 11:20:42 +02:00
511 lines
21 KiB
Markdown
511 lines
21 KiB
Markdown
|
---
|
||
|
title: Antinatalism Overview
|
||
|
date: 2011-11-16
|
||
|
techne: :incomplete
|
||
|
episteme: :believed
|
||
|
---
|
||
|
|
||
|
> If only I could show you the places I have seen, you might understand the
|
||
|
> things I say. I have been to the Desolate Lands, wandered by those souls who
|
||
|
> still see the lands of the living but wear the cloak of the dead. Blind to
|
||
|
> their own ends, they cry, passing through one another like shadows in the
|
||
|
> dying light of day. I have travelled to where souls rot in torment, pierced
|
||
|
> with the jagged shards of life and vision, clinging to memory - regrets of
|
||
|
> the flesh. I saw that this prison was of their own making, and that the key
|
||
|
> was in unknowing, in release... and still, I travelled on.
|
||
|
>
|
||
|
> And finally, I came to the place where souls go to die. Where the mirrored and
|
||
|
> worn spirits fall into an endless sea of grey, mirrored glass, and I lowered
|
||
|
> myself within, and lay there among them, and I almost did not return.
|
||
|
>
|
||
|
> And do you know what I found there? There, among the silent and battered
|
||
|
> shells of the innumerable? Peace. Enlightenment. Truth. Only then did I realize
|
||
|
> that this place, this "Life", is an abomination, a horrible distortion of the
|
||
|
> natural order. This *"Life"*, who mothered Pain, and Fear, and Envy... these
|
||
|
> twisted children who exist only because we are here to feed them, to nourish
|
||
|
> them. This *"Life"*, this *afterthought* - a disturbance, a mere ripple in that
|
||
|
> great, dead sea, not even the cause, but merely an effect, sending these souls
|
||
|
> upwards, screaming for release from the day they are torn from their waters!
|
||
|
> The effect of what?!
|
||
|
>
|
||
|
> I do not know. Nor do I care.
|
||
|
>
|
||
|
> Have you ever spoken with the dead? Called to them from this side? Called them
|
||
|
> from their silent rest? Do you know what it is that they feel? Pain. Pain,
|
||
|
> when torn into this wakefulness, this reminder of the chaos from which they
|
||
|
> had escaped. Pain - for having to live. There will be no more pain. There
|
||
|
> will be no more chaos.
|
||
|
>
|
||
|
> -- [Kerghan][], about to end the world ([video][Kerghan Speech])
|
||
|
|
||
|
# Why You Got Screwed
|
||
|
|
||
|
I've got bad news for you. According to some philosophers, there is a huge
|
||
|
source of harm in the world that most people ignore. Even worse, *you* are
|
||
|
already affected by it. The harm? *Being born*.
|
||
|
|
||
|
This position is called [antinatalism][Antinatalism].
|
||
|
|
||
|
As a stylistic convention, I will refer to all good experiences as "awesome" or
|
||
|
"awesomeness" and all bad ones as "suck" or "suckiness". That's a little
|
||
|
unusual, but I think superior to words like "pleasure" or "pain", which can
|
||
|
refer to either very specific sensations (e.g. having a toothache) or the whole
|
||
|
category. So to prevent this confusion, everything bad just "sucks". If I mean
|
||
|
specifically just pain, I'll say so.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Range of Positions
|
||
|
==================
|
||
|
|
||
|
The names for these positions are mine, but reasonably close to common versions.
|
||
|
|
||
|
## Pronatalism
|
||
|
|
||
|
It is never wrong to bring someone into existence.
|
||
|
|
||
|
## Indifferent Natalism
|
||
|
|
||
|
It isn't *wrong* to bring someone into existence, but isn't right either. Both
|
||
|
outcomes are morally equivalent, so we should decide based on other
|
||
|
considerations, like our personal preferences or involved economic costs.
|
||
|
|
||
|
## Minor Antinatalism
|
||
|
|
||
|
There are some beings who are worse off, but on average, it works out. This
|
||
|
seems like the majority view of humanity.
|
||
|
|
||
|
## Major Antinatalism
|
||
|
|
||
|
Some beings are better off alive, but on average, the harm dominates. This
|
||
|
position is not unusual among transhumanists, who might think that humanity has
|
||
|
a possible good future, but so far has mostly suffered. It is not uncommon for
|
||
|
people to hold off on having children because the world is too horrible at a
|
||
|
given time.
