Antinatalism- The Greatest Taboo

Another Breakthrough at Slippery Slopes Inc.- A Government Subsidized Corporation

2012-01-25T11:13:00.000-08:00

Scientist: EUREKA! WE'VE DONE IT!

Administrator: What have you come up with?

Scientist: We've developed a new strain of carrot, possessing a mind AND feelings!

Administrator: Incredible, Jenkins! Do you know what this means? Why, soon we'll have a whole new workforce, one that will be so grateful for their new existential status that they'll probably be willing to work for less than minimum wage.

Scientist: Well, sir, there might be a slight problem in that regard. You see, even though they can think and feel, they can't exacty, erm, move around much. Some HAVE managed to roll back and forth an inch or so on a smooth plate...erm...I mean, surface; but by and large they just sort of lie there and contemplate their rather limited condition.

Administrator: And how do you know this, Jenkins?

Scientist: They're wired in to several sophisticated monitoring devices, sir, and we've become very proficient in retrieving and interpreting their mind states, including their various thoughts, moods, ideas, beliefs, hopes, aspirations...that sort of thing. And then...erm...there's the other thing.

Administrator: What's that, Jenkins?

Scientist: Well, erm, several team members, including myself, have been having somewhat disturbing dreams of late, increasing in frequency as the project neared completion.

Administrator: What sorts of dreams, Jenkins?

Scientist: Well, mostly they're dreams filled with carrots screaming, crying and begging to die.

Administrator: Hmm, that's not good, not good at all! Tell you what, Jenkins. I think you and your team have earned R and R time. What say we send the lot of you off to the Poconos. A little skiing will do you all a world of good, I'd say. As for the project, I think we've reached the point that we can present our results to the oversight committee for the ol' rubber stamp, and start thinking about mass production.

Scientist: Well, sir, I wanted to talk with you about that. I'm not so sure I can in good conscience stand behind this project any longer. I mean, it seems a little like we're playing God here, and to what end?

Administrator: Jesus Christ, Jenkins! Just what the hell are you saying?

Scientist: I'm saying, sir, that for basic morality's sake we should put these poor carrots out of their misery, and shut down the project.

Administrator, For God's sake, son, get a hold on yourself. You're talking murder here! What gives you the right?

Scientist: But, sir, these carrots are living miserable existences! Sure, some of the have managed to create rather complicated belief systems involving afterlives with rewards and punishments, but these are simply the reactions of desperate minds reaching out for ANYTHING that might ward off the terror of their existential plight. Plus, erm, there's the other thing.

Administrator: And what's that?

Scientist: It seems that one of the team members fell asleep during her break in the lab, and left the TV on. Martha Stewart was on, and she was making...carrot rosettes. They know what they're in for, sir.

Administrator: Now, now, Jenkins. You're overreacting. We'll simply teach the carrots about how their deaths contribute to the overall welfare of life in general; you know, all that circle of life crap. And you know, that afterlife ideation stuff should play right into our hands. I'm thinking something along the lines of 'Jesus loves the little carrots, all the little carrots of the world. Singled out or in a bunch, He just loves them when they crunch. Jesus loves the little carrots of the world.' Whaddya think?

Scientist: I think I'm going to be sick...sir.

Administrator: Have a carrot, that'll cure what ails you!

Scientist: Well, even though it seems you're determined to keep these carrots alive against their will, won't you at least think about abandoning the project for the sake of future carrots.

Administrator: Jenkins, how can a smart guy like yourself commit such an egregious logical fallacy? Those 'future' carrots you're talking about don't exist yet, so how can you possibly talk as if we're somehow morally culpable for the horrors they might face in some imaginary tomorrow? Let tomorrow take care of itself, is what I say. And until then, let the beta carotene flow!

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120123/D9SEM1681.html

First Post 2012. That's Right, Isn't it?

2012-01-11T13:40:00.001-08:00

Banality and madness. Shaken, not stirred. If you nurse it, you're less likely to wind up throwing up in some dark corner, praying that no one walks in on you.

Movie recommendation: Harry and Tonto (Chip, I have you in mind here)
Book recommendation: The Gap Series by Stephen R. Donaldson
Recreation recommendation: Ride your bike. Don't wear a helmet.

I hope to be contributing to this blog again in the very near future. Thanks to all those who've kept things lively in my absence, lions and lambs alike, and a hearty welcome to those inclined to disagree, as well (at least, to those who sincerely have something to say). Take care, and keep speaking your minds.

In Memoriam: Pretzel, beloved cockatiel for 27 years. I miss your song every day. Rest well.

And now, a poem that has 'bird' in the title:

Old Birds

‘I am for you’, she said,
but I didn’t believe her.
I told her I loved her,
making plans to deceive her.
I knew in my heart
that I’d finally leave her...

but we shared the last breath of the world through a straw
while the shroud of the sky covered all that we saw
and we knew we were through, but we wept tears of awe
as the shattering sound filled our ears.

Awake in a manger
that was burned long ago,
‘midst embers of memories
floating up from below,
like sparks of cognition
kindling flare-ups of woe...

so we conjured a fancy of cool evening breezes
blowing fair from the West as it purged our diseases
and we laughed at the languor and kissed through the wheezes
of geezers who’ve outlived their fears.

Antinatalism Man

2011-08-31T16:32:00.000-07:00

So, I absolutely HATE the new blogger posting format...so far, anyway. I can't figure out how to embed my new video, so I'll have to ask anyone who's interested to visit my YouTube channel to see my new video comic strip, Antinatalism Man. It's just a new angle, maybe break me out of my latest funk. Hope everyone's relatively safe and sound, and doing well. Take care...jim.

Anthem

2011-08-04T10:20:00.000-07:00

Our first antinatalism anthem! Thanks to YouTuber Arjozof.

Laughter is a Muscle Spasm

2011-07-13T21:43:00.000-07:00

The world is replete with conflicting energies, donning and discarding shapes and forms and hurling its lightning bolts at the sometimes not so funhouse mirror of its own distorted reflections. Life takes arms against life, each thrust a self-inflicted wound torn from the flesh, red ink entered in the infinite ledger of peccadilloes and atrocities, accounted for but never enough to sooth the hunger pangs of battle lines drawn in arm-linked rows of anarchist ostriches queuing up for their disability checks at the mercenary’s window. Endless bodies shot out of cannons and dropping from the sky are held personally responsible for gravity’s ‘thud’ as they land on broken legs and are ordered to march by pussies with loud coughs bearing the best of intentions. One, two, buckle my shoe. Three, four, go fight my war. Five, six, powder your dicks. Seven, eight, force your twisted spines straight. Nine, ten, wash, rinse, and start over again. Babies falling, caterwauling, stuck in mud but never stalling. Growing tits and naughty parts, stacked like chips with poker hearts they eat the risks as others play with proxy souls who are not they, and when the fiendish game is done, they count their losses as good fun...

and laugh
at brokenness
at failed aspirations
at chins worn flat on the global grinding wheel

When screams become music
And tears taste like liquor
And makeup become the standard of beauty
And the ironies of Pagliacchi are forever lost on the audience

Isn’t it time to end the play?

Why is Suicide Wrong?

2011-06-29T10:26:00.000-07:00

I'm not an advocate for suicide- other than species suicide perhaps, although I prefer to think of antinatalism as a proactive alternative to the need for suicide- but this morning's visit to The View From Hell has prompted me to do some Googling to find out why people believe that suicide is wrong. In my searching, I came across this tidy little list:

1.Suicide is FOREVER. You do not get to wake up. You do not get a second chance. You will not be able to say, "Wait, I want to stay." There is no turning back.

2.Think about the situation in grisly fact. Someone will have to find your body, and most likely it will be someone who loves and cares for you. They will bear this in their memory for the rest of their lives.

3.If you kill yourself at someone else’s hand, such as laying in front of a car or train or forcing a police officer to kill you, know that these people will bear the brunt of the emotional turmoil and will always wish that it could have been different.

4.There may be people standing on the sidelines, knowing that you are in pain and wishing that they could help you. These people will suffer forever in guilt, wondering if there was more they could have done or said to change your mind. They will blame themselves.

5.The repercussions go far beyond this. Friends or family members may grow so despondent that they, in turn, take their own lives.

6.Most newspapers will not even mention your name after death by suicide.

Here are my brief response:

1.Death is FOREVER. Everybody dies. There is no turning back, once you've been born.

2.Which speaks to the need of integrating suicide optionality into the cultural psyche in such a way that it becomes a viable, acceptable alternative. Irrational stigma is a HUGE factor here, and a little softening of societal denialism could work wonders in taking the edge off.

3.Ah, the old guilt trip rears its ugly head yet again. Remember, life was the burden foisted on the unfortunate chappy for the benefit of persons other than himself. Contrariwise, suicide is a gift he gives himself.

4.More guilting. On the other hand, an enlightened and sympathetic person might think "Wow, she's finally released from her pain. Though it hurts me to lose her, she is finally at peace. And, after all, I'm headed for the same destination in short order, one way or the other. God bless her!"

5.Yeesh! Guilt, upon guilt, upon guilt! I mean, really- at some point, you just have to say fuck 'em if they can't take a joke, don't you?

6.Is this a comment on social denialism reflected in the press, or are they merely pointing out that shortly after your death you're forgotten by almost everybody? If the former, then I'd say this simply reflects society's general immaturity when it comes to looking reality square in the face. If the latter, well...DUH! We are the future's dirt.

http://www.suite101.com/content/why-is-suicide-wrong-a78231

Parenthood- Reel Life vs. Real Life

2011-06-27T12:08:00.000-07:00

The film 'Parenthood', a Steve Martin vehicle from 1989, has always seemed a case study for me about how people contrive to salvage overall positive value from negative situations. In this case (as in almost all cases when we're talking about the movies), the film maker sets up several conflictive scenarios within the framework of a fictional extended family. One brother feels pressured by having to maintain a job and lifestyle he loathes to support his children, with another on the way. At one point, he even quits his job, which threatens to bring down the whole house of cards. Another is on the verge of divorce because he and his spouse have different visions of how they should raise their offspring. Still a third brother is a flake on the run from creditors who ultimately runs off, abandoning his son to parents who basically hate each other. The fourth sibling, a sister, is raising a rebellious teenage daughter alone, and is having a very hard time of it.

Of course, since the film is ultimately nothing more than another blatant exercise in facile life affirmation, all conflicts are resolved in the last five minutes, and the film fades out with- ugh, this makes me cringe- more babies. Fade to black.

There's one particular scene near the end of the film, when everything seems like it's going to hell, that's particularly illustrative of the simplistic philosophical 'out' that almost everybody seems to crave in their disparate, desperate attempts to make real life fit their optimistic fantasies. It comes in the form of a little speech uttered by the aged matriarch of the family, and goes a little something like this...

Of course, the difference between a story about a roller coaster and real life is the difference between a 60 second up-and-down ride purposefully designed to imitate danger within the confines of numerous fail-safe mechanisms, and real life, where all bets are off and where too, too often 'downs' are just plain 'downs'.

For a more realistic take on things, let's posit a roller coaster built by an imbecile who never really had entertainment in mind, with rusty tracks and safety bars, where the wheels have the nasty habit of falling off unexpectedly, and a sizable portion of the riders die from heart attacks and brain aneurysms. A ride that people don't actually choose to go on, but rather find themselves inexplicably strapped into after waking from their naps, who soon realize that, even if they survive the shoddy manufacturing defects for a time, they're eventually going to crash headfirst into that brick wall that some idiot built at the end of the track. A thrill o' minute, indeed! Then of course, there's this...

Ah, the best laid tracks of mice and men, eh? I wonder, do you suppose there are some who might think twice before allowing their children on dangerous rides after this? And before you go getting cocky about merry-go-rounds, you might want to check this out

UPDATE: Wow, I just caught the last line on the tombstone there: 'One Day We Will Understand'. Yeah. Sure we will.

An Alternative in Coping Mechanisms

2011-06-27T09:56:00.000-07:00

Great to see the word spreading, isn't it?

Antinatalism as a Dangerous Idea

2011-06-22T17:21:00.000-07:00

I made a new video this morning, and have spent most of the rest of the day watching antinatalism material on YouTube, pro and con. Wow, the idea continues to slowly infiltrate public discourse; slowly, but (I'm hoping) surely. Not so surprisingly, the refutations are by and large empty rhetoric of the kind we're used to seeing. Lots of posturing on both sides, although I'll confess I don't mind the posturing if it's backed up with some salient argumentation. Gary's wonderful and devastating to his opposition (Consumption, Reprodution, Canabalism and Addiction...love it!), even though I'm aware that some are probably averse to his style. I love the guy, but then I have to admit I'm biased towards his side of the argument. But within the bluster he has a helluva lot of good things to say, and good points to make that nobody I've seen has refuted to any substantial degree.

Anyway, in my perusing I came across this fine, balanced take on the debate, and I thought I'd share it with you all here. I'm not aware of the guy's position on the subject, or even if he has one, but I thought he made a lot of sense. Plus there's no yelling :) Enjoy.

UPDATE: And even as we speak, a new voice has joined the chorus. Jeebus bless the youngsters!

The Divine Right of Kings

2011-06-21T10:05:00.000-07:00

Short but directly addressing the point, some exposition on the difference between accepting suffering in one's own life for reasons a, b or c, versus imposing suffering on another sentient being through the very act of creating that being in the first place. Specifically he asks "How much positive existence on the part of one person or group of people is a valid exchange for the suffering and disability of others?" Antinatalists are often viewed as whiners who, with their supposed inclination for always seeing the glass as half empty, overlook the positive aspects of life that make the suffering all worthwhile. This is a gross misunderstanding of the AN position. While it's true that we AN's often tend to harp on the negative aspects of sentient existence, these arguments are generally offered as a counter-balance set against a ubiquitous optimism bias that permeates most people's worldview, allowing them to justify procreation in a mostly simplistic and unexamined way. Consider this comment to the video from one who habitually takes the pronatalist position on YouTube-

they don't get it, life is about balancing your own suffering with your own joy... this is a different relationship than the joy of, say a slave owner, and the suffering of a slave.

I think it's due to being slaves so long so many only understand the latter, and not the fitting nature of taking on suffering for a goal you find WORTH the suffering or at least worth the risk.

pyrrho314

As you can see, the commenter has completely shot past the very argument he's commenting on. 'Taking on suffering' to further one's own desires is something completely different from imposing suffering (not to mention eventual death) on someone else.

