Depends on the candela gained/candela lost ratio equation relative to the number of points of light. The maxima would be the optimal number of points of light.
Awesome. It really does seem to be on many minds lately. I remember feeling like I was the only person who felt this way.
Back before I had ever had a job, I hated school, but I thought that life would be much better once I started working -- at least I'd get paid, right? Then once I got a job, it took me only about a year to realize what the situation actually is. I first took a detour through anarchism (which involves blaming some people for everything) until finally I recognized that even though anarchy might solve a lot of what I then perceived to be problems, it would still leave much to be desired. I arrived at antinatalism after seeing that existence is the problem.
Along the way I had been a lurking part of some child-free groups, but most of them were of the lifestyle and/or environmentalist variety, so I never felt at home. Around 2008 I somehow discovered Chip's posts on antinatalism, Jim's blog and Benatar's book. It seems that "awareness" of antinatalism from then on has only been growing. Many who come here never leave, in a good way.
Then a few months (?) ago began The Great Merge, when the youtube antinatalism community made contact with the community here. I think it's clear that despite the problems with the term "antinatalism", slapping that label on the idea has allowed it quite some publicity, here in the "blogosphere" and in the walled gardens of Youtube. My information sources are rather biased, but I'm seeing it spread.
I can completely relate Tim, i felt like this since high school. I went through all the phases and ended up here. I wonder though, has any antinatalist gone back to the great lie and had children ( a la atheist becomes theist)? Don't think so...
I think whoever posted about Gary's videos on here was the first to make contact. Then came the youtube video with the radio interview with Benatar (podcast is the Reidi Direko Show, on 702 Cape Talk in Cape Town). DE and I met each other in the comments section of that video.
Hey everybody, just checking in. Thank gods you're here. Antinatalism is the only interesting thing to me anymore. What else seeks to address the fundamental question and problem? I still grope and grapple, and all the dialogues/monologues/discussion etc here and on the blogroll are so very fascinating and useful.
i still hope to contribute to the discussion one of these freakin days .. at the moment still in a state of somewhat overload and stupefaction at fully recognizing (age 58) the horror pointless stupid, the vanity of my life's borrowed thought vs. truth of its actual thought, the ridiculousness of my political blogs anymore, all of it ..
anyway - love you people and thank you for being here - eventually i'll be able to talk again and fully lend my voice to this cause - which is the highest compassion
"While having children is by no means morally required by Objectivism, it certainly does not regard giving birth as immoral, unless one does it for immoral reasons such as to gain social status as a parent, or out of some sadistic intention to make a child suffer."
So then, it's immoral to conceive a child as a means to some gainful end, even if that end isn't intrinsically harmful to the child, as in the example given of status seeking. Aside from the fact that status is a HUGE piece of the overall picture, what else might apply here? Or perhaps we should turn the question around to save some time. What purely altruistic reasons are there to conceive, done solely for the sake of the potential child?
Of course there are none, since a non-existent child can neither be benefited nor deprived. So no matter how we slice it, what we're left with are solely reasons for the sake of the parents, and for the larger community. In other words, procreation winds up as a tool of utility for somebody else's benefit, period. The question of whether the child might come to regret its existence is ALWAYS of secondary importance, and in fact is utterly disregarded in the act of procreation, all for the sake of someone other than the child.
Francois, I haven't given much thought to anything lately. At least, not enough to act on anything. A combination of busy, lazy, and unmotivated. I'll get back to you.
Sharkbabe, you're more than welcome to lurk to your heart's content. No pressure to contribute until you feel like it. I'm glad you mention the blogroll; as Tim mentioned, antinatalism seems to be slowly growing in credibility. Or at least, it's getting attention! (what's that they say about any publicity?) :) And the more other people talk about it, the less I have to. Thanks for your support.
Stacy, don't be shy about scheduling your own timeslot in the chatroom to talk about whatever you feel like talking about. I've been trying to schedule something myself, but so far I just haven't had the time...weird work schedule and all. I'll get there, eventually.
18 comments:
Depends on the candela gained/candela lost ratio equation relative to the number of points of light. The maxima would be the optimal number of points of light.
Hey everyone, I just wanted to share this article written in May, by David Benatar.
http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=1902
Exciting news, all! Gary has begun a series of YouTube videos on 'Better Never To Have Been'. Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgQNlotRv5s
Awesome. It really does seem to be on many minds lately. I remember feeling like I was the only person who felt this way.
Back before I had ever had a job, I hated school, but I thought that life would be much better once I started working -- at least I'd get paid, right? Then once I got a job, it took me only about a year to realize what the situation actually is. I first took a detour through anarchism (which involves blaming some people for everything) until finally I recognized that even though anarchy might solve a lot of what I then perceived to be problems, it would still leave much to be desired. I arrived at antinatalism after seeing that existence is the problem.