|
||
|
|
||
|
## Categorical Antinatalism
|
||
|
|
||
|
It is always wrong to bring someone into existence. *Every* being is worse off
|
||
|
alive. Even [Manabi][].
|
||
|
|
||
|
## A Note on Circles
|
||
|
|
||
|
One thing this overview won't address is any argument for the particular size of
|
||
|
the ethical circle, i.e. the set of all morally relevant beings. It doesn't
|
||
|
really matter for antinatalism whether you think [only you][Egoism] or
|
||
|
[all animals][Animal Rights] matter, or if the circle is
|
||
|
[expanding][Expanding Circle] or [narrowing][Narrowing Circle]. For simplicity's
|
||
|
sake, I will assume the circle encompasses all humans, but most arguments can be
|
||
|
trivially modified for any size.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Arguments for Antinatalism
|
||
|
==========================
|
||
|
|
||
|
## Escape from Kaldor Hicks
|
||
|
|
||
|
Argument from consent.
|
||
|
|
||
|
http://theviewfromhell.blogspot.com/2011/01/pareto-kaldor-hicks-and-deserving.html
|
||
|
http://theviewfromhell.blogspot.com/2011/01/markets-are-ungrounded.html
|
||
|
|
||
|
## The Asymmetry {#asymmetry}
|
||
|
|
||
|
[Benatar][]'s famous argument. It's deceptively simple:
|
||
|
|
||
|
1. The presence of suck is bad.
|
||
|
2. The presence of awesome is good.
|
||
|
3. The absence of suck is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.
|
||
|
4. The absence of awesome is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this
|
||
|
absence is a deprivation.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The first two are uncontroversial. It's the second two parts that are
|
||
|
problematic.
|
||
|
|
||
|
TODO Argument from Duty
|
||
|
|
||
|
Benatar:
|
||
|
|
||
|
> The asymmetry between (3) and (4) is the best explanation for the view that
|
||
|
> while there is a duty to avoid bringing suffering people into existence, there
|
||
|
> is no duty to bring happy people into being.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The asymmetry relies fundamentally on the intuitions that absence of suckiness
|
||
|
must be good and that absence of awesomeness can't be bad. Disagreeing with
|
||
|
either would have weird consequences, so Benatar, and doesn't match our actual
|
||
|
behavior.
|
||
|
|
||
|
But I think Benatar is not expecting enough from his audience. Both positions
|
||
|
seem actually fairly sensible. Let's have a closer look.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
### Absence is Always Neutral
|
||
|
|
||
|
One way to resolve the asymmetry is to deny that the absence of suckiness is
|
||
|
actually good.
|
||
|
|
||
|
After all, who is benefitted? The hypothetical preferences of
|
||
|
non-existent people can't matter, or we would also take their preference for
|
||
|
awesomeness into account - and by accepting (4), we don't. So how does this
|
||
|
benefit arrise?
|
||
|
|
||
|
[Sister Y][Sister Asymmetry] gives us this thought experiment:
|
||
|
|
||
|
> **The Austrian Basement**
|
||
|
>
|
||
|
> E. F. has been kidnapped by her father and imprisoned in an Austrian cellar
|
||
|
> since her early adolescence. Her father repeatedly rapes her over the course
|
||
|
> of several years. E. F. gives birth to several children sired by her father.
|
||
|
> She reasonably believes that all these children have severe health problems,
|
||
|
> and that at least the female children will likely be abused by her father as
|
||
|
> they grow up.
|
||
|
>
|
||
|
> In Year 10 of her imprisonment, with four children born and removed from her
|
||
|
> by her father, she discovers a box (unknown to her father) hidden under a
|
||
|
> floorboard in her cell, containing everything she needs in order to practice
|
||
|
> undetectable birth control.
|
||
|
>
|
||
|
> Does she have a duty to practice birth control and avoid having more babies?
|
||
|
> Does she have a duty not to practice birth control, because she would be
|
||
|
> depriving her unborn babies of life (which, while it would have certain
|
||
|
> problems, would nevertheless presumably be worth living)? (Assume she would
|
||
|
> like the company of more babies, but fears the pain of more unassisted
|
||
|
> childbirth, and the "interests of the unborn children" is the concern that
|
||
|
> will break the tie, given her personal ambivalence.)