In another video, DarwinsHamster discusses the premises inherent in logical discourse, suggesting that pronatalists might 'knock the ball out of the park' by simply asserting that one person's unhappiness is a satisfactory price to pay for other people's happiness. A sort of 'bite the bullet' approach. Of course, then it behooves the pronatalist to reconcile this position with the overall structure of their own ethical beliefs and moral sensibilities. From my own experience, this is the point where cognitive dissonance ensues, as the pronatalist is then forced to deviate, quite severely in some cases, from his own moral intuitions in order to justify his stance. We saw this here recently in the encounter with the Triablogue folks regarding the issue of bringing new lives into the world with the inherent risk of suffering eternal damnation.

Inmendham's Review- 'Confessions of an Antinatalist' Pt. 1

2011-06-16T22:12:00.000-07:00

Thanks, Gary.

Gordian Not

2011-06-16T10:12:00.000-07:00

For the transhumanists-

Lessons learned, and lessons lost-
neither can dispel the frost
accumulating on the pane
that looks in on this 'grieved quatrain.

The future is only logic and experience extended beyond the capacity for memory. Prediction is ridiculously easy in general terms: there will be oscillating periods of unraveling punctuated with oases of relative stability followed by calcification, fracturing, and the sound of broken glass. Magic touches are notoriously short-lived, frustratingly counter-productive, and while the pursuit of golden goose eggs is always temptingly close at hand, we often find ourselves dipping our heads into wells full of mirage water contaminated with reality. In other words, I wedged my hat down over my ears for eight hundred years, and when somebody finally managed to pull it off for me, what did I see?

A graveyard of flying cars in a desert of old, abandoned avenues.

Liposuction performed through easy access zippers with sharp teeth and very tight smiles.

Gluttonous bi-weekly reappraisals sweetened with almost universal lactate intolerance.

Shrines dedicated to Bostrom the Conqueror erected on endless plains of dragon guano.

And, of course, a reanimated Jack LaLanne towing five gross of corpulent corpses still in their berths for his 892nd birthday party.

Men in hats, running; the dream in anticipation
of the nightmare. A second sun swallowing yesterday’s

taciturn whimsies. No one looking, legs a blur on the treadmill
of prescience, without heroes or helmets big enough

to contain insecurity’s eruption. No standing up. No standing
down. Only a teeth chattering recollection of tidal pool

simplicity, and corporeality’s urge to return. The melt runs
far and deep, eating time, eating salvation, vomiting up itself

within itself, covering itself with thoughts of exceptions, and
redemptions, and little plans no larger than this. Transcendence

was never the motivation, always the excuse for patience. Men
die again. Others take their places while sunset beckons, unheeded.

I die, you die, we all die for the white lie! You know, a sleigh ride on a carpet of snow on Christmas eve, up on the mantle but tossed out on the 26th to make room for the bills and Aunt Sadie's urn (Wasn't it a shame? She had so much to live for!). Cordwood selling cordwood to cordwood, splinters being just the price of doing business, right? We learn our lessons and learn them well, eventually learning to ignore the smell. The cadaverous rot of fuels sequestered just below the surface, venting off the seepage to power the turbines of progress. But we need fucking gears, people, and THAT MEANS YOU! Have faith, and someday your leftover teeth will grind THRICE as long, and isn't THAT a comfort and recompense?

Entropy? We don't need no stinkin' entropy!

The Last Men

Icebound, savage,
waving tattered remnants of national identity,
hunkered in their bunkers,
monkey division army men
playing Anarchy by Milton Bradley
until somebody steals the dice,
then howling for the National Guard
when their compatriots aren’t looking.

Just imagine Gilligan’s Island
without the Professor.
Who’s first on the spit?
Or, with the last vestiges of
civilization left to them,
hand in hand,
walking into the lagoon,
the geographically misplaced chimps
and screaming pihas
bidding them a fond farewell.

Or a comet!
Maybe Robert Frost was wrong for the right reason.

Indulge me, it's been a long morning :)

From 'The Philosopher's Magazine'

2011-06-08T00:36:00.000-07:00

Something fairly recent from Dr. David Benatar, being basically a re-statement and fleshing out of his premise that all lives fall short of a good justification for having started them in the first place. It's well worth a read or three, and any commentary from me probably isn't really necessary. I WOULD like to offer the final paragraph, since it sort of encapsulates most of what we talk about here-

What does follow, I think, from the conclusion that life is not good, is that we should not create more of it. When we bring new people into existence we start more lives that are not good – and we necessarily do this without the permission of those who will live those lives. We have no duty to create new people and failing to create people can do no harm to those we fail to create. Not having children might make our own lives less good, but starting lives that are not good, merely for our own gratification, is unduly selfish.

On this blog, we sometimes practice a bit of mind coitus, like 'what if I were king of the world?' sort of stuff, and in doing so often get into rather controversial conversations. You know, the stuff that the press would immediately fasten onto if we ever got their attention-

"So, Mr. Metamorphhh, you goal is to either forcibly sterilize everybody in the world, or just blow the whole thing up? Can I quote you on that?"

I just wanted to emphasize for anyone new who might drop in that the thrust of this blog is to promote awareness of the problems inherent in existence, and to offer what I and others here see as a fairly simple and elegant solution i.e. IT IS WRONG TO BRING LIFE INTO THE WORLD, SO STOP HAVING CHILDREN. Of course, when I say 'simple', I'm describing the essence of the solution, and not the practical applications in a world where the vast majority disagree with the basic premise. Thus, from time to time some of us here dally in the fringe arguments in the context of this or that hypothetical tomorrow when attitudes might be different, and political powers shift. But please don't be mistaken! Speaking for myself, the emphasis is and always will be on awareness and personal choice FOUNDED IN EMPATHY. Where that awareness takes us in the distant future is beyond my ken. Yes, if things go my way situations could, and probably will, get ugly; such is the nature of the collective human beast. On the other hand, the path of sympathy and peaceful acquiescence to the truth of antinatalism's position always lies open to us. Right here, right now, this generation could choose to end all human suffering and death, and the result would follow shortly.

Imagine!

Thanks to commenter Compoverde for the Benatar link. And thanks, as always, to David Benatar.

Thought for the Day

2011-06-01T23:21:00.000-07:00

In a world where every point of light casts a thousand shadows, where is the wisdom in lighting yet another candle?

More MP3 Stuff

2011-05-24T10:01:00.000-07:00

In my constant search for audio stimulation during my bicycle commute, I stumbled across this site. Enjoy!

A New Forum Conversation on Antinatalism

2011-05-13T20:02:00.000-07:00

Here. A rather poignant O.P., and the poster seems to be holding to his/her guns throughout the thread. By the time I have time to participate the thread will have probably run dry, but any non-weekend workers might give it a shot. The responses are for the most part standard and found wanting, but most of us here have probably come to expect that.:)

Chatbox Scheduling

2011-05-06T21:39:00.000-07:00

World Time Difference Converter

Ok, the chatroom (bottom of page) seems to be functional, but nobody wants to sit around and wait for somebody to randomly show up, right? So, I thought I'd facilitate things a bit by adding this scheduler. Simply post the day and time (your zone) you'll be checking in, being sure to include your place of origination, and if anyone's interested/available, they'll know when to show up. Voila! I've added a link to a timezone converter to make things easy (I hope!).

Example:

Jim-Los Angeles, CA
Friday 10pm

I hope this helps. I'm also thinking about the logistics of trying to schedule special events with an eye towards convenience for the most number of people. I'll make a link in the left margin to access this schedule.

Book Review: The Living End

2011-05-05T10:13:00.000-07:00

Dr. Guy Brown, a self-described 'research scientist working on the molecular mechanisms of cell death and degenerative disease...', has written a fascinating study on the history of death. Particularly, on human death and the diseases that precede it. Up until the advent of modern medicine, death was generally a swift affair, often striking with little warning and offering little hope in the way of reversal or postponement. To put it bluntly, until fairly recently people dropped like flies, and there wasn't much anybody could do about it.

Not so these days. Through the miracle of medical intervention a person whose physically degenerated condition would have doomed him to a mere few weeks or months of continued life, can now often be expected to linger on for years or even decades. This might seem like a good thing to the existential bean-counters amongst us, where all that ultimately matters is how high the final score's numbers can be ratcheted up. But to those under the care of the life extension community it can be hell on earth, trapped in various forms of decrepitude for an average of what's grown to be 10 years in the developed world. That average continues to grow.

Alzheimer's, vascular disease, organ failure and a host of other maladies are slowly losing their unique status, merging under the emblem of what's fast becoming a universal affliction- old age. This trend is what Dr. Brown addresses in the book. He's a talented, descriptive writer with seemingly a lot of expertise on the subject, and he's good at weaving detail into a medical-historical narrative that leads us up to where we are today. He also addresses the philosophical issues behind our attempts to stave off the Grim Reaper, including a nice chunk of the end of the book addressing the transhumanist agenda, of which he is rather quizzically pessimistic. Well, maybe not so much pessimistic as simply quizzical- you be the judge.

Of course, at the end he blows it. Big time! At least, from the perspective of antinatal philosophy and concerns. For instance, after going on for some length about the cognitive dissonance which allows otherwise rational people to believe in rather silly things- 'angels, gods, dragons, ghosts, elves, Father Christmas and souls', a state of affairs which he labels an 'asymmetry of proof'- he turns right around and writes this:

In practical terms, though, we accept that something does not exist if we (and all credible witnesses) never observe it. However, the truth of a belief is not necessarily the only good reason for holding that belief. It may be sensible for you to believe in something even though it does not exist, if believing it makes you happy. Thus if the non-existence of immortality, god, human goodness, or the greatness of the English cricket team made you chronically sad, you would be stupid not to continue believing these things, as long as this was psychically possible. Many apparently sensible people have made themselves miserable by only believing in things that were true. How stupid can you get! Indeed, there is evidence that depressed people generally have a more accurate view of the world than happy people (see Kay Jamison's book Exuberance). The implication is that having an accurate view of the world could make you depressed, whereas seeing the world through rose-tinted glasses may help make you happy. But how can you believe in things that are untrue? As the White Queen informed Alice (in Through the Looking Glass), believing impossible things is not itself impossible, it just takes practice.

I probably don't have to tell you that I was EXTREMELY pissed off at this utter piece of crapola once again being passed off as sage philosophical advice, ESPECIALLY as it leads to an unrealistic worldview that justifies bringing new life into this horror of an existence. And there's more! At the very end of the book, Dr. Guy offers a nine-point prescription for our existential ills. Some have to do with practical medical approaches and solutions, and one is a rather benign if new-agey sort of thing about seeing ourselves as 'waves' rather than atoms. For purposes of this review, I'll only mention three of his points here:

1. "Rage, rage against the dying of the light." The beginning of a nice poem by Dylan Thomas, but not very practical, or even consistent with a lot of what Dr. Brown had to say throughout most of the book. Then again, I suppose we can just wish away the need for consistency when it suits us. Wouldn't want to be 'stupid', after all.

8. "Face the fact that we are going to die, and prepare for it." See what I mean? However, further on here the good doctor offers a nod in the direction of legalized euthenasia, so hats off there.

9. "Live life to the full- spread your memes and genes...Leave something really worthwhile behind you- build that dream, write that novel...and have lots of sex." And babies, which is what's obviously being inferred here. Ugh! But with this concept in mind, I thought I might end this review with a bit from the book's opening paragraph:

My grandmother leaned forward and whispered conspiratorially: 'I have been wanting death for the last five years.' It seemed like she was letting me into a profound secret, but I knew she had been telling the same to anyone who would listen for at least the last ten years...I didn't want to know about her relationship with her own death; that was private- something to be faced alone amongst the terrors of the night. But her confession also had an edge of fearless complaint-damning the world and her allotted fate of suffering and boredom.

Seems like rose-colored glasses only work in the dark.

Thought for the Day

2011-05-05T01:27:00.000-07:00

If you're never born, you'll never suffer, you'll never die, and you'll never experience one iota of experiential deprivation concerning the 'good stuff'. On the other hand, if you ARE born, you WILL suffer, you WILL die, and your fulfillment-to-deprivation ratio WILL BE contingent on determining factors mostly to wholly outside your control. On top of which you WILL cause harm to countless lifeforms along the way, no matter how nice of a guy or gal you think you are. Oh, and did I mention that you'll wind up in the very same place you started from before you existed, with absolutely no awareness that you ever existed in the first place? Yeah, there's that.

Let's Chat? Maybe?

2011-05-04T19:33:00.000-07:00

Does anybody know what it takes to set up a chat space? It might be fun to schedule a time when we could shoot the breeze in realtime, yes? Anyhow, I'm off tomorrow and there's a pizza on the way, so I'm just planning on sitting here with the tv on in the background tonight.

UPDATE: Ok, we've got chat!

Dead Cats and Philosophers

2011-05-04T18:28:00.000-07:00

So, I was out and about on my bike this morning, pedaling to one clinic to get some blood samples drawn, then to another across town to pick up my blood pressure meds. Pretty nice ride early on, though it got really friggin' hot later in the day. However, I survived. I can't say the same for a certain cat I passed, though, lying in the road with its head caved in. Hopefully it was sudden and painless, considering the alternative of slow and painful. Either way, the sight was a real punch in the gut of my moral aesthetic sense, not to mention a wet blanket on my general mood.

It's no secret that most people believe life is generally a good deal. And even though their reasons for bringing children into this world are basically selfish ones, they tend to justify their actions by telling themselves that they've really done their kids a favor. On the other hand, they are faced with the problem of dead cats on a daily basis. Dead cats, and canine parvovirus, and sickle cell anemia, and ethnic cleansings, and tsunamis, not to mention big mortgages during economic downturns, and violent husbands, and bitter, vitriolic wives, and let us not forget the biggie- death. We are all future dead cats of one stripe or another, and everyone knows it.

So, how do we deal with this problem of dead cats? Well, most people don't deal with it at all, really. Their stomachs clench. They make a face, and mouth a silent "Ewww!" They tell their children in the back seat "Don't look! Don't look!" or "Play with your Gameboy!" or "Jesus loves the little kitties, and this is how He brings them home." But mostly, they try to sweep it out of their consciousness just as quickly as possible, so that life can go on being good just as before. Because deep down, everybody knows he's a dead cat in the making, and he really doesn't want to think about that. This is why people get so mad at pessimists, and especially at pessimistic antinatalists, because we keep rubbing dead cats in their faces. Nobody likes that. Can't blame them, I suppose.

