muflax/muflax65ngodyewp.onion
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/fmap/muflax65ngodyewp.onion synced 2024-06-18 09:16:48 +02:00
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

more drafting

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
muflax 2011-12-19 01:58:56 +01:00
parent 386198851a
commit cd5d02e7b7
2 changed files with 112 additions and 280 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

33
content/references.mkd
View file

@ -14,17 +14,24 @@ is_hidden: true
[whatiswrongwith.me]: htpp://whatiswrongwith.me/muflax
<!-- external links -->
[Animal Rights]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights#Main_philosophical_approaches
[Berryz工房 - Dschinghis Khan]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7pui9Q6Vbo
[Breaking the Spell]: http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=1001
[Chapman Disgust]: http://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/disgust-horror-western-buddhism/
[Creative Commons]: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/de
[Dawrst]: http://www.utilitarian-essays.com/
[Egoism]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism
[Enlightenment, Self and the Brain]: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5474604744218568426
[Expanding Circle]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
[Eyercize]: http://www.eyercize.com
[Find the Bug]: http://www.findthebug.com
[Fyfe Purpose]: http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2009/07/purpose-to-life-choosing-purpose.html
[Gilbert TED]: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy.html
[Happiness Stochastic]: http://www.psych.umn.edu/psylabs/happness/happy.htm
[How Dawkins got pwned]: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/10/how-dawkins-got-pwned-part-5.html
[Kerghan Speech]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkBrIrQikWY
[Look, Ma; No Hands!]: http://www.semanticrestructuring.com/lookma.php
[Narrowing Circle]: http://www.gwern.net/Notes#the-narrowing-circle
[PhilPapers Survey]: http://philpapers.org/surveys/
[Price Purpose]: http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/zara/april__2007.htm
[Rational Addiction]: http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7873033/
@ -32,9 +39,10 @@ is_hidden: true
[Schwitzgebel Ethics]: http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2007/04/moral-behavior-of-ethics-professors.html
[Seth Bacteria]: http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/category/umami-hypothesis/
[Shinzen Young]: http://www.youtube.com/user/expandcontract
[Sister Asymmetry]: http://theviewfromhell.blogspot.com/2008/07/austrian-basement-and-beyond.html
[Sister Y]: http://theviewfromhell.blogspot.com
[Spreeder]: http://www.spreeder.com
[Swartz Dennett]: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/dennettdumb
[Sister Y]: http://theviewfromhell.blogspot.com
[The View from Hell]: http://theviewfromhell.blogspot.com
[Using Neuroscience for Spiritual Practice]: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1030598948823323439
[Vipassana]: http://www.dhamma.org
@ -46,14 +54,7 @@ is_hidden: true
[nanoc]: http://nanoc.stoneship.org
[puredoxyk]: http://www.puredoxyk.com
[tripzine]: http://www.tripzine.com/listing.php?smlid=268
[Gilbert TED]: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy.html
[Happiness Stochastic]: http://www.psych.umn.edu/psylabs/happness/happy.htm
[Chapman Disgust]: http://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/disgust-horror-western-buddhism/
[Sister Asymmetry]: http://theviewfromhell.blogspot.com/2008/07/austrian-basement-and-beyond.html
[Egoism]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism
[Animal Rights]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights#Main_philosophical_approaches
[Expanding Circle]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
[Narrowing Circle]: http://www.gwern.net/Notes#the-narrowing-circle
[Nose Snail]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk_eljpPGMM
<!-- Wikipedia articles (and similar) -->
[A-theory]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-series_and_B-series
@ -62,12 +63,17 @@ is_hidden: true
[Anicca]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anicca
[Antinatalism]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism
[Arising and Passing Away]: http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/dharma-wiki/-/wiki/Main/The%20Arising%20and%20Passing%20Away?p_r_p_185834411_title=The%20Arising%20and%20Passing%20Away
[Astronomical Waste]: http://www.nickbostrom.com/astronomical/waste.html
[B-theory]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-series_and_B-series
[Benatar]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benatar
[Better Never to Have Been]: http://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199296421
[Convict Conditioning]: http://www.dragondoor.com/b41/
[Crocker's Rules]: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Crocker%27s_rules
[DXM]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DXM
[Desirism]: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2982
[Dukkha]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha
[Epistemology]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
[Hedonic Threadmill]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_Threadmill
[Jetpack Hitler]: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StupidJetpackHitler
[Julian Jaynes]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Jaynes
[Kerghan]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcanum
@ -76,9 +82,11 @@ is_hidden: true
[Marcion]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion_of_Sinope
[Multiple Drafts]: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Multiple_drafts_model
[Paleo]: http://www.archevore.com/archevore/
[Repugnant Conclusion]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repugnant_Conclusion
[Robert M. Price]: http://robertmprice.mindvendor.com
[Sathya Sai Baba]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba
[Satipatthana Sutta]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satipatthana_Sutta
[Scope Insensitivity]: http://lesswrong.com/lw/hw/scope_insensitivity/
[Serotonin Syndrome]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serotonin_syndrome
[Simon Magus]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Magus
[Tathagata]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tath%C4%81gata
@ -93,13 +101,6 @@ is_hidden: true
[Wireheading]: http://www.wireheading.com/
[al-Ghazali]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali
[quark]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_(cheese)
[Benatar]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benatar
[Better Never to Have Been]: http://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199296421
[Astronomical Waste]: http://www.nickbostrom.com/astronomical/waste.html
[Hedonic Threadmill]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_Threadmill
[Repugnant Conclusion]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repugnant_Conclusion
[Scope Insensitivity]: http://lesswrong.com/lw/hw/scope_insensitivity/
[Crocker's Rules]: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Crocker%27s_rules
<!-- internal links -->
[RSS]: /rss.xml