|
||
|
|
||
|
If you answer "yes, E. should use birth control", then why? She is preventing
|
||
|
harm to her unborn children, but if you deny the asymmetry, how is this
|
||
|
relevant?
|
||
|
|
||
|
So if absence of suckiness is not good, E. should have more children, who will
|
||
|
subsequentally be raped and beaten, but overall, say they like living. That's a
|
||
|
tough bullet to bite.
|
||
|
|
||
|
### Astronomical Waste
|
||
|
|
||
|
Why should the absence of awesome be considered "not bad"? Why not consider it
|
||
|
an evil? One transhumanist approach to this is called [Astronomical Waste][]. As
|
||
|
Nick Bostrom says:
|
||
|
|
||
|
> With very advanced technology, a very large population of people living happy
|
||
|
> lives could be sustained in the accessible region of the universe. For every
|
||
|
> year that development of such technologies and colonization of the universe is
|
||
|
> delayed, there is therefore an opportunity cost: a potential good, lives worth
|
||
|
> living, is not being realized. Given some plausible assumptions, this cost is
|
||
|
> extremely large.
|
||
|
|
||
|
TODO
|
||
|
|
||
|
[Sister Y][Sister Asymmetry] has another thought experiment:
|
||
|
|
||
|
> **Slum World**
|
||
|
>
|
||
|
> The Supreme World Leaders meet in Tokyo in 2100 and decide that the world has
|
||
|
> a choice. Either the 2100 world population of 3 billion can be maintained in
|
||
|
> relative splendor, with fresh kumquats and sensory implants for everyone, or
|
||
|
> the world population can be increased to 100 billion, with everyone living in
|
||
|
> conditions similar to the conditions of a 20th century slum, apparently
|
||
|
> endured by upwards of 900 million people circa the year 2000.
|
||
|
>
|
||
|
> Which condition should the Supreme World Leaders choose?
|
||
|
|
||
|
This is really just an illustration of the problem, but a poignant one. However,
|
||
|
someone already convinced of positive utilitarianism will simply accept the
|
||
|
[Repugnant Conclusion][] and appeal to [Scope Insensitivity][].
|
||
|
|
||
|
Even so, Benatar writes:
|
||
|
|
||
|
> Whereas, at least when we think of them, we rightly are sad for inhabitants of
|
||
|
> a foreign land whose lives are characterized by suffering, when we hear that
|
||
|
> some island is unpopulated, we are not similarly sad for the happy people who,
|
||
|
> had they existed, would have populated this island. Similarly, nobody really
|
||
|
> mourns for those who do not exist on Mars, feeling sorry for potential such
|
||
|
> beings that they cannot enjoy life. Yet, if we knew that there were sentient
|
||
|
> life on Mars but that Martians were suffering, we would regret this for them.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Even most positive utilitarians don't feel saddened by the emptiness of space
|
||
|
and feel a strong moral compulsion to fix this mistake. On the other hand, nor
|
||
|
do negative utilitarians rejoice at all the matter in the universe that *isn't*
|
||
|
used to torture people. So overall, maybe our feeling of regret or relief isn't
|
||
|
such a great guide after all?
|
||
|
|
||
|
### What about future versions of yourself?
|
||
|
|
||
|
TODO Self, person-moments. Should you kill yourself right now?
|
||
|
|
||
|
## Life Sucks
|
||
|
|
||
|
This is a really straightforward argument. Life sucks, therefore it is bad to
|
||
|
create another life, for it too will suck.
|
||
|
|
||
|
It starts to get tricky once you start asking questions like "How *much* does it
|
||
|
suck?", "Is there an acceptable level of suck?" or "Does it suck for everyone?".
|
||
|
|
||
|
### Amount of Suck
|
||
|
|
||
|
TODO benatar
|
||
|
|
||
|
### Acceptable Suckiness
|
||
|
|
||
|
TODO utilitarian / max-harm argument
|
||
|
|
||
|
### I like Russian Roulette
|
||
|
|
||
|
Maybe not everyone is affected by overall suckiness. If you are already
|
||
|
upper-class parents with no history of depression, then maybe your child *does*
|
||
|
have a good shot at a worthwhile life.