Anyway, I got to thinking about the people I've read over the years who've actually tried to deal with the problem of dead cats instead of simply ignoring them. And you know what? All their answers that fall short of antinatalism are ABSOLUTELY FUCKING LAME! The theists tell us that all good little cats go to heaven, while the bad little cats are consigned to alleys-turned-gauntlets filled with eternally thrown boots and catcalls, with no clean litter boxes to be found. The Buddhists tell us that cats are illusions, including the pain they feel when the Atman lights their tails on fire. The dumbass existentialists encourage us to fuck the dead cats and pretend their silence is purring acquiescence. Alan Watts, god love him, posited that if life were REALLY so abhorrent that the universe would simply stop producing cats and close the curtain for good. And Will Durant, my favorite synthetic historian, only managed to salvage a shred of optimism by maintaining that even though a cat's life is generally a miserable one, and always ends poorly, each one can find some solace in feeling that he, and he alone, is the King of the cats!

I guess that's enough for meow.

Fly-ridden kitten
Ear to the ground
One with the pavement
Rockin' with the sound

Waitin' for the chariot
To come and take you home
Away from all this busyness
Of rubber tires and chrome

Entry to Inmendham's Video Contest

2011-05-03T10:39:00.000-07:00

Entered by JustAnotherMaleHuman. This is why I don't do much video; others do it SO much better!

Cataclysmic Astral Phenomena Are Best Viewed With Your Head in the Sand

2011-04-27T22:14:00.000-07:00

From the 'watercooler conversations' thread. This interchange between commenters filrabat and CM highlights the disconnect many opponents of antinatalism experience when reason collides with a cherished belief i.e. that bringing new people into the world is a good thing:

Last Days on Earth, about ten disasters that could render humanity extinct or nearly so. @ 2:32 a woman's answers the question "What would you do if you learned a giant asteroid were about to hit the earth soon?" that she'd have kids, even if she acknowledges there'd be a certain selfishness in it. Most of the video posts commenters REALLY tore into her! Still, I think the only reason they did so is that the consequences were immediate and staring in our face. Apparently, most of us are good at taking the ultimate good step ONLY when the threat is imminent and obvious. Even so, it shows we CAN choose if we're sufficiently motivated.

By filrabat on Watercooler Conversations on 4/26/11

filrabat- the comments on that video are a gold mine! "bring one more person into the world to suffer and die....how selfish" "so you are going to bring more life into existence just to expect death?" Apparently, these people think their children will be immortal and suffering-free. Priceless. But I suppose if push really came to shove, everyone would quickly "realize" that a life that lasts for several years in a collapsed society followed by burning to death is better than no life at all...

By CM on Watercooler Conversations on 4/26/11

Each person inhabits a world whose particulars are unlike any other, a world unique in terms of space, time, and all the subjective moments which serve to delineate one from all the rest. World after world, rising out of the dust of chaos. Patterns of force deriving their energies from the entropy of the universe, formed of the last gasps of stars that once burned brightly, but are no more. Vortexes whirling like dervishes in the midst of flux and decay.

For each of these worlds, there's a giant asteroid on the way. Its path is straight, its target is clear, and its existence is absolutely undeniable. What's the difference between placing a child in front of a loaded gun, and bringing it into a world where it must one day face the giant asteroid? Deniability. Psychological distancing. Ambiguous, ungrounded feelings of hope that "oh, everything will probably turn out alright."

Then again, we put our children in front of loaded guns all the time, don't we? There's that national/cultural/species vicarious immortality rearing its ugly head once again. Stand up for what's good and true. Defend the dignity of the human spirit. Always buy savings bonds. But whatever else you do, for crissakes- DON'T LOOK UP!

There's a giant asteroid coming with your name on it.

Call for Papers

2011-04-20T14:55:00.001-07:00

An opportunity for the academically inclined amongst you. Thanks to commenter Rob for the heads up!

Comfortably Numb

2011-04-20T13:45:00.001-07:00

The epitome of artistically rendered angst, and a damned good listen. Enjoy.

Try to catch the whole album sometime, for those youngsters who haven't heard it yet.

Doing Time on Planet Earth (or, I know no Godot, only the waiting)

2011-04-16T21:19:00.000-07:00

When you kick back and listen to all the sounds around you, you get the sense it's all just a cacophony of static. The sirens blaring by. The neighborhood dogs responding. The background of crickets and rustling leaves. Your stomach gurgling. Your heartbeat drumming softly on the inside of your eardrums. Tires on asphalt. The tiny whir of insect wings. Skin respiring. Toenails growing. The crackle of cigarette paper. A slight creaking in your right elbow. And all those thoughts, one after the other and in bunches, your mind a kaleidoscope of random, mostly unconnected clips that you nevertheless try to spin into a workable haversack in which to tote your sense of self around. But, wait a minute! Who is it doing the spinning, the hearing, the dreaming? Nobody, really. Watch the coffee grounds circling the drain. Did you glimpse a face there, just for a moment? Or a flash of scenery that took you back to an earlier time?

As far as I can tell, there are no selves. No you. No me. No he, nor she. Just stuff, whirling around and interacting according to very basic impulses, drawing rather wiggly pictures on what amounts to a quite sizable Etch-A-Sketch screen. All random within the confines of its limited nature, but reflecting upon itself in such a way as to confuse partially memorized patterns with a belief in order. In place. In time. However, while there is no self per se, there IS a sense of self, a complex of feedback loops feigning isolation in the midst of flux. This is what's generally referred to as 'consciousness', a hall of synaptic mirrors with the peculiar ability to adapt to its own generated illusions. And so, in this way, chimera becomes trapped within walls of pseudo-solidity, a nexus of reflection caught in the Narcissistic delusion of false light, praying for simultaneous change and endurance under a sky where the stars are going out one by one, shitting its pants over the encroaching darkness and coping the only way it knows how. By imagination, and replication. Think Hilbert's Hotel, only replace 'Hotel' with 'Prison Block' and you'll get the picture. On the other hand, my gratuitous/necessary use of pronouns, including all the implied ones, probably negates a lot of what I have to say here. Ah, language.

Feeling Lucky?

Hey, I Just Found Out My Copier Has a Scanner!

2011-04-06T14:00:00.000-07:00

These are my children. The picture is old; they're all grown up now. Raising them provided me with most of the highlights of my life. Spending time with them. Watching them learn. Seeing them grow together and as individuals into adults any father would be proud of. They are the focus of almost all my love and concern.

These are my children. For purely selfish reasons I delivered them into this existence for my own fulfillment, exposing them to all the risks inherent in life. To disease. To cruelty. To loss. To the necessities of earning a living where they spend most of their time wishing they were somewhere else, fettering them with responsibilities they never asked for. To slow dissolution and incapacity. To the inexorable winding down of a mainspring that was doomed to snap from the start. And for what? So that they'll eventually end up in the place where they started- non-existence. I shrink under the weight of my thoughtless actions of procreation every day of my life.

Things are even worse for my ex-wife. For you see, she is a Christian, and her children are not, and so she is bound to the belief that her children are damned to the hell of the god she loves, unless the unlikely happens and they come around to her way of seeing things. So she smiles, and prays, and goes to church hoping against hope that, one day, things will all turn out all right. What else can she do?

Were you to ask my children if they were glad to be alive, what do you suppose they'd say? It's likely they'd answer in the affirmative, as long you asked the question in the right way, and on the right day at the right time. Things might always remain that way. On the other hand, things might change and one or both of them may come to rue the day they were born. Who can say? And who was I to take the risk of such a thing happening?

Antinatalists are often accused of hubris. But who really displays more arrogance? The person who abstains from creating new life for the fear of exposing it to unacceptable risk, as well as to certain doom? Or, in the case of a Christian parent, to the possibility of a fate FAR worse than mere physical dissolution and death?

Or is real hubris exemplified by the parent who, in his cockeyed self-assurance and self-interest, deigns to play the little god of creation, who raises children out of the dust and casts them to the wind of circumstance to please only himself, and perhaps the deity whom he bootlicks with an eye towards future favors in the Ice Cream Castle of the Heavenly Spheres?

These are my children, and I am their Father, and I know without a shadow of a doubt that it would have been better if they had never been born. Not for me. For them.

New Feature!

2011-04-06T12:46:00.000-07:00

Well, I've decided to add a tagcloud to the blog, which means going back and tagging everything...ugh! Oh well, eventually it'll get done, I suppose. So, am I wasting my time, or is this helpful? Is the placement ok, or should I move it down to the bottom of the page? Suggestions, anyone?

Never Keep Your Eggs in One Basket- A Vicarious Immortality Tale

2011-04-06T09:35:00.000-07:00

So, I'm imagining this guy who's been condemned to death for making unauthorized shadow puppets of the Pope, or some such thing. The method of execution is decapitation, in the days before the relatively clean implementation of the guillotine, when the axeman sometimes had to chop away at the neck for awhile before the head eventually dropped off. The axeman raises his weapon, and the guy immediately soils his jodhpurs and starts shrieking in terror. The axeman, who's really a decent sort of bloke who is, after all, only doing his job (everybody has to make a living), feels sorry for the guy. And so, he whispers below the clamor of the bloodthirsty mob viewing the proceedings-

"Not to worry, my friend, for I happen to know that your children have been secreted away to a place beyond the reach of your enemies. And so, you see, you will live on through the lives of your children, and their children, and so on, and so forth."

Then the call is made- BATTER UP!- and the axeman takes his swing! Once! Twice! Thrice! Um...Quatro! until the head finally falls loose into the basket. And I'll be damned if the guy's head isn't wearing a smile, face down, there at the bottom of the basket.

Triablogue- My Final Word

2011-04-05T10:20:00.000-07:00

I initially tried to post this reply here, but I guess it was too long, so here's my final word on the matter for now:

“This is a fallacy of question-framing. Jim acts as if a “yes” or “no” answer settles the question in favor of antinatalism. But that’s grossly simplistic.”

Actually, a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ pretty much covers what I was looking for, with perhaps the added codicil in place (which I also posted)-

“Question: Do you believe that for a child who ultimately ends up suffering an eternity of unceasing, hellish torments forever and ever, it would have been better for that child never to have been born?

Answer: Yes, but because of a, b and c (fill in the blanks) I am justified in overriding my concerns vis-a-vis my child's possible hellish fate.”

“ Notice the blatant equivocation. On the one hand he denies that his argument was predicated on “objective” or “universal” moral standards. On the other hand he appeals to “normative” moral sensibilities based on empathy.”

That’s because ‘normative’ in the context of the reply falls short of ‘objective’ or ‘universal’, a fact I expanded on by saying “ If your personal standard is that a child is better off being tortured for eternity originating in your decision to procreate, then any of my arguments simply don’t apply to you.” It was always a question of personal standards; thus, no equivocation. Normative simply describes a moral position that (I believe) most people subscribe too, a position that I feel stands against the desire to procreate.

“Even on its own terms, the appeal to empathy is a double-edged sword. What about empathy for those denied the opportunity to enjoy eternal bliss–a la antinatalism?”

Imaginary people don’t require empathy. Isn’t that rather obvious?

“Underlying this objection is Crawford’s systematic failure to distinguish between harming someone and wronging someone.”

This and all that follows seems irrelevant, since if a child is never born, she neither is harmed nor brings reason for punishment upon herself. Again, the whole exercise here isn’t meant to question the veracity of your God’s form of justice, but simply to point out that, from their own ideological standpoint, Christian procreationists are automatically exposing their offspring to the threat of eternal Hell, and to explore their justifications for doing so.

“Crawford is attempting to generate a dilemma for Christians. But he’s also generating a dilemma for his own argument. To generate a dilemma for Christians, he must grant Christian theological assumptions for the sake of argument.”

Granting a disagreed-with position for the sake of a hypothetical argument is pretty standard fare in argumentation, and certainly presents no dilemma for me. The ‘given’ is, after all, part of the argument.

“However, those theological assumptions include the assumption that God is trustworthy. Therefore, on Christian assumptions, it is not an unacceptable risk to procreate, even if (ex hypothesi) one of your kids will be damned. On Christian assumptions, it is never an unacceptable risk to trust God’s providential wisdom.”

This is a SUPERB example of how people can disassociate themselves from feelings of guilt for doing terrible things, simply by saying “Oh, well, God told me to do it, so it must be right.” It’s the crossroad where religion and pathology meet. Empathy short-circuited by edict.

“Crawford also assumes, without arguing the point, that children of Christians are at risk of hell. Since that’s a key assumption of his argument, he needs to argue for that assumption. As I noted in my previous reply to him, that’s not a given.”

Yeah, I did assume that, didn’t I? Naturally, I’m aware of the apologetical backflips contrived to somehow fashion a feeling that all the children of Christians are automatically saved, all without quite coming out and saying it (because, after all, that might be going TOO far). However, since this isn’t a critique of Christian doctrine, even farfetched doctrine according to most orthodox understanding of the matter, I’ll just say that if you think your children are automatically saved via the efficacy of your own salvation, my argument doesn’t apply to you. Just another example of cut-and-paste bible reading in my book, but so be it :)

“Even if Christians have a child who will go to hell, it doesn’t follow that they must be forever inconsolable. Even in this life, our feelings about our “nearest and dearest” are subject to dramatic change.”

Yes, it’s quite comforting to realize we can eventually be hardened to the knowledge of our children's suffering, isn’t it?

“It is a deprivation to miss out on the prospect of eternal bliss. That’s an incomparable lost opportunity.”

When you can demonstrate how an imaginary person can be deprived in any way that actually impacts that imaginary person, would you mind getting back to me? I’m more than curious.

UPDATE: Reading back through this, I can't help but be tickled by the utter lack of shame some of these apologists have. Or perhaps more kindly, their ability to pull pat answers out of their backsides to fit any occasion, even contradictory premises. I'm reminded of a post I wrote on my anti-apologetics blog exploring the 'why doesn't God heal amputees?' problem. Invariably, the answer from the apologists came in two parts:

1. Who says He has to?
2. Who says He doesn't?

Talk about covering your bases with a load of nothing! LOLOL! Steve of Triablogue does something similar here regarding the children of Christians who go to hell:

1. Who says they DO go to Hell?
2. Even IF they DO go to Hell, their parents will eventually come to not give a damn about it.