359
content/reflections/antinatalism.mkd
View file

@ -6,53 +6,29 @@ 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.
> 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 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?!
> 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.
> 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*.
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.
## Some Notes
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.
I won't present too many details. For this I just refer you to the linked blogs and books, mostly [Better Never to Have Been][] and [The View from Hell][]. However, I do strive to cover all the arguments and their criticisms. [Contact][] me if you think I missed anything.
Range of Positions
==================
@ -65,37 +41,23 @@ 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.
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.
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.
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][].
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.
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
==========================
@ -114,83 +76,46 @@ http://theviewfromhell.blogspot.com/2011/01/markets-are-ungrounded.html
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.
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.
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 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.
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 or intuitions[^intuition]. But I think Benatar is not expecting enough from his audience. Both positions seem actually fairly sensible. Let's have a closer look.
[^intuition]:
Personally, I'm slightly worried by Benatar's appeal to intuitions. He spends much of his book on how counter-intuitive his position of antinatalism is, and how we are biased towards optimism, but then he argues that the asymmetry actually matches many of our intuitions (astronomical waste isn't bad, we have no duty to procreate, but a duty to prevent bad births, etc.). You can't have it both ways.
### Absence is Always Neutral
One way to resolve the asymmetry is to deny that the absence of suckiness is
actually good.
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?
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.
> E. F. has been kidnapped by her father and imprisoned in an Austrian cellarsince her early adolescence. Her father repeatedly rapes her over the courseof 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 asthey 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.
> In Year 10 of her imprisonment, with four children born and removed from herby her father, she discovers a box (unknown to her father) hidden under afloorboard in her cell, containing everything she needs in order to practiceundetectable 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.)
> 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 suuuhe would bedepriving her unborn babies of life (which, while it would have certain problems, would nevertheless presumably be worth living)? (Assume she wouldlike the company of more babies, but fears the pain of more unassistedchildbirth, and the "interests of the unborn children" is the concern thatwill 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?
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.
So if absence of suckiness is not good (i.e. neutral), 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:
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.
> 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
@ -198,46 +123,29 @@ TODO
> **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.
> 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][].
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.
> 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?
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?
According to Benatar, there is a difference between "lives worth starting" and "lives worth continuing". Unfortunately for him, he doesn't actually offer any argument *why* these should be different.
## Life Sucks
This is a really straightforward argument. Life sucks, therefore it is bad to
create another life, for it too will suck.
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?".
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
@ -247,22 +155,36 @@ TODO benatar
TODO utilitarian / max-harm argument
Life has awesomy and sucky parts. Instead of denying *all* life because *some* suckiness exists, why not just weigh them against each other? If the good outweighs the bad, then life would still be worthwhile, even if you accept the asymmetry. The non-existent have the advantage of always non-negative utility (because they can't be harmed), but maybe the sum of utility the existent experience is still much greater, despite the handicap?
!illustration
Benatar argues that - given the asymmetry - this simple calculation will never work.
Let's call the magnitude of awesomeness A and of suckiness S. He assumes that, naturally, the absence of suckiness must be exactly opposite in value to the harm done by its presence, i.e. (1) (no suck) has utility `+S` and (3) (suck) has $$-S$$. Therefore, existence has a total value of `(+A) + (-S) = A-S` and non-existence has `(0) + (+S) = S`. So for existence to be better than non-existence, we must have `A > 2*S`.[^comparable]
[^comparable]:
Benatar actually argues that we *can't* compare awesomeness and suckiness. He offers the following analogy:
> \[C\]onsider an analogy which, because it involves the comparison of existent people is unlike the comparison between existence non-existence in this way, but which nonetheless may be instructive. (Sick) is prone to regular bouts of illness. Fortunately for him, he also so constituted that he recovers quickly. H (Healthy) lacks capacity for quick recovery, but he never gets sick. It is bad for S he gets sick and it is good for him that he recovers quickly. It is that H never gets sick, but it is not bad that he lacks the capacity heal speedily. The capacity for quick recovery, although a good for S, not a real advantage over H. This is because the absence of that is not bad for H. This, in turn, is because the absence of that is not a deprivation for H. H is not worse off than he would have been he had the recuperative powers of S. S is not better off than H in way, even though S is better off than he himself would have been had lacked the capacity for rapid recovery.
If awesomeness and suckiness are comparable, then Sick can be better than Healthy.
> This presumably would be the case where the amount of suffering that (saves S is more than twice the amount S actually suffers.) But this be right, for surely it is always better to be H (a person who never sick and is thus not disadvantaged by lacking the capacity for recovery). The whole point is that (2) is *good* for S but does constitute an advantage over H.
But maybe they are comparable. Why not try the calculation? Benatar makes a case
that `S` is actually quite large:
> TODO
### 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.
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?
*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?
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
@ -272,15 +194,13 @@ TODO
### Humans are Parasites
A variant of this argument argues that the rest of the planet would be better
off without humans.
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.
Of course, if you think that animals don't have moral value, then the whole argument is moot.
Arguments against Antinatalism
==============================
@ -295,28 +215,15 @@ 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.
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.
[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.
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.
[^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
@ -324,20 +231,11 @@ 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.
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.
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.
*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
@ -345,11 +243,8 @@ just you.
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.
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.
@ -362,36 +257,21 @@ 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:
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.
> 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.
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?
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.
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.
> 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.
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
@ -402,63 +282,37 @@ 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].
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.
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]
This is basically the antinatalist worldview.
[^social]: The analogy to our economy, social system and all of industrialization is too obvious to ignore.
## 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]
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?
[^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.
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][]
> 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:
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)
@ -470,41 +324,18 @@ 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'...
> 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.'
> 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.
> (...) [His mindfulness is established][Nose Snail], 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.
> 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/