|
||
|
|
||
|
This is fundamentally an utilitarian argument. You take the probability of
|
||
|
*your* child having a sucky life, multiply it with the negative value of all the
|
||
|
expected harm, do the same thing with the chance of awesomeness and compare the
|
||
|
two. It's fundamentally like russian roulette, but if the odds are good enough,
|
||
|
why not play?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Of course, if you accept this argument, I'd like you to show me these
|
||
|
calculations. (Seriously. [Contact][] me. I can't even decide on the rough order
|
||
|
of magnitude for any of these values.) In my experience, almost no-one who makes
|
||
|
claims about utility actually ever calculates it. So how do you know?
|
||
|
|
||
|
TODO non-utilitarian rebuttals
|
||
|
|
||
|
## Children are Expensive
|
||
|
|
||
|
TODO
|
||
|
|
||
|
### Humans are Parasites
|
||
|
|
||
|
A variant of this argument argues that the rest of the planet would be better
|
||
|
off without humans.
|
||
|
|
||
|
TODO [Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT)][VHEMT]
|
||
|
|
||
|
TODO wildlife is much worse off
|
||
|
|
||
|
Of course, if you think that animals don't have moral value, then the whole
|
||
|
argument is moot.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Arguments against Antinatalism
|
||
|
==============================
|
||
|
|
||
|
## Most people don't want to die.
|
||
|
|
||
|
If you ask people if they would like to die, most disagree.
|
||
|
|
||
|
TODO hypothetical consent
|
||
|
|
||
|
TODO bias argument
|
||
|
|
||
|
TODO include [Wasting The Dawn][] somehow
|
||
|
|
||
|
I can't help but feel that culture too rarely [makes the case][Wasting The Dawn]
|
||
|
for antinatal positions and that feeling regret at having to live is always
|
||
|
treated as a mental illness, not a possible position to defend.
|
||
|
|
||
|
## Synthetic Happiness is Real Happiness
|
||
|
|
||
|
[Dan Gilbert][Gilbert TED] argues that we fabricate "synthetic happiness" when
|
||
|
we don't get what we want, and that this is as good as "real" happiness. Thanks
|
||
|
to the [Hedonic Threadmill][], we will adapt to any change in life and go back
|
||
|
to our happiness set point.
|
||
|
|
||
|
If this happiness research is right, then our life circumstances are largely
|
||
|
irrelevant when considering how happy we are. Only one thing matters: our
|
||
|
happiness set point.[^setpoint] And because most people say they like living, they have a
|
||
|
sufficiently high set point and weren't harmed by whatever life we forced upon
|
||
|
them. And if you have a transhumanist bend, you might even think that [modifying
|
||
|
the set point][Wireheading] is not too far off.
|
||
|
|
||
|
[^setpoint]: All you depressed people hopefully realize how devastating this is.
|
||
|
Life sucks and it will *keep on sucking*. Under
|
||
|
[normal circumstances][Happiness Stochastic], happiness is largely constant.
|
||
|
Happy endings are for other people.
|
||
|
|
||
|
TODO rebuttal from desire fulfillment
|
||
|
|
||
|
TODO rebuttal from separate pain
|
||
|
|
||
|
## Non-Person Values
|
||
|
|
||
|
Not just people matter. We can value states of the world without existing. Thus,
|
||
|
I can be harmed without ever being brought into existence. Existence is not a
|
||
|
morally significant hurdle.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Basically, we should respect the values of of even non-existent people. They
|
||
|
would want to live (or so they would tell us), so we are harming them by denying
|
||
|
them the opportunity.
|
||
|
|
||
|
*Rebuttal*: This can't be right. For every possible mind X, there is a possible
|
||
|
mind Anti-X that values exactly the opposite. If you bring X into existence
|
||
|
becomes X wants to live, then you are ignoring Anti-X who wants X to *not* live.
|
||
|
If you prefer a specific sampling of minds (say, minds similar to you), then you
|
||
|
are really just imposing your own values. Then it's not about unborn people,
|
||
|
just you.
|
||
|
|
||
|
## You Can't Harm the Non-Existent
|
||
|
|
||
|
[Benatar][] provides a version in [Better Never to Have Been][]\:
|
||
|
|
||
|
1. For something to harm somebody, it must make that person worse off.
|
||
|
2. The 'worse off' relation is a relation between two states.
|
||
|
3. Thus, for somebody to be worse off in some state (such as existence), the
|
||
|
alternative state, with which it is compared, must be one in which he is less
|
||
|
badly (or better) off.