This is equivocation of the highest order, and is fashioned to blunt the harshness of my premise (some children of Christians will go to Hell) by hinting at THE POSSIBILITY of an escape clause, while at the same time offering (a rather lame) option for those who just can't buy the 'Christian Parent Exception' as being scriptural. Actually, the 'immunity' question is floated around quite a bit amongst Christians, for obvious reason. Everybody wants an edge, it seems, and if they have to procure it through rather imaginative exegesis, so be it :) Again, Christian parents, you'd better keep your fingers crossed.

DOUBLE UPDATE: Now that I think more about it, this 'all children of Christians are saved' means that, once one person is saved, all his progeny, and his progeny's progeny, and his progeny's progeny's progeny on down the line from 2000 years ago up to today, are one and all and without exception, Christians! I wonder how that premise holds up to analysis. Quite poorly, I'd wager.

TRIPLE UPDATE: It ALSO means that the parents of a child who dies a heathen were also always heathens themselves. Oops!

Hobo With a Shotgun

2011-03-31T17:30:00.000-07:00

Commenter Anonymous has provided this film clip for our appraisal:

While this probably lies beyond the ken of my cinematic preferences, the introduction is certainly appropriate, don't you think? The context is simplified for audience digestion, naturally, but in any roomful of newborns you're likely to get at least a few who'll eventually regret their own existence, or who will make it their mission in life to make others regret theirs. And I'll always have a soft spot where Rutger Hauer is concerned, for this.

Follow Up Post to Triablogue Dialogue

2011-03-31T12:06:00.000-07:00

I recently challenged Christians to answer a hypothetical in order to demonstrate the logical validity of the antinatalism argument. I was planning on waiting awhile before I posted this follow-up, but I think I've gotten enough of a response to proceed. To anyone anticipating a point by point rebuttal of all the apologetical fare that's been offered, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. While I appreciate all the fervor and straining at gnats you've poured into your replies (in a perverse sort of way, I'll admit), my motive was always a very simple one, that being to wrest an admission from the opposition that there are indeed times when it would be better for a person not to be brought into existence. Naturally, by 'better' I meant for the person in question, and not for those who might exploit that person's existence for their own ends- be they God or man- all the while justifying that exploitation along the way. And ultimately that's all religious apologetics boils down to in the end, justification for questionable deeds and things gone wrong. At least, that's my perspective on the whole rigamarole.

In what I hope turns out to be a relatively brief argument, I purpose to limit my talking points and extrapolations to one strain of the antinatalist argument, having to do with risk. We begin with the very basic proposition that there are indeed times when it would be better not to bring a child into existence. Better against whose or what standard, you might ask? Namely, by anyone's standard who grants the basic premise, and for whatever reason inside themselves they feel justifies their opinion: Compassion, moral outrage, empathy, God's edict, God's hidden agenda...what have you. As long as you have a reason for accepting the baseline proposition, my argument will apply to you. All others feel free to stop reading now.

Ok, then. Is everyone on board? We begin.

1. We believe existence operates in such a way that, at least sometimes, it would be better not to bring a child into existence.
2. Since none of us have complete foreknowledge, each choice to bring a child into existence is to expose him/her to the risks that would justify ACCORDING TO OUR OWN STANDARDS not bringing him/her into existence.
3. Therefore, it is better not to bring children into existence.

LOL! Did I just hear the sound of an Christian apologist's body hitting the floor in an apoplectic seizure? No matter, there are more where he/she came from. But on a more serious note, since point 1 of my little syllogism has already been stipulated as a given, and point 2 is simply a statement of fact that I doubt anyone would seriously contend, then what we're left to debate is point 3, the conclusion. Of course, this is the real meat of the issue, isn't it? Does the conclusion necessarily flow from logic? I believe it does, but let's consider some challenges I've paraphrased for the sake of brevity:

Your conclusion takes an extreme form of risk aversion. After all, almost everything we do involves some measure of risk, from mountain climbing, to driving a car, to putting our socks on in the morning.

The kinds of risk you're talking about are of the post facto persuasion, occupying a spectrum of degrees of necessity which are, indeed, endemic to the life process. However, no such existential necessities abide in the non-existential realm of potential states, including that most fundamental act of manifesting those potential states in the form of new life, which is what we're talking about here. And consider if this were not so! There are already an uncountable number of human beings queued up at the potentially existent ingress point, and the numbers are growing as fast as we can wield our imaginations. Is the universe forever destined to sink into a black hole of deficiency under the weight of those who might have been, but are not? Thus on the one hand, we take risks as part of the process of daily living, but these risks result from the desires and necessities of people who already exist, while the non-existent have no desires or necessities, thus no reasons to take risks. Or perhaps I should say, have no need for others (parents) to take risks for them in the name of their own desires and necessities.

As in gambling, there is a cost/benefit aspect of the argument that's being ignored here.

Fine and good, as long as you're gambling with your own money.

God says be fruitful and multiply, and I choose to do what God says.

It seems that God has lots of things to say, including investing different people with different interpretations of what He has to say. But don't tell me that every decision you make has God's seal of approval writ in stone and hanging about your neck. And when He says to be fruitful, is he speaking particularly to you, or indeed to every Christian? If so, how do you know when to stop...being fruitful, that is? Are condoms condemned? Does the intra-uterine coil really represent a spiraling down into Dante's inferno? And how about them rhythm methoders? Sneaky bastards, and as if God can't read a calendar! Also, can you really tell me that more mundane matters regarding issues such as money and free time in the life of most Christians you know don't impinge on the fulfillment of God's Official Fertility Commission? I'd also like to know if ANYBODY believes they'll receive more than a slap on the wrist for negating the chance of an extremely uncomfortable eternal existence for a child who was supposedly conceived in love. Don't we owe our potential progeny more than this existential crapshoot where, if you lose, you lose BIG TIME, and FOREVER?

And, of course, there's that little problem of exploitation rearing its ugly head, creating children and with it risking their eternal souls, simply to suck up to a deity who could raise them up out of the dust Himself if He really needs the accolades that badly.

Maybe having a child is selfish, but so what as long as the child also benefits?

Making children is ALWAYS selfish, and ALWAYS exploitive for one reason or another. I defy anyone to name an instance where this is not so, either consciously or as a result of thoughtless consummation. And after the deed is done, all that's left is a baseless hope that things work out reasonably well along the way, and for theists and other brands of dualists, in the hereafter. Also, there's the question of whether or not a non-existent entity benefits by being dragged out of its potential state into the world of experiential ups and downs. Does a stone benefit if we grant it the 'gift' of hunger? Sure, there's Thai food to be had, but there's also indigestion, not to mention starvation and food poisoning. How much corn could a rock upchuck if a rock could upchuck corn?

Ok, that's about it for now. I realize lots more can be said, but I can expand on these ideas via comments and challenges in the thread. Thanks to my Christian visitors for their comments. I hope none of you feel offended that I didn't delve more deeply into your apologetical misgivings/mitigations, but I'm an old hand at those conversations and am well versed in the non-utility of chasing epistemological rabbits down those particular holes. If you bring up some relevant objections or point out things I've missed, I'll be glad to address them as I find the time. But be warned! If your justifications come window-dressed with point-by-point refutations of Calvinist doctrine, or pontifications on how Hegelian synthesis merges flawlessly with Jesus' teaching on the efficacy of pinhead dancing, you should know that I nod off rather quickly. :)

Be well, one and all.

P.S. I might also note that death, that most dreaded of realities which both Christian and heathen alike do their best to avoid for as long as possible, is not a risk taken on the behalf of those with no mouths yet to scream, but a certainty. And while there's always hope for a brighter ephemeral tomorrow from some quarters (keep those fingers crossed), the absence of death, with all its concomitant anxieties leading up to it as well as the possible sanctions for having your 't's crossed wrong, is guaranteed to all those who were never born in the first place.

P.S.S. Try to limit your points and challenges to one at a time, so as to avoid convolution. It's really easy to get off track in these conversations otherwise.

Thought for the Day

2011-03-31T01:40:00.000-07:00

On the one hand you have the optimists, those worshippers of animate matter who believe pain equals gain, love conquers all, and life is what you make of it, sluicing chance's current for flakes of confirmation with nary a glance downstream, who sometimes hedge their bets with candy coated kingdoms come to assuage that nasty little tic fluttering behind their implanted Leibnitz’s Doctrine. They walk the land garbling contradictory phrases like ‘intrinsic worth’, ‘subjective reality’ and ‘God has a plan for your life’, sprinkling confectioner’s sugar behind them in the footsteps they leave in the mud, as the peasants rejoice for the sweetened muck, trampling over one another for a taste of it; for, after all, some kinds taste better than others. The world turns under their feet, and entropy be damned!

On the other hand you have the pessimists, shrouds without coffins, prophets who cry doom from the center of the tilt-a-whirl at all the gritting teeth behind tightened smiles, warning of the meteorites falling from the sky where others see only space and possibility, preaching portents scried from everyday watch crystal with analog sensitivity, unheard in the digital silence of mocking regularity and good will. Morose, ashamed, feared for their ability to transfer fever by touch, pariahs of unwelcomed lucidity who grapple like heathenistic Davids against stone monoliths the size of history with the shape of upturned thumbs. Spoilsports, sad sacks, melancholic crepehangers hanging porkchops from the Prom Queen’s entourage for effect, inured to champagne bubbles and babies’ coos, who look out Schopenhauer’s window and see dead people sitting at desks, plying their trades and otherwise prostituting themselves to earn quick cash for their own gravestones.

Who sees the state of things more accurately? The answer lies in how one determines risk and necessity. If I throw a sleeping child into the air I might catch it, and I might not. But who will catch both of us when the ground opens up and we are swept away into the void of our origins? When the land closes above our heads, what will have been the point? The grass will grow back, the rain will fall, the sun will parch, and all will be as it was before until the earth shakes again.

Thought for the Day

2011-03-30T18:05:00.000-07:00

Antinatalists are considered monsters simply for applying sensible principals of family planning- those types of principals specifically conceived for the sake of the children- across the board.

By Popular Request (well, a couple, anyway)

2011-03-30T17:30:00.000-07:00

Didn't have a lot to say, but just wanted to wipe the cobwebs off the camera.

Thought for the Day

2011-03-29T21:31:00.000-07:00

Since it'll be tomorrow soon enough, and motivated by certain comments made today, here's another:

Never judge a person for disagreeing with you, but by the quality of his disagreement. Rhetoric is cheap, sophistry is easy, and bon mots are a dime a dozen, but authentic thoughtfulness shines through.

Thought for the Day

2011-03-29T21:21:00.000-07:00

Mourning the infinite number of potential souls who never existed nor will ever exist, and mourning the potential extinction of the human race by means of voluntary, universal non-procreation are, at their core, one and the same idea. And yet, most people will find the one ludicrous while sacrificing their very lives, as well as the lives of their children, to prevent the other.

Mrsneutronsgarage Comes Through!

2011-03-29T10:45:00.000-07:00

In his article entitled Antinatalism you will find a clear, succinct and incredibly honest exposition of exactly WHY the reaction to antinatalism is so universally packed with hostility and utter incredulity, summed up in this sentence:

Sentient beings, incapable as they are of dealing with the cold objective reality of the inevitable pain and temporary nature of life in matter were forced to construct, through the skill of imagination, an alternate reality that was not only worth inhabiting, but, worth fighting and suffering for.

Note the section I've highlighted. An ALTERNATE reality WORTH INHABITING. In other words, REAL reality is NOT worth inhabiting.

Oh, I have a few quibbles with some of the conclusions drawn in the piece, not the least of which is the inference that evolution works with purposeful intent to deceive itself, and that this is somehow a good thing. But the main derailing of logic occurs here, I think:

Human beings, it seems to me, should, if for no other reason than the variety that evolution relies upon, cover the entire spectrum of cognitive bias from extreme negative to extreme positive. Antinatalists it would appear occupy the ground just this side of suicides.

This statement seems to run against the grain of the rest of the article, which makes plain that antinatalists actually lack the cognitive bias that makes life 'worth living'. In fact, the whole piece is a celebration of the power of cognitive bias, and a bemoaning of the fact that antinatalists just ain't got it, euphemistically referred to as 'lack of imagination'.

But all in all, this article of MNG's is the literary equivalent of a poster child for the truth of antinatalism's precepts, right out of the camp of the opposition. Anybody else feeling validated this morning? :)

More From Inmendham

2011-03-29T09:58:00.000-07:00

Thought these were worth moving up front. Thanks to Plague Doctor for the links:

New Features!

2011-03-28T23:17:00.000-07:00

I've added a couple of new blog features (right margin, bottom). They're entitled 'What I'm Reading', and 'What I'm Listening To', which is pretty self-explanatory, I think.

Homer Simpson says "D'oh!"

2011-03-28T12:04:00.000-07:00

Well, I'm just about off to work, but I thought I'd share something I find relatively amusing. I recently noticed in my blog's tracking options that an old article entitled Troy McClure Speaks Out on Peter Singer consistently snags a lot of hits, no doubt through Google searches by 'The Simpsons' fans. So, what do you think? Should I go back and re-title? I'm thinking something along the lines of-

Homer Simpson says "D'oh!" to Richard Dawkin's Blindspot
Marge Simpson Nags Homer to Not Have Any More Children.
Bart Simpson Wishes He'd Never Been Born.
Lisa Simpson Lost Her Saxophone in Mrs. Neutron's Garage.
Maggie Simpson Sucks the Pacifier of Vicarious Immortality.

I'm thinking my hits should soar through the roof! D'oh! But then I'll need to build a new roof, which will probably make me have a cow, man!

Hell or Non-Existence?

2011-03-28T11:01:00.000-07:00

I've been leafing through forums this morning where the participants are discussing the preferability of an eternity in Hell over non-existence. Now to me, it's a no-brainer, but surprisingly most of the respondents tend to lean towards Hell as the more desirable option. How in the world can this be so? One person said something like "Yeah, Hell's really bad, but then non-existence is like, wow, you don't exist! That's pretty scary too!"

I think what we're dealing with here is some very primal, primitive brain stuff that has to do with FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN, something that's cutting right past the logic circuits and stabbing straight into the matrix of inchoate fears reinforcing (or entirely making up, perhaps?) our self-survival mode of being. It's a very personal thing, almost untouchable by abstract thought. For instance, if you were to ask one of these folk whether or not a potential brother or sister who was never conceived is in a bad place, they'd probably find the suggestion ludicrous- which would be the fitting, logical response. However, if they are then asked to hypothetically take the place of their imaginary sibling, suddenly the palms start to sweat and the hairs stand up on the back of the neck. They are at once taken back to the primeval wilderness, peering into the mouth of a dark cave, filling the silence with imaginings of undefined monsters and demons; or even, loneliness. And so, they accept the horror of the kind of torturous existence they at least THINK they can partially understand, and for what? Basically because they're afraid of the dark.