Along the way I had been a lurking part of some child-free groups, but most of them were of the lifestyle and/or environmentalist variety, so I never felt at home. Around 2008 I somehow discovered Chip's posts on antinatalism, Jim's blog and Benatar's book. It seems that "awareness" of antinatalism from then on has only been growing. Many who come here never leave, in a good way.
Then a few months (?) ago began The Great Merge, when the youtube antinatalism community made contact with the community here. I think it's clear that despite the problems with the term "antinatalism", slapping that label on the idea has allowed it quite some publicity, here in the "blogosphere" and in the walled gardens of Youtube. My information sources are rather biased, but I'm seeing it spread.
I can completely relate Tim, i felt like this since high school. I went through all the phases and ended up here. I wonder though, has any antinatalist gone back to the great lie and had children ( a la atheist becomes theist)? Don't think so...
I think whoever posted about Gary's videos on here was the first to make contact. Then came the youtube video with the radio interview with Benatar (podcast is the Reidi Direko Show, on 702 Cape Talk in Cape Town). DE and I met each other in the comments section of that video.
Hey everybody, just checking in. Thank gods you're here. Antinatalism is the only interesting thing to me anymore. What else seeks to address the fundamental question and problem? I still grope and grapple, and all the dialogues/monologues/discussion etc here and on the blogroll are so very fascinating and useful.
i still hope to contribute to the discussion one of these freakin days .. at the moment still in a state of somewhat overload and stupefaction at fully recognizing (age 58) the horror pointless stupid, the vanity of my life's borrowed thought vs. truth of its actual thought, the ridiculousness of my political blogs anymore, all of it ..
anyway - love you people and thank you for being here - eventually i'll be able to talk again and fully lend my voice to this cause - which is the highest compassion
I know you've all been curious, so here's what objectivists think about antinatalism.
(Plea: please don't try to get the objectivists on our side. It's much better for everyone that they disagree with us.)
Sister Y:
I DID like this part-
"While having children is by no means morally required by Objectivism, it certainly does not regard giving birth as immoral, unless one does it for immoral reasons such as to gain social status as a parent, or out of some sadistic intention to make a child suffer."
So then, it's immoral to conceive a child as a means to some gainful end, even if that end isn't intrinsically harmful to the child, as in the example given of status seeking. Aside from the fact that status is a HUGE piece of the overall picture, what else might apply here? Or perhaps we should turn the question around to save some time. What purely altruistic reasons are there to conceive, done solely for the sake of the potential child?
Of course there are none, since a non-existent child can neither be benefited nor deprived. So no matter how we slice it, what we're left with are solely reasons for the sake of the parents, and for the larger community. In other words, procreation winds up as a tool of utility for somebody else's benefit, period. The question of whether the child might come to regret its existence is ALWAYS of secondary importance, and in fact is utterly disregarded in the act of procreation, all for the sake of someone other than the child.
Here they are commenting on an inmendham video.
Hmm... I don't know anything about objectivism, but there we have again the leap that all antinatalists must be suicidal.
And a strange one:
"I cannot fathom how an objectivist would find antinatalism attractive."
Does that mean that truth is now a matter of taste? That we can and should pick our ehtics according to their attractiveness? If only it were so easy!
All the best,
rob
rob, it may just be that objectivism is more retarded than you're prepared to comprehend. Objectivism:being objective::science:Scientology. <3
Question: Who is this "imendham"? I'm guessing his real name is Gary? Does anyone know anything about his biography? Has he visited this site?
Sharkbabe, come by the chat room sometime. You might like it. Although nowadays it seems pretty dead.
Jim, did you give any thought about my idea of a forum?
An internet forum is a good idea. I go on the chat sometimes, but there is often no one on there when I sign in.
Francois, I haven't given much thought to anything lately. At least, not enough to act on anything. A combination of busy, lazy, and unmotivated. I'll get back to you.
Sharkbabe, you're more than welcome to lurk to your heart's content. No pressure to contribute until you feel like it. I'm glad you mention the blogroll; as Tim mentioned, antinatalism seems to be slowly growing in credibility. Or at least, it's getting attention! (what's that they say about any publicity?) :) And the more other people talk about it, the less I have to. Thanks for your support.
Stacy, don't be shy about scheduling your own timeslot in the chatroom to talk about whatever you feel like talking about. I've been trying to schedule something myself, but so far I just haven't had the time...weird work schedule and all. I'll get there, eventually.
For those of you who follow this comments thread and not the newest one, I just opened the forum at:
http://www.graveyardofthegods.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=41
Post a Comment