|
||
|
4. But non-existence is not a state in which anybody can be, and thus cannot be
|
||
|
compared with existence.
|
||
|
5. Thus coming into existence cannot be worse than never coming into existence.
|
||
|
6. Therefore, coming into existence cannot be a harm.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
## If life is so horrible, why don't you kill yourself?
|
||
|
|
||
|
TODO if life is so awesome, why do so many people kill themselves?
|
||
|
|
||
|
TODO suicide censorship, illegality
|
||
|
|
||
|
## Your suffering is a First World Problem.
|
||
|
|
||
|
An anonymous commenter on [The View from Hell][] provides an example of this
|
||
|
common argument:
|
||
|
|
||
|
> I think your blog's title is a total misnomer: if you're still able
|
||
|
> (emotionally, physically and financially) to enjoy drugs, sex, running and
|
||
|
> talking about philosophy as you yourself claim you clearly haven't got the
|
||
|
> slightest notion of what hell consists of.
|
||
|
|
||
|
In other words, if there are many people who are much worse off than you, you
|
||
|
can't claim to suffer.
|
||
|
|
||
|
I find that a very strange argument. If even privileged people suffer greatly,
|
||
|
isn't that an argument *for* antinatalism, namely that even greatly improved
|
||
|
average circumstances don't fix suffering? Shouldn't we therefore conclude that
|
||
|
many more people suffer than we typically think?
|
||
|
|
||
|
What the arguments seems to be doing is to critize people for requesting help.
|
||
|
Basically, if someone else needs help much more than you, you shouldn't be
|
||
|
bringing your pain to our attention. You're just wasting resources that way.
|
||
|
That's not a bad point, but it is not an argument against preventing births. If
|
||
|
less people are made, less will suffer and we can take better care of the rest.
|
||
|
|
||
|
## Without slaves, Rome would collapse!
|
||
|
|
||
|
> I need children to care for me once I am old. Our social system needs enough
|
||
|
> young people or the old will starve.
|
||
|
|
||
|
This is fundamentally a very selfish argument. That doesn't mean it's *wrong*.
|
||
|
Just that you can't have any pretense that you care about the well-being or rights of
|
||
|
others if you make it.
|
||
|
|
||
|
TODO real argument
|
||
|
|
||
|
## Potential People Have Rights Too
|
||
|
|
||
|
See the [asymmetry](#asymmetry).
|
||
|
|
||
|
Practical Implications
|
||
|
======================
|
||
|
|
||
|
Is this just a contrarian position? Are you merely signalling how deep and
|
||
|
unconventional you are? After all, even professional ethicists aren't more
|
||
|
ethical on average[^ethicistfail].
|
||
|
|
||
|
[^ethicistfail]: See [Schwitzgebel's various studies][Schwitzgebel Ethics].
|
||
|
|
||
|
## Moral Consequences
|
||
|
|
||
|
I once read a summary of the game [Vampire: The Masquerade][Vampire RPG]. In it,
|
||
|
you are a recently turned vampire who has to feed on the living to survive. Your
|
||
|
constant hunger for blood makes it likely that you will one day lose control and
|
||
|
kill whoever you're feeding off or any amount of other innocents. You must
|
||
|
exploit and endanger a large number of humans merely to survive. You know that
|
||
|
this is wrong, yet your own need to survive makes you do it anyway. You might
|
||
|
tell yourself all kinds of clever reasons why this is acceptable. But really,
|
||
|
no-one believes you, not even you. You know that you could do the right thing
|
||
|
anytime and just step out into the sun. You don't *have* to exist. You can just
|
||
|
die. Yet you don't. No matter what you tell yourself, you are evil.[^social]
|
||
|
|
||
|
[^social]: The analogy to our economy, social system and all of
|
||
|
industrialization is too obvious to ignore.
|
||
|
|
||
|
This is basically the antinatalist worldview.