Of course, this preference for Hell over the lack of experiential existence is incredibly simple-minded, as I think I can demonstrate with a simple thought experiment:

Imagine that one day you wake up, and find yourself in bed in a prison cell. The moment you sit up, your jailer appears. He informs you that you will be locked up in this prison for the rest of your life. You then are given 2 options. Each morning, you will be offered a pill that allows you dreamless, undisturbed sleep until the next morning. If you choose not to take the pill, you will be savagely beaten, raped and otherwise humiliated without interruption until the following morning, when you will again be given the option of taking the pill.

Now, honestly, how long would it take you to learn that taking the pill is the better option?

I DID find one guy who 'bravely' chose Hell over non-existence just so he could join in making it rougher for some of his fellows. Which only goes to show how much internet tough talk is really worth.

A Video Response to Pyrrho314 by our friend DerivedEnergy

2011-03-28T09:55:00.000-07:00

A Challenge to the Author and Readers of Triablogue

2011-03-28T09:30:00.000-07:00

A response:

Specifically, to those who adhere, more or less, to the version of Christianity which posits a place of everlasting torment for those who reject or otherwise don't believe in the biblical God (actually, I assume that rejection and non-belief are synonymous in this regard).

A Christian couple bears a child. They love her, nurture her, and otherwise provide her with the 'good life'; including an indoctrination into the religious concepts which, if cleaved to, will ultimately secure her a place in God's everlasting Heaven.

However, when the child is 15 years old, she becomes enamored of another faith, and leaves the Christian fold. Unfortunately, on her way to the train station to meet up with her 'guru', she is hit by a car and killed.

Now, leaving aside your personal regrets and/or righteous condemnations (I TOLD you so!), as well as those of the god you serve, let me ask you- Would it not have been better if the child had never been born as far as the child's welfare is concerned? I think this is a very pertinent question, since any Christian who has a child is taking the risk of something like the above hypothetical situation happening. Moreover, it seems to be a very GREAT risk, since 'narrow is the way, and few there be that find it', and with the stakes being so incredibly high and at someone else's expense, doesn't forbearance seem the wisest- and indeed, the kindest- course? After all, if this life is merely a short episode in which a single wrong decision might possibly damn your child to an eternity of unimaginable suffering with absolutely no hope of surcease, wouldn't it have been better FOR THE CHILD if she had never been born in the first place?

I look forward to your participation in this discussion.

Just Chickens in the Yard

2011-03-27T20:59:00.001-07:00

A response:

Yes, the world IS a chicken farm, and we're all just chickens. But, once in a rare while, a chicken takes her beak off the chalk line, looks up, and wonders what the hell she's doing here.

Aging Gracefully?

2011-03-25T21:27:00.000-07:00

Even now the vast majority of people in the developed world (and increasingly in the developing world) die from degenerative diseases, such as cancer and heart disease. These diseases are caused by age, and dying from them is slow and is becoming slower, so that the processes of death and aging are merging into one. Death is currently preceded by an average of 10 years of chronic ill health, and this figure is rising. But aging starts much earlier. Many of our physical and mental capacities peak at around 20 years of age and then undergo a long, slow decline. Few people survive until death without significant physical and/or mental disabilities, extending over decades. Death is no longer an event, it has become a long, drawn-out process.

Guy Brown- The Living End
The Future of Death, Aging, and Immortality

Also, I've just finished an incredible sci/fi series by Stephen Baxter I'd like to talk about in the near future. However, I'll relent until I've tied up a couple of loose ends first.

The 'g' Word- Part I

2011-03-21T11:30:00.000-07:00

Chip Smith of Nine Banded Books infamy has posted an interview he conducted with Samuel Crowell, author of The Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes: And Other Writings on the Holocaust, Revisionism, and Historical Understanding, soon to be released by that aforementioned publishing house. I was privileged to receive an advance e-copy of the book some time ago, and hope to write a review in the near future. Of course, holocaust revisionism- or, for that matter, any paragraph or sentence containing the phrase 'holocaust revisionism' in any but the most blatant of derogatory terms- is subject to the kind of immediate skepticism, disdain, hostility and generalized pooh-poohing that most respectable individuals would probably be better off avoiding entirely. Then again, when did I ever lead anyone to believe that I was respectable? Although in my defense, I DO draw the line at snuff porn. And did I mention that I practice the atrocious habit of saving earthworms who have crawled out onto the sidewalk after a rainstorm?

On to the subject of the moment-

I spent the better part of two decades, the 1980s and 90s, working in construction. Furthermore, and up until the last few years when I ultimately adopted Thoreau's opinion that the 'news' is usually nothing more than a culturally approved form of gossip, you could find me on any given day with a portable radio strapped to my head. I was an information junkie. From sunup to sundown I gobbled up everything the airwaves had to offer in the form of breaking stories, debate and political punditry. Golly, was I ever informed! I particularly enjoyed talkshows; and living in the greater Los Angeles area, I had access to a LOT of them.

Of course, early on most of the radio hosts were incorrigibly biased towards the left end of the political spectrum (this was before Rush Limbaugh and his cadre of ditto-heads sort of overwhelmed the stage). It was a time of highly and ofttimes dishonestly biased broadcasting of the politically liberal bent, and in a way I sort of blame that earlier situation for the atrocity of what came later, culminating in the likes of Glenn Beck and Fox News in general. Push generally DOES come to shove, after all.

Anyway, those were the days before the weight of the Iron Curtain inevitably pulled through its loops, and in the public's mind all paths of global instability and outrage led to the steps of the Kremlin aka Satan (see 'Great') and his little buddy, the People's (sic) Republic of China. And perhaps not so curiously, these commie/pinko mouthpieces of the Red Threat (j/k, j/k...sort of) found themselves in the position of unofficial apologists of the regime (When that darling of Eastern propaganda, Vladamir Pozner, replied to the charges that he'd been lying to his Western supporters in the media all along by shrugging his shoulders and basically admitting 'Hey, what did you expect? We're Soviets.', I thought I'd shit my pants from laughing! And later, when he partnered up with Phil Donohue, even more so).

The thing I found most perplexing/comical in those days was the penchant for constantly highlighting the wartime atrocities of Germany during WWII, whilst simultaneously downplaying those of the Soviet Empire and its satellites/partners-in-crime, both historical and contemporary. And while the Nazis' excesses unquestionably played perhaps THE crucial role in their own eventual demonization, still I think the kidgloves treatment on the airwaves of their Soviet counterparts was- and still is in many respects- a textbook example of playing favorites. To wit, how do you think Sting's subsequent musical career would have fared had he penned an anthem entitled 'The Nazis Loved Their Children, Too'?

But beyond the question of cognitive bias engendered by political differences, I believe the main ingredient fueling this disparity in emotionally centered reactions lies in the notion of 'genocide'. After all, even if we are to accept the standard valuation of 'six million Jews', plus all the other deaths and general mayhem, in terms of sheer numbers the atrocities wielded behind the Iron and Bamboo curtains have certainly surpassed the body count of the Teutonic Goose Steppers by now. However, the self-proclaimed moral evaluators of world atrocities are always quick to point out the allegedly essential difference that makes ALL the difference. What is that difference, you ask? Why of course, it's that the Nazi's were involved in an attempt at ethnic cleansing aka eradicating one or more particular gene pools off the face of the planet (there's a bit more to the idea than the erasure of certain genetic strains, but I don't really see the need to go into that here). Suffice it to say that we're not talking about the simple murder of Jews, Gypsys, and other non-blond haired, blue eyed folk, but of the EXTERMINATION of THE Jews, THE Gypsys, and of OTHER NON-BLOND HAIRED, BLUE EYED FOLK! And this 'genocide', so they tell me, makes all the difference.

But why is this difference so qualitatively crucial? And why am I bringing this subject up on an antinatalism blog? I'll go into that in Part II...

There's a Golden Handshake Hanging 'Round Your Neck, as You Light Your Cigarette on the Burning Deck

2011-03-16T09:40:00.000-07:00

Thanks for all the song recommendations this morning. Here are a couple pieces which highlight our existential plight without being overly ponderous about it. Enjoy.

I was planning on hitting the gym this morning, but with only a couple hours of sleep under my belt, I'm afraid I'd just suffer lethargy and some probable muscle cramping. So instead, I think I'll hang out here today, and try to get some writing done. So much to get down before I fall down...sigh.

Cheers!

P.S. BONUS MATERIAL!

Since I'm doing poetry and Tull this morning, I thought I'd post, IN THEIR ENTIRETY, what I think are the best song lyrics EVER!

Thick As A Brick

Really don't mind if you sit this one out.

My words but a whisper -- your deafness a SHOUT.
I may make you feel but I can't make you think.
Your sperm's in the gutter -- your love's in the sink.
So you ride yourselves over the fields and
you make all your animal deals and
your wise men don't know how it feels to be thick as a brick.
And the sand-castle virtues are all swept away in
the tidal destruction
the moral melee.
The elastic retreat rings the close of play as the last wave uncovers
the newfangled way.
But your new shoes are worn at the heels and
your suntan does rapidly peel and
your wise men don't know how it feels to be thick as a brick.

And the love that I feel is so far away:
I'm a bad dream that I just had today -- and you
shake your head and
say it's a shame.

Spin me back down the years and the days of my youth.
Draw the lace and black curtains and shut out the whole truth.
Spin me down the long ages: let them sing the song.

See there! A son is born -- and we pronounce him fit to fight.
There are black-heads on his shoulders, and he pees himself in the night.
We'll
make a man of him
put him to trade
teach him
to play Monopoly and
to sing in the rain.

The Poet and the painter casting shadows on the water --
as the sun plays on the infantry returning from the sea.
The do-er and the thinker: no allowance for the other --
as the failing light illuminates the mercenary's creed.
The home fire burning: the kettle almost boiling --
but the master of the house is far away.
The horses stamping -- their warm breath clouding
in the sharp and frosty morning of the day.
And the poet lifts his pen while the soldier sheaths his sword.

And the youngest of the family is moving with authority.
Building castles by the sea, he dares the tardy tide to wash them all aside.

The cattle quietly grazing at the grass down by the river
where the swelling mountain water moves onward to the sea:
the builder of the castles renews the age-old purpose
and contemplates the milking girl whose offer is his need.
The young men of the household have
all gone into service and
are not to be expected for a year.
The innocent young master -- thoughts moving ever faster --
has formed the plan to change the man he seems.
And the poet sheaths his pen while the soldier lifts his sword.

And the oldest of the family is moving with authority.
Coming from across the sea, he challenges the son who puts him to the run.

What do you do when
the old man's gone -- do you want to be him? And
your real self sings the song.
Do you want to free him?
No one to help you get up steam --
and the whirlpool turns you `way off-beam.

LATER.
I've come down from the upper class to mend your rotten ways.
My father was a man-of-power whom everyone obeyed.
So come on all you criminals!
I've got to put you straight just like I did with my old man --
twenty years too late.
Your bread and water's going cold.
Your hair is too short and neat.
I'll judge you all and make damn sure that no-one judges me.

You curl your toes in fun as you smile at everyone -- you meet the stares.
You're unaware that your doings aren't done.
And you laugh most ruthlessly as you tell us what not to be.
But how are we supposed to see where we should run?
I see you shuffle in the courtroom with
your rings upon your fingers and
your downy little sidies and
your silver-buckle shoes.
Playing at the hard case, you follow the example of the comic-paper idol
who lets you bend the rules.

So!
Come on ye childhood heroes!
Won't you rise up from the pages of your comic-books
your super crooks
and show us all the way.
Well! Make your will and testament. Won't you?
Join your local government.
We'll have Superman for president
let Robin save the day.

You put your bet on number one and it comes up every time.
The other kids have all backed down and they put you first in line.
And so you finally ask yourself just how big you are --
and take your place in a wiser world of bigger motor cars.
And you wonder who to call on.

So! Where the hell was Biggles when you needed him last Saturday?
And where were all the sportsmen who always pulled you though?
They're all resting down in Cornwall --
writing up their memoirs for a paper-back edition
of the Boy Scout Manual.

LATER.
See there! A man born -- and we pronounce him fit for peace.
There's a load lifted from his shoulders with the discovery of his disease.
We'll
take the child from him
put it to the test
teach it
to be a wise man
how to fool the rest.

QUOTE
We will be geared to the average rather than the exceptional
God is an overwhelming responsibility
we walked through the maternity ward and saw 218 babies wearing nylons
cats are on the upgrade
upgrade? Hipgrave. Oh, Mac.

LATER
In the clear white circles of morning wonder,
I take my place with the lord of the hills.
And the blue-eyed soldiers stand slightly discoloured (in neat little rows)
sporting canvas frills.
With their jock-straps pinching, they slouch to attention,
while queueing for sarnies at the office canteen.
Saying -- how's your granny and
good old Ernie: he coughed up a tenner on a premium bond win.

The legends (worded in the ancient tribal hymn) lie cradled
in the seagull's call.
And all the promises they made are ground beneath the sadist's fall.
The poet and the wise man stand behind the gun,
and signal for the crack of dawn.
Light the sun.

Do you believe in the day? Do you?
Believe in the day! The Dawn Creation of the Kings has begun.
Soft Venus (lonely maiden) brings the ageless one.
Do you believe in the day?
The fading hero has returned to the night -- and fully pregnant with the day,
wise men endorse the poet's sight.
Do you believe in the day? Do you? Believe in the day!

Let me tell you the tales of your life of
your love and the cut of the knife
the tireless oppression
the wisdom instilled
the desire to kill or be killed.
Let me sing of the losers who lie in the street as the last bus goes by.
The pavements ar empty: the gutters run red -- while the fool
toasts his god in the sky.

So come all ye young men who are building castles!
Kindly state the time of the year and join your voices in a hellish chorus.
Mark the precise nature of your fear.
Let me help you pick up your dead as the sins of the father are fed
with
the blood of the fools and
the thoughts of the wise and
from the pan under your bed.
Let me make you a present of song as
the wise man breaks wind and is gone while
the fool with the hour-glass is cooking his goose and
the nursery rhyme winds along.

So! Come all ye young men who are building castles!
Kindly state the time of the year and join your voices in a hellish chorus.
Mark the precise nature of your fear.
See! The summer lightning casts its bolts upon you
and the hour of judgement draweth near.
Would you be
the fool stood in his suit of armour or
the wiser man who rushes clear.
So! Come on ye childhood heroes!
Won't your rise up from the pages of your comic-books
your super-crooks and
show us all the way.
Well! Make your will and testament.
Won't you? Join your local government.
We'll have Superman for president
let Robin save the day.
So! Where the hell was Biggles when you needed him last Saturday?
And where were all the sportsmen who always pulled you through?
They're all resting down in Cornwall -- writing up their memoirs
for a paper-back edition of the Boy Scout Manual.

OF COURSE
So you ride yourselves over the fields and
you make all your animal deals and
your wise men don't know how it feels to be thick as a brick.

Big Sky

2011-03-16T02:42:00.000-07:00

So, it's now almost 3 in the morning, and I STILL can't sleep! I took a couple of aspirins awhile ago hoping to alleviate a headache as well as a crik in my neck, but that upset my stomach so I got back out of bed and ate no less than THREE 99cent tv dinners, then went outside and had a smoke and stared at the big dipper for a long time, and thought about how cool it would be if we could turn this whole situation around in our heads, and accept with gladness this very brief interlude of living in purgatory against the knowledge of an eternity of silent bliss waiting for us right around the corner, and that got me to thinking about Ikkyu and how he went about with skulls hanging from his belt to remind himself of the true nature of reality, and that made me feel a whole lot better, on top of which there's been a cricket loose in my room for the last 2 nights whose chirping is a delight beyond measure, and remembered this poem-

Only One Koan Matters...You (for Ikkyu and Mori)

Sad, boisterous, lecherous, drunk, suicidal-
Ikkyu embodied the flux of human existence.
He found transcendence in the dung of his master, Keno,
and spiritual release in the mouth of a 19 year old blind girl.
What wisdom coats your dead tongue, Mori?
Does he carry your skull on his belt, as he walks the fields beyond the moon?
Give us a kiss, sweetheart, and then another round
on me.

I'm also thinking about you, Plague Doctor, and hoping your condition is cutting you some slack. Get some rest for the both of us.

Poetic Interlude- When He Comes For You

2011-03-16T00:52:00.000-07:00

And all for the sake of indulging my melancholy sleeplessness...*shrug*. An exercise in syllable counting, counter-balancing the transient nothing.

When He Comes For You

And when he comes for you, how shall I sleep,
knowing as I do that time unbinds tomorrow from today?
And when he comes for you, when you slip off
into the folds of dry remembrances and trite renditions,
what happens to the lasting thing; the core
that held the wisps, like strands of filigree engraved in basalt?
He will come for you, and I shall stand firm,
but my stolidity will serve no one, and the ground shall move,
then part, and the intervening chasm
will mock me with forgetfulness, and I shall learn to wait, mute;
a witness to the world's unraveling,
as the universe dries up, and becomes husk to a dead seed.
And when he comes for you, you shall see him
for what he is, and recognize that you're the fortunate one.
And you'll embrace him, and I will appear
as a vapor to your new eyes, just before they coalesce
with your new vision. In your passing, it
will be I who passes away; your expansion will proclaim
my diminishment, as I race starlight
in my escape for the boundaries, and beyond. There, one of
us will blink, and it will be done. Nothing
will remain to mark our place, or our time...when he comes for you.

I haven't read this for awhile. Noticing all the conjunctions. I recall this being a rather stream-of-consciousness piece, written in 10 minutes or so. The 10/15 syllabic line count was just a cutesy attempt at giving it some form; I tend to goof around a lot. I often get lost in rather despairing symbolism when I write this way. It's an interesting trip, but I seldom remember what the hell I was writing about. But there's definitely something freeing in writing sideways like this; I should get back to it, from time to time.

G'nite.

P.S. We're all alchemical processes, aren't we? Fascinating.

Musical Interlude- Famous Blue Raincoat

2011-03-16T00:40:00.000-07:00

Up late tonight Googling, found a nice video somebody put together to an old Leonard Cohen song; really, about the only Cohen song I know, but a goodie nonetheless. Enjoy.

The background music gives it a very spooky feeling, does it not?

Pre-Post: MST3K and Me

2011-03-08T20:25:00.000-08:00

This isn't exactly the post I'd planned on writing today, but I'm sick and tired and blasted on NyQuil, so I guess it'll have to do. Plus, I think it'll be somewhat relevant to the extended conversation in the threads this morning.

As some of you know, I'm a big fan of Mystery Science Theater 3000. For those of you who aren't familiar, MST3K was originally a cable access show in Minnesota that went national on Comedy Central, was canceled for a couple of years, then was resurrected via fan write-in campaigns on the SciFi channel for a few more seasons. All in all, a ten year run in which the show garnered several awards as well as almost universal praise from the critics.

The premise is simple, though rather ludicrous: A couple of mad scientists send a maintenance man (Joel, later replaced by Mike) up into space. There, aboard the 'Satellite of Love', he is forced to watch bad movies as the 'mads' monitor his reactions. To stave off loneliness, Joel builds some robot friends who share the ship's theater with him, where they while away the hours, days and years making wisecracks at the screen and the cinematic titanics displayed thereon (Cinematic Titanic is Joel Hodgen's new enterprise, pretty much the same as before, but without the sci-fi premise).

Anyway, through much diligent searching I have come into possession of pretty much every episode ever made- close to 200 in all! And since I've recently moved and most of my other movies and tv shows are in storage, I've been watching them a LOT lately. Fact is, I've already seen a couple today, and will be watching another as soon as I'm finished here, IF I manage to not pass out. But lately, I haven't been watching them straight through. Instead, after I've become somewhat familiar with the characters in the particular movie I'm watching, I pause the dvd or tape, go to my laptop, wiki the film, then start researching the backgrounds of the characters. I've been doing this so much the last couple of months that I THINK it's become an official hobby of mine. In fact, my younger daughter insists that I call her to fill her in on the details of my searches (she's a movie buff).

And OH the things I've learned! The joys and sorrows! The intrigue! The heartbreaking love affairs. As well as all the other tidbits and trivia that have made my little hobby such an interesting endeavor. Did you know that the Professor from Gilligan's Isle was a war hero? Or that a very minor character in a forgettable 'B' motorcycle movie called 'Sidehackers' later spoke the first Klingon word on that most famous of Star Trek episodes 'The Trouble with Tribbles', and that the Klingon word he used was actually a form of the actor's own last name? Or that another staple actress from several Roger Corman pics almost became the queen of a middle eastern country, but was ultimately rejected for being Jewish, or that she later gave birth to a son afflicted with dwarfism who later beat her to death in her own home with a weightlifting bar? I even found an entry in a woman's personal blog about a brief and bitter tryst with a young actor from 'LaserBlast' who died of a heart attack brought on by cocaine use, detailing a night where they stole into a warehouse of Hollywood memorabilia and tried on the famous outfits of stars and films gone by.

Now I'll actually get to the point I wish to make. You know, I watch these MST3K episodes, and they make me smile, and laugh, and cringe at the sometimes VERY bad writing, direction and acting. I laugh, but my laughter is a reaction to a story whose circumstances and context is limited solely to fiction. But outside that context, there's nothing to laugh about. Well, strike that...sometimes there really are things to laugh about, but there is no one to laugh AT. There are two kinds of absurdity here. Actually, I think there are three, which is what I hope to write about after my head's a little more clear. But what I wanted to point out tonight is simply that there's a difference between artistic absurdity and existential absurdity. The first plays off the second, and in that sense can be appreciated for the insights it provides. But the second, the absurdity that defines the meaningless and ultimately futile struggle of life against life; well, that's a different story in my book, and certainly not something that an empathetic person should either value OR appreciate, no matter how one chooses to parse those two terms.

Anywho, hopefully I'll be up to expanding on this idea tomorrow or the next day, depending on my
oh-so-variegated temperament and my dizziness-to-typing ratio. Until next time, may all of you rest well and be rested.

A Friendly Reminder!

2011-03-07T10:56:00.000-08:00

I've been sitting here this morning perusing posts and comments from recent months, and have re-discovered a plethora of relevant and interesting links. I urge everyone to duplicate these in the ever expanding Link Library. Don't be shy! There's plenty of room :)

The Book of Job

2011-03-06T18:43:00.000-08:00

Sister Y. has written an article entitled The Empirical Nature of "Meaning" that everyone should check out. One particular comment in the thread so resonated with my own feelings that I thought I'd post it over here:

Chuck G. said...
Regarding the book of Job: I've been in three separate classes now wherein the professor or TA mentioned that there was once an alternate version of Job floating around in which the eponymous main character gets nothing at the end save for being left alone with his festering boils and ruined estate. God doesn't even give him a pat on the back for trying to figure things out - he just leaves. Of course, that kind of honesty doesn't sell, so the *real* book of Job didn't make it into the final cut.

It's too bad that this alternate version of Job, the one that didn't make it into the Tanakh, is probably the only honest take on monotheism that there ever was. If anyone dives deeply enough down the spiritual rabbit hole, the only thing they get in the end is crushing surrender, the absolute and final end of all hope, period. Disillusionment is the only gift one should ever expect from God. Thus I think it's interesting that, at the end of the alternate version, Job still retains his faith. Why, aside from the faith of the author sneaking in, should he still believe in God?

Absent a translated reading copy of the text, I can only speculate as to what exactly Job's retention of faith in the alternate version looks like - it seems wholly implausible that it would be the kind of faith one sees being sold like a drug at the tax-exempt megachurches that hawk drive-thru salvation. I imagine Job would feel something like the Zen master who finally woke up one day and burned all his scriptures and cursed the day he heard the Buddha's name, after wasting decades trying to square the spiritual circle. Your enlightenment may come, that is for sure, but it won't be the cheap dopamine perma-fix you thought it would be. Happiness is a high, but Truth is Truth. And the handmaidens of Truth are disenchantment, disillusionment, and death-awareness.

I say that for the truly faithful, God must be seen as nothing other than a yawning void in place of an answer, an untouchable mystery which for no reason at all churns out gasping life, then drowns it in final eternity. This is not the God that anyone would ever go looking for, but the ones who look, who *actually* look instead of just trying to trap their cognitive dissonance in yet another layer of spiritual nonsense, will find this one. Only seek this God if, like Job, you have absolutely no other choice - if you're not ready to throw your entire terror management apparatus out the window, with all the suffering and despair that entails, you're better off at the megachurch.

A Short Note on Moral Judgement and Misanthropy

2011-03-03T09:14:00.000-08:00

I'm really trying to separate my sense of moral outrage from human agency these days. After all, a clinical study of life from a strictly deterministic viewpoint reveals that true moral agency is an illusion, anyway. This is something I've believed for a long time, but internalizing the concept is something else entirely. Emotions cloud the fact that there's really nothing else besides the process as a whole to blame; and not even that, since the process itself is automatic and insentient. Sentience itself is merely a descriptive term for a certain complex of biological and chemical feedback loops, feeding the illusion that 'individuals' experience a sort of status that exists somehow apart from the flux of existence as a whole, so as to 'reflect'; a misnomer which, if dwelt upon adequately, might be more revealing than a lot of us would care to contemplate.

Long story short: I am the universe kicking against its own pricks, and yelling "Ouch!" And so are all of us- sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come.

Goo goo g'joob.

P.S. Perhaps not so much a misnomer; instead, a misapplied euphemism better understood as a literal condition. You know, Semolina Pilchard climbing up the Eiffel Tower.

Or, to put it another way.

Whatever Works

2011-03-03T08:50:00.000-08:00

An excerpt from this Woody Allen interview:

Well, you know, you want some kind of relief from the agony and terror of human existence. Human existence is a brutal experience to me…it’s a brutal, meaningless experience—an agonizing, meaningless experience with some oases, delight, some charm and peace, but these are just small oases. Overall, it is a brutal, brutal, terrible experience, and so it’s what can you do to alleviate the agony of the human condition, the human predicament?

The question is, how does one do his part in alleviating the 'agony of the human condition'; especially when one is aware, as Woody also seems to be, of the universal futility inherent in the system?

I always felt that the problems of the world would never ever be solved until people came to terms with the deeper issues—that there would be an aimless reshuffling of world leaders and governments and programs. There was a difference, of course, but it was a minor difference as to who the president was and what the issues were. They seemed major, but as you step back with perspective they were more alike than they were different. The deeper issues always interested me.

It's obvious to me and many other contributors to this blog that when all is parsed and digested, what's left is antinatalism. Of course, preaching it is probably the ultimate futilistic gambit. However, the futility lies not in the exercise of it's precepts, but solely in people's willingness to understand that procreation flies in the face of their own- and dare I say 'higher'?- moral sensibilities. To step back and gain the perspective that Woody Allen is talking about reveals, it seems to me, a certain moral responsibility to speak up. This seems doubly true for those who have access to mainstream media.

You intimate that you're looking for solutions to the 'deeper issues', Mr. Allen. Antinatalism is such a solution. I challenge you to tell the world.

Heads up to Karl for the link.

Poem for a Weary Evening

2011-02-24T23:05:00.001-08:00

Master Lost

Thought for the Day

2011-02-23T21:23:00.000-08:00

I've been told that I'd see things differently if only I held to a higher perspective. Meaning, they say, makes all the difference. This is patently absurd. I suspect that if I did discover some deeper purpose behind the ubiquitous tragedies of this world, I'd probably be against it, anyway. After all, even proponents of genocide find meaning in what they do.

Thought for the Day

2011-02-22T11:07:00.000-08:00

Sometimes maintaining a mental equilibrium in the face of this terrible existence is a very hard thing to do. All it takes is a little contemplation, a seeing into the horrible, built-in exigencies of life on this planet, this tooth and claw world where everything ultimately comes to nothing, and all that's left to do is scream or throw up. Or to weep.

pyrrho314 on Antinatalism

2011-02-22T09:16:00.000-08:00

"But most of life's miseries that I encounter are things that I grow stronger from, by learning from them. So they become assets of my experience that help me to enjoy life, because I've learned from the miseries. I've learned how not to cause them, how to avoid them, how to deal with what does come..."