|
||
|
|
||
|
## Apocalyptic Imperative
|
||
|
|
||
|
The fact that only [few][Dawrst] antinatalists call for the end of all life, in
|
||
|
some form or another, is a bad sign. It requires a fairly complex argument to
|
||
|
think that being born is bad, but total extinction isn't worth it. Instead of
|
||
|
that particular combination being right, it seems much more likely that you
|
||
|
really just picked an unusual belief as a contrarian signal, but don't want to
|
||
|
upset the status quo *too* much. Gods forbid you actually have to live according
|
||
|
to your expoused morality![^positivestatus]
|
||
|
|
||
|
[^positivestatus]: The same goes for pronatalists, of course. If life is so
|
||
|
awesome, why aren't you making much more of it? Why stop at 2 kids and not
|
||
|
at 2000? Costs? What, I thought birth is always good?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Religious Analogies
|
||
|
===================
|
||
|
|
||
|
This section isn't completely serious. It doesn't provide actual arguments,
|
||
|
really. Just because some religion or old ascetic supported something like
|
||
|
antinatalism doesn't mean it's right. But I still find it interesting how
|
||
|
*common* the position actually is. There is obvious [memetic][meme] pressure to
|
||
|
remove antinatalism from any religion, but it still survives for some reason.
|
||
|
|
||
|
## Christianity
|
||
|
|
||
|
Even Jesus was an Antinatalist.
|
||
|
|
||
|
> Jesus said, "The example of whosoever demands the world is like those who
|
||
|
> drink sea water. The more he drinks the more his thirst increases until it
|
||
|
> kills him." -- [al-Ghazali][]
|
||
|
|
||
|
A minor remark. Antinatalism also provides a solution to Anselm's ontological
|
||
|
argument, like so:
|
||
|
|
||
|
1. God is the greatest possible being. (Definition)
|
||
|
2. It is best to not exist. (Antinatalism)
|
||
|
3. Therefore, God does not exist.
|
||
|
|
||
|
### Shakers
|
||
|
|
||
|
How not to do it.
|
||
|
|
||
|
## Buddhism
|
||
|
|
||
|
> Furthermore, as if the monk were to see a corpse cast away in a charnel ground
|
||
|
> — one day, two days, three days dead — bloated, livid and festering, he
|
||
|
> applies it to this very body, 'This body, too: Such is its nature, such is its
|
||
|
> future, such its unavoidable fate'...
|
||
|
>
|
||
|
> Or again, as if he were to see a corpse cast away in a charnel ground, picked
|
||
|
> at by crows, vultures and hawks, by dogs, hyenas and various other
|
||
|
> creatures... a skeleton smeared with flesh and blood, connected with
|
||
|
> tendons... a fleshless skeleton smeared with blood, connected with tendons...
|
||
|
> a skeleton without flesh or blood, connected with tendons... bones detached
|
||
|
> from their tendons, scattered in all directions — here a hand bone, there a
|
||
|
> foot bone, here a shin bone, there a thigh bone, here a hip bone, there a back
|
||
|
> bone, here a rib, there a breast bone, here a shoulder bone, there a neck
|
||
|
> bone, here a jaw bone, there a tooth, here a skull... the bones whitened,
|
||
|
> somewhat like the color of shells... piled up, more than a year old...
|
||
|
> decomposed into a powder: He applies it to this very body, 'This body, too:
|
||
|
> Such is its nature, such is its future, such its unavoidable fate.'
|
||
|
>
|
||
|
> (...) His mindfulness is established, and he lives detached, and clings to
|
||
|
> nothing in the world.
|
||
|
>
|
||
|
> -- excerpt from the [Satipatthana Sutta][]
|
||
|
|
||
|
> A monk who is constantly mindful of death will be diligent. He is disenchanted
|
||
|
> with all forms of existence. He has conquered attachment to life. He abhors
|
||
|
> all evil. He is not greedy and does not hoard requisites. The perception of
|
||
|
> impermanence grows in him, followed by the perceptions of suffering and
|
||
|
> non-self. Others who have not developed mindfulness of death become victims of
|
||
|
> fear, horror and confusion when the time of their death arrives. They may feel
|
||
|
> suddenly seized by wild beasts, ghosts, snakes, robbers or murderers. However,
|
||
|
> the monk dies fearless, without delusion.
|
||
|
>
|
||
|
> -- excerpt from the [Visuddhimagga][]
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
# Unused References
|
||
|
|
||
|
http://www.alcor.org/magazine/2011/01/14/non-existence-is-hard-to-do/
|
||
|
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/should-this-be-the-last-generation/
|