To my mind, this once again affirms the idea that much of 'joy' is intrinsically related to the absence of suffering; a state which, in its ideal form, is non-existence. I find it telling, not to mention incredibly ironic, that misery is considered an 'asset' only insofar as it teaches us to avoid misery, notwithstanding the notion that past misery is somehow transformed into something positive via memory with it's ingrained penchant for optimism bias. pyrrho314 also states:

"There are certainly intense enough miseries that I would consider, and choose, suicide..."

His solution to this quandary is that one can choose to kill one's self if life gets too intolerable to go on. Of course, we've talked before about this carelessly offhand attitude toward the terribly difficult decision to end one's life. But like so many others, pyrrho interprets this difficulty as the fact that people really want to live. Extending this logic, I suppose we are to assume that everybody loves life right up until the hammer falls, and the brain is forcefully blown out through the back of the head. An interesting juxtaposition of brain states, yes?

Personal Testimonies

2011-02-22T07:52:00.000-08:00

I've noticed some new faces popping up here and via emails, and I thought this would be a good time to introduce a new feature to the blog, 'personal testimonies', which I'll link to in the left-hand column. Tell us how you found us; and, if you're an antinatalist, how you came to your philosophical position. Was there a particular turning point for you? Share your stories.

Thought for the Day

2011-02-16T22:57:00.000-08:00

Every affirmation of the continuance of life on this planet is a philosophical acquiescence to literally billions of incidences of debilitating illness and disease, of maiming, of torture, of rape, of murder, of pestilence and starvation, of mistreatment and indignity, of crippling incapacitation through accident or willful offense, and of every other crime or mischance that falls upon the heads of living biological entities who were never given the chance to say "No! I choose not to exist." Make no mistake- whenever we say "yes" to life, we ineluctably affirm suffering and death, as well.

John Gray Podcast on His New Book 'The Immortality Commission'

2011-02-16T21:27:00.000-08:00

Thanks to commenter Rob. Another nice download for the mp3. Thanks!

About halfway in, he makes a passing remark that what some call immortality is more aptly named 'indeterminate longevity'. I think this is an appropriate distinction, especially in light of the Becker excerpt from the previous post. Where death denial is concerned, aren't any advances in longevity mere postponements of the inevitable? Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, other than the possible negative manifestations- through time and technological advancement- of the dark side of mankind's cumulative psychological repressions. I'd hate to think my personality might end up loaded into the guts of a laptop stamped 'deSade Inside'.

The Downside of Transhuman Transcendence Schemes

2011-02-16T04:36:00.000-08:00

Experiencing a bit of insomnia tonight. Reading. Thought I'd share an excerpt from Becker's 'The Denial of Death'...

Again, the modern utopians continue the one-sided Enlightenment dream. Condorcet had already had the identical vision in 1794:

...a period must one day arrive when death will be nothing more than the effect either of extraordinary accidents, or of the slow and gradual decay of the vital powers: and that the duration of the interval between the birth of man and his decay will have itself no assignable limit.

But Choron offers a caution on this vision that goes right to the heart of it and demolishes it: that the "postponement of death is not a solution to the problem of the fear of death...there still will remain the fear of dying prematurely." The smallest virus or the stupidest accident would deprive a man not of 90 years but of 900-and would be then 10 times more absurd...if something is 10 times more absurd it is 10 times more threatening. In other words, death would be "hyperfetishized" as a source of danger, and men in the utopia of longevity would be even less expansive and peaceful than they are today!

And a little farther down-

Utopian man might live in the same "eternal now" of the primitives, but undoubtedly too with the same real compulsivity and phobia. Unless one is talking about real immortality one is talking merely about an intensification of the character defenses and superstitions of man.

How might people act in a world of greatly enhanced longevity where there is even more at stake, more to lose? Might the fulfillment of this ploy to alleviate death anxiety actually magnify the problem? What horrors could be unleashed upon the 'new human' whose lifespan encompassed centuries-or millennia!-instead of mere decades, all in the name of personal security, or even for the attempted relief of ever-increasing ennui amongst the uber-set? Who the ants scorched under the magnifying glasses of eternity's children?

Studies in Pessimism

2011-02-13T18:58:00.000-08:00

Anyone interested in the subject of this blog should probably have at least a passing acquaintance with the writings of Arthur Schopenhauer, the granddaddy of modern pessimistic thought. I just bought a cheap little mp3 player to listen to audiobooks on my bicycle commute to work, and this was my first download.

SHORT CRITIQUE: The first 4 or 5 chapters were my favorites. After that, he wanders (rather uninterestingly, at times) into what I see as his personal prejudices, culturally induced and/or otherwise. Sir S. wielded a heavy hand of polarized rhetoric, to be sure, which might put some folks off. But where he's right, he's bloody damned right! A must read (or hear).

The book is in the public domain, and the download is free as are all the books at the site I've pointed to. Comes in a zip file; just pop her open and slide the individual chapters over into your player's folder. Voila!

Btw, listening to books is really nice on the bike. Less overall noisiness than music, and doesn't drown out the sound of the traffic bearing down on you. I've listened 3 times now, and am moving on to an old scifi novel by Robert Silverberg. If anybody knows of some good podcasts or audio documentaries, feel free to share.

When I work up the nerve, I'm planning on listening to Gibbon's 'Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire'. Always meant to read that, never got around to it. I'll also be searching for H.G. Wells "History of the World" pts. 1 and 2. Did read that once upon a time, but am thinking it would be a great listen.

PROGRESS REPORT: Outlining, researching and working a bit on chapter 1.

P.S. The guy doing the voicework on this book is VERY good.

Book Recommendation- The Denial of Death

2011-02-07T10:01:00.000-08:00

I thought the little disclaimer at the end of this little review was kind of amusing:

This book is highly recommended for both therapists and those interested in existential thought. However, it is not recommended to be read when life is looking overly bleak.

Is Life Worth Living?

2011-02-03T08:38:00.001-08:00

Originally posted by commenter Karl:

This may be of interest to some people here. Debate with Clarence Darrow (the guy who defended the teaching of evolution in American schools) on whether life was worth living or not. Darrow spoke against the motion! Features a great quote from Arthur Balfour below the link.

http://openlibrary.org/books/OL7173090M/Great_public_debate_on_the_question_Is_life_worth_living

"We survey the past, and see that its history is of blood and Man, so far as natural science by itself is able to teach us, is no longer the final cause of the universe, the Heaven descended heir of all the ages. His very existence is an accident, his story a brief and transitory episode in the life of one of the meanest of the planets. Of the combination of causes which first converted a dead organic compound into the living progenitors of humanity, science indeed as yet knows nothing. It is enough that from such beginnings famine, disease, and mutual slaughter, fit nurses of the future lords of creation, have gradually evolved, after infinite travail, a race with conscience enough to feel that it is vile, and intelligence enough to know that it is insignificant tears, of helpless blundering, of wild revolt, of stupid acquiescence, of empty aspirations. We sound the future, and learn that after a period, long compared with the individual life, but short indeed compared with the divisions of time open to our investigation, the energies of our system will decay, the glory of the sun will be dimmed, and the earth, tideless and inert, will no longer tolerate the race which for a moment disturbed its solitude. Man will go down into the pit, and all his thoughts will perish. The uneasy consciousness, which in this obscure corner has for a long space broken the contented silence of the universe, will be at rest. Matter will know itself no longer. "Imperishable monuments" and "immortal deeds," death itself, and love stronger than death, will be as though they had never been. Nor will anything that is be better or be worse for all that the labour, genius, devotion, and suffering of men have striven
through countless generations to effect."

Notification of Hiatus

2011-02-01T21:45:00.000-08:00

Well, it's been a weekend of crises for me, with more impending. To top things off, my girlfriend was mugged early this morning in a city far, far away, and it looks like my dog- the last dog I'll probably ever share my life with in a lifetime of dogs- is most likely dying.

However, today at work I seem to have reached some sort of epiphany amidst the layered anxieties and calls for well done fries, no salt. And so tonight, as I drain the last dregs of Christmas rum, I set aside all other writing projects and begin preparations for a new book. I consider the subject to be the logical next step in anti-natal discourse, with what I hope will be a broader appeal. Oh, shit, I might as well say it! I'm inventing a new religion. Although, the groundwork has already been laid for a thousand years or more.

I apologize for this abrupt turning, but I have to follow my heart on this one. On the other hand, from what I've been reading of late I believe the discussion is in very good hands without me (a belated welcome to any and all newcomers, btw). Naturally, I will continue to provide this forum for all interested participants. In fact, I think I'll open a new posting space every Monday just to keep threads from growing too long; though of course, I'll leave them all open to facilitate ongoing discussions. And I'll try to drop by and add my two cents now and again.

I guess that's all for now. It's just about time for me to hoist Little Voice into bed and watch Seinfeld together (I really suspect she doesn't pay attention, but feigns interest for my sake). I'll stroke her head, and assure her, and tell her about the wonderful place she's headed for. Funny thing about animals; they seem to understand the process of dying much better than we do. At least, that's been my experience with them. They don't stress about it nearly as much as I do, which is part of what I intend to write about in a roundabout way. I want to develop a philosophy of acceptance based on a naturalistic worldview, but I suspect my approach will be seen as controversial, even among many antinatalists. But like I said, I think this is the next necessary step in the discourse if we ever hope to expand beyond our very marginalized status. Wish me luck.

As far as publishing is concerned, I have no plans whatsoever. But rest assured, this work WILL see the light of day, one way or another. As long as I remain alive and cogent, I WILL deliver the goods. It starts tomorrow. Again, wish me luck. Little Voice says "hi!".

P.S. If anyone feels a need to correspond, I can be reached at metamorphhh@hotmail.com.

Back Online

2011-02-01T09:16:00.000-08:00

Life's a piece of shit, when you look at it. Life's a laugh, and death's a joke, it's true.

Better Not To Have Children

2011-01-09T17:44:00.000-08:00

I thought this one was worth highlighting.

Thanks to commenter filrabat!

I Love My Bike

2011-01-06T15:53:00.000-08:00

Sorry for the abrupt left turn, but I had a nice ride today, followed by a strenuous workout and yet ANOTHER nice ride, and wanted to share.

"It is by riding a bicycle that you learn the contours of a country best, since you have to sweat up the hills and coast down them. Thus you remember them as they actually are, while in a motor car only a high hill impresses you, and you have no such accurate remembrance of country you have driven through as you gain by riding a bicycle" ~\

Ernest Hemingway

Just Say No To More Kids

2010-12-23T21:09:00.000-08:00

Here's another one from Inmendham. His proposed political 'solution' to population control is good fodder for some disagreement and debate here. But the video gets stronger as it goes along, I think, as he gets to the nitty gritty of what it really means to force children into an existence not of their choosing. Enjoy.

Minor Changes

2010-12-19T15:10:00.000-08:00

Ok, so now there's a bloglist in the right-hand column designated for frequent commenters. Let me know if I've left you out. Also, I tacked on the blogspot comment gadget at the bottom of the left-hand column. It'a a little glitchy, but it holds more comments than the other one in case you want to see back a little further. Or is it farther? Oh, and an addition to 'Links to Your Child's Possible Future'. Particularly horrendous. Check it out if you've got the stomach for it.

That is all.

Reply to Aschwin de Wolf Critique- Introduction

2010-12-19T13:13:00.000-08:00

I’ve been thinking about how best to approach Aschwin de Wolf’s critique of antinatalism, and have decided on something similar to my response to TGGP’s essay from some time back. The downside to this approach is that I run the risk of being pedantic and/or repetitive. Then again, when did that ever stop me before? The upside is that I can take my time, stretch it out through several posts, and thereby cover my ground more thoroughly; as well as, I’m hoping, more thoughtfully. As an emotionally driven writer, I tend to write hurriedly with my eye on the finish line. Usually I’m ok with that, but I’m really bending over backwards this time, for two reasons-

1. I sincerely appreciate Aschwin’s effort in putting together this article, and feel it’s only fair to return at least that expenditure of energy in my reply.

2. Aschwin’s essay is ‘loose’ enough to allow me to make a rather comprehensive philosophical statement as I proceed along the course of his various observations and criticisms. At the end of all this, I hope to have produced a bookended declaration containing answers to most of the questions people frequently ask. I’ll be touching on history (particularly the history of philosophy and religion), psychology, morality and ethics. I also hope to delve rather deeply into the ‘philosophy’ of transhumanism, the various aspects of which I’ve always been interested in, and even more so these days.

That said, I’d also like to mention that this endeavor will be a true group effort, in that any insights offered by commenters will be considered part of the creative process here, and fed back into subsequent posts. I’m under no illusions that I have all the angles covered, and will seriously consider any relevant ideas and extrapolations as we move along. On this ride, backseat drivers are welcomed! :)

Finally, I beg your patience, as well as your valuable input. Your intellectual energy keeps me motivated more than you might suspect. Feel free to critique, ask questions, and contribute as you see fit. Any ideas at facilitating communication around here are also appreciated. The ‘watercooler’ thread seems to have been a particularly beneficial addition to the blog. I’m also of a mind to better highlight the websites of those who regularly contribute here. I’ll work on that.

Ok, so this has been the teaser. Next post, we get to the meat of the thing.

'Confessions of an Antinatalist' Review in 'Cryonics Magazine'

2010-12-15T15:57:00.000-08:00

Aschwin de Wolf at Cryonics Magazine has written a very nice treatment/critique on antinatalism, featuring my book, as well as The Conspiracy Against the Human Race, by Thomas Ligotti, and Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming Into Existence, by David Benatar. I'm planning on using Mr. de Wolf's review as a launching pad for several posts in the near future, so stay tuned.

P.S.- Aschwin just mailed me to let me know he'll have an html version up at his blog Depressed Metabolism very soon. I've also invited him to participate in the discussions. Looking forward to some fascinating interchanges from this extraordinary group of people (I'm talking about all you bloggers and commenters who bless this blog with your presence, naturally :)).

Here's the link.

UPDATE: Since Thomas Ligotti's book is included in this review, I thought folks might be interested in reading a negative reviewer's thoughts from TCATHR's Amazon page:

By San Francisco Book Review
This review is from: The Conspiracy Against the Human Race: A Contrivance of Horror (Hardcover)
As a reader and amateur philosopher, I am conflicted. The less said about Thomas Ligotti's //The Conspiracy Against the Human Race//, the better. As a reviewer of books though, I don't have any other option. I must review the book no matter how terrible I believe it or its author to be. Already I am off to a bad start. But, then that may be a good thing and you'll stop reading this review now and make your way down the page to a book that deserves your time and consideration! If not, then prepare for the worst. //Conspiracy// is a work of "pessimist" philosophy by an author of horror fiction. I'm being kind by not putting the word philosophy in quotes, too. This book's main thesis seems to be that life is terrible and awful and nasty. Furthermore, that consciousness is a cruel joke that Nature played on humans, despite the fact that Nature itself has no meaning or purpose. Mostly it's the ravings of an impotent teenager who is so upset that existence doesn't conform itself to expectations that nonexistence, for all, would be better. By the end of the introduction I hated the author; by the end of the second chapter I was willing to help Mr. Ligotti end the misery that is his life.

Reviewed by Jonathon Howard

The flip side of optimism bias? Lest we forget that PollyAnna has teeth.

Polly Anna turns her head
Ignoring this and that
Her heart is full
Her eyes are round
Her point of view is flat

Living in the Epilogue

2010-12-09T22:20:00.000-08:00

Interested readers might want to check out this essay from our own Sister Y. She's outdone herself this time in the best of senses, methinks. Blew me friggin' away.

Drop the World

2010-12-09T18:15:00.001-08:00

The Car is Dead, Long Live the Bicycle!

2010-12-09T18:04:00.000-08:00

Well, it seems even automobiles die...who wudda thought? I went without a car for a few years (not counting borrowings from the ex), and now it seems I'm back on two wheels for the foreseeable future. God rest ye merry Mazda, may nothing you dismay. I'll especially miss you on those early weekend commutes. 4:30 comes early.

Seriously, she was a good ride, and served me well for a year and four months, the exact length of time my last relationship lasted. Oh, so long ago. But I'll miss you, and there's the difference :)

P.S. Also, I don't hold it against you that you died in the middle of the street. It wasn't your fault.

The Doomsday Button Revisted

2010-12-09T16:37:00.000-08:00

This post is prompted by some recent conversation in the ‘watercooler’ section of the blog. There’s a rather spirited debate going on between two ostensibly opposing viewpoints which, for convenience sake, I hereby dub the ‘absolutists camp’, or ‘AC’, and the ‘situationalist ethicists camp’, or ‘SEC’ (you know who you are :)

The debate kicks off with this question from the SEC- “Would you torture a baby to end world suffering?” Apparently, the SEC representative was quite shocked and dismayed upon discovering, in another forum, that many commenters there were opposed to the idea.

The representative from the AC, on the other hand, seems at least as shocked and dismayed at the SEC’s blatant disregard of what the AC considers the cardinal principle informing antinatalist sensibility e.g. ‘thou shalt do no harm’. Or, alternatively worded, ‘thou shalt not coerce’. In fact, the AC is so morally outraged at this apparent schism from the Official Antinatalist Credo that they are threatening to revoke any and all antinatalist privileges previously extended to the members of the SEC, including though not limited to frequent flyer miles, complimentary e-harmony guest passes, and 50% off on hula lessons!

At this point, I’d like to suggest that another, and perhaps more appropriate, set of labels for our two combatants might be consequentalists v. idealists. The hitch here is that consequentialists can also be idealists, and, in fact, are in this case. The difference is that idealists of the first order load their ideals from the front end; that is, their ideals strictly inform the process by which their ideal ends might be achieved, EVEN when this formula becomes self-stultifying. Which it often does.

The consequentialist, on the other hand, sees no problem with breaking a few eggs along the path to what he understands to be the tastiest omelet ever baked up. “Do the math!” he adjures. “This is the way things get done.” He writes off the idealist as a pussy/Pollyanna lacking the testes to achieve his goals.

Meanwhile, the idealist dismisses his opposition as a study in contradiction, rationalizing away the very ethical precepts he supposedly adheres to whenever it becomes convenient to do so. The consequentialist is merely a means-to-an-end, I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now, amoral moralist.

Here’s the thing. ALL of us are consequentialists to some degree or another. I suppose the immediate polarization here partly stems from the precise language used in the original proposition. ‘Torture a baby’ is a buzz-phrase with an immediate emotional impact, rendering the thought experiment ‘beyond the pale’ of serious consideration in many minds. It’s not that it’s a bad question, except that it allows for a rather comfortable, automatic dismissal in those inclined toward idealist attitudes; which we all are, in certain situations. Fortunately, this particular question is easily tweakable in the context of a debate where one party holds strictly to a non-coercion policy. Would the idealist allow the breaking of a kid’s arm to end world suffering? How’s about giving him an indian burn? Would he step on an ant to cure cancer? What if his wife had cancer? And so on.

On the other hand: Would the consequentialist have the balls to torture the baby him/herself? It’s all very easy to posit as a hypothetical, isn’t it? Sort of like meat eaters who rage against all hunting. As an antinatalist, my greatest ideal would be the cessation of all life, everywhere...but would I torture a baby to achieve it? Honestly, I’m not sure I have the balls. Beyond the self-serving issues, like wanting to be seen as a good guy in the end, there’s a basic conflict in my personality regarding desiring an end to suffering, and committing suffering in order to bring about the end product of my desires. Or maybe the conflict is in the working out of the philosophical premise itself; after all, the desire to end suffering is grounded in the emotional matrix, is it not? The reason follows afterward, and only makes sense to those who exist above a certain empathetic threshold, and are willing to flesh out those impulses to what I see as the foregone conclusion i.e. philosophic antinatalism.

However, conflicting emotions are NOT the same thing as a contradictory mindset, or a philosophy. As far as I can tell so far, antinatalism holds more water than any its detractors. When you consider that the two major challenges generally boil down to ‘You can’t consider the welfare of someone who doesn’t exist yet’ and, ‘Suffering is GOOD for you!’, you begin to sense the desperation of those who feel driven to argue for the existential status quo, don’t you?

Oops, I’ve gotten off on a tangent again, haven’t I? Back to consequences; and more to the point, the consequences I actually care about, which are experiential consequences. And now I'm finally to what I was referring to in the title of this post (emphasis on the word ‘finally’). We’ve talked about it before, that little magic button that would make the world go ‘poof!’ (virtual snap inserted here). Would you push it? Seems like an appropriate question about here. I certainly would, probably with a few qualms, though none of them are ethics-based. At least, I HOPE I would...there’s that question of balls again. Perhaps I’d ask one of the antinatalist ladies to do it; they seem to get along without them just fine :) (Or should that be :( , followed by a groan? I can’t decide :))

Is Being Born in the Best Interest of the Child?

2010-12-05T17:34:00.000-08:00

Thought I'd pass along something I received in the mail today.

Shout out to Brian for the link.

YouTube FYI...

2010-12-02T16:00:00.000-08:00

I don't plan on posting all my videos here, so for anyone interested I've added a link to my YouTube channel, left top. Got a new one uploading right now, 45 mins. or so. That is all.

Book Promo

2010-12-02T10:24:00.001-08:00

My First Official Video!

2010-12-01T15:42:00.000-08:00

Ugh, what a process; like slogging through quicksand. But for better or worse, here it is...

I'm working with the notebook's mike, so the sound quality is iffy, as is the source of the sound :). Not sure if contemporaneous speaking is my thing, but since there's another audience out there to be had, I guess I'll keep plugging away at it, as time and motivation permit. Anyhow, there you go.

I'm Off...

2010-11-24T22:40:00.000-08:00

...to L.A. for the holiday with my kids. Y'all take care! Here's a good video.

Thanks to anonymous, here's part 2.

The Roots of Selfishness

2010-11-18T19:26:00.000-08:00

Our very own Plague Doctor seems to have somewhat diverted a recent discussion about marriage, here,(a little ways down in the comments section); 'driving a stake', as it were, 'into the heart of the procreation[sic] myth'. His arguments, as usual, are concise and easy to understand. He even offers a link to this blog (check's in the mail). However, needless to say (it IS needless by this time, isn't it?), many of the responses had almost nothing to do with the arguments he actually made. Nothing new, eh? I DID want to highlight one statement in particular-

J says:
November 3, 2010 at 9:58 pm
@Plague Doctor

I looked at your site, and I’m really feeling you. I used to be a tremendous cynic too…before I had children.
Know what? Even if my kids died of cancer like that poor child in the slide show, I’d never regret having them. Not because I’d delude myself that I was stronger and better for having lost them or that it was God’s will that they died, but because the joy of having had them would still exceed the pain of losing them. Yeah, life hurts sometime. So what?

This is an attitude all of us have witnessed time and again in the course of these dialogues; although, I'm not sure I've ever seen it stated quite so unequivocally, which is the reason I've posted it here. The blatant self-interest is really pretty shocking. I suspect the commenter also felt this way upon re-reading what he/she'd written, since a little farther down in the thread there's a bit of an attempt to mitigate the force of the words. Unfortunately for him/her, the weight of the comment is really too comprehensive to minimize through retroactive context pleading. To summarize: What I desire ultimately outweighs ANYTHING that might happen to someone else as a consequence of my desires.

Of course, this attitude absolutely flies in the face of all the noblest of human ideals, as represented by any moral schema handed down through time that one wishes to choose. Self-sacrifice. Honor. Loyalty. Sympathy. Love. Respect. Caring. Indeed, the fundamental basis for morality is always an arrow pointing away from the self towards others. Morality and ethics, in the context of an isolated self, are meaningless terms. Naturally, people will differ as to the details, but such a declaration as the one I'm discussing here falls so far beyond the pale of ANY principled sensibility as to render it absolutely without merit in moral terms. Seemingly.

And yet, this is probably the natural response of almost all people, everywhere, to the antinatalist argument. Of otherwise good people. Charitable people. Caring people. In many cases, far, far better people than you and me. It's a thoroughly unjustified position to take; and by that, I mean unjustified according to most people's own moral sensibilities. The world of humanity is walking around in a fog of cognitive dissonance, clinging to and vociferously upholding principles which are in stark contrast to their own ostensible beliefs. Because, despite the sundry protestations made by folks who'd like to see themselves on the right side of the moral gladiator's pit (don't we all?), procreation is rooted in categorical self-interest, plain and simple. Worse, it is self-interest at the expense of others. Worse yet, those others are the very one's we're supposedly sacrificing part of our lives for- our children. But what most parents won't admit- can't admit, even to themselves- is that their 'sacrifice' is really only an investment in their own happiness, even when the cost of suffering and death is levied on the heads of their own children.

Read the comment again. It's outrageous! It's abhorrent! These are the words of a despicable human being! This is the attitude of a monster!

It's also the attitude of pretty much everybody in the whole world...including myself, once upon a time.

No offense to Nick Bostrom, but the real enemy needing to be slain is complacency; the complacency of those who never question the evil of delivering generation upon generation of people into the jaws of unavoidable* suffering and death, for what amounts to a whim of an evolutionary urge that rationality should have outgrown a long time ago. Perhaps it will, one day.

In the meantime- 'Yeah, life hurts sometimes. So what?'

*Did I say unavoidable? Only in the aftermath of the 'blessed event'. But suffering and death are ALWAYS avoidable, aren't they? Don't procreate. It's that simple. Of course, there'll be no one around to thank you for it, which is pretty much the point, isn't it? You know, altruism in the interest of others, and all that shit. If you really need to hear it, I'll say it for them. Thanks for not reproducing. Happy now?

Long live Negative Bliss!

Watercooler Conversations

2010-10-28T11:33:00.000-07:00

Per commenter Plague Doctor's request, a place to chat outside the parameters of a particular O.P.'s subject matter. Thanks for the suggestion!

Drawing Distinctions

2010-10-28T10:52:00.000-07:00

Heads up for an interesting taxonomic approach to the antinatalism question. Sister Y has classified the major positions thusly-

1: Pronatalism. "All reproduction is morally innocent (or morally required)."
2: Situational context-dependent antinatalism. "Everybody should have babies except starving people in the third world, drug addicts, and AIDS patients."
3: Universal context-dependent antinatalism. "Our world is so bad that no one living in it should reproduce; but if things got much better, it might be okay."
4: Pure antinatalism. "No beings should ever be brought into existence if they will suffer at all - which they will."

Obviously, 1 and 2 are off the table as far as I'm concerned. 3 is no more tempting for a couple of reasons, the most obvious being that life exists in a constant state of existential flux. Having achieved utopia, what possible guarantees of everlasting prolongation can be secured? Shit happens. Beyond the question of endurance, there's the matter of those lives brought into being between then and now- how can the coercion and sacrifices ever be justified within a normative moral framework? There's also the problem of varying subjective standards to deal with. How can we know that our little utopia will measure up to somebody else's future measuring stick, unless everybody is exactly the same? It's been tried before.

Now onto number 4, and a question that's never really occurred to me before. What IF, in a far distant future, some paradise is manufactured which is somehow guaranteed to be both sufficient for all and sustainable throughout eternity. Imagine a day when suffering of any sort is abolished once and forever, swept out of the universe like a herd of unwelcome dust bunnies. Under these conditions, would procreation automatically become a moral act? Why? Perhaps it could be said to be not an immoral act, but I'm not so sure this is the same thing. Is a harmless act automatically a moral one? Or does a moral act entail some substance or form of moral necessity, no matter how oblique? I may be splitting hairs here, but equating non-immorality with morality is leaving me just a little bit queasy...perhaps for no good reason, I'll confess. It's an open question, and I invite debate.

UPDATE: The reason I bring this up is because it occurs to me that all purposeful action requires, or is impelled by, SOME sort of necessity. In a theistic context, the question has always been IF God is entirely sufficient unto Himself, what could possibly provoke Him to an act of creation? The pat answer has always been that He does such for His own pleasure; but of course, wasn't He always perfectly 'pleased' to begin with?

Pursuing this line of inquiry to its outer limits, I am logically persuaded to conclude that absolute perfection- or purity, if you will- when defined under the aegis of unalloyed non-necessity, doesn't look a whole lot different from non-existence to me. If, indeed, there's any difference at all. It seems to me that a positive moral action is always conceived to fill a gap, the kind of gap which just doesn't exist in a fundamentally ideal state (or non-state, in the case of non-existence). Which brings us full circle to the concept of Negative Bliss. The place where we started. The place we're all headed back to, eventually. In this light, existence seems to be nothing more than sediment temporally shaken up from the bottom of a crystal clear lake otherwise untroubled by any eddies, or winds of chance. Why muddy the waters?

Frequently Asked Questions

2010-10-27T19:55:00.000-07:00

By semi-frequent request, I'm hammering out a FAQ for the blog. I'd appreciate any and all input, and will post it as soon as it's adequately fleshed out. Thanks in advance for your participation.

Now That I'm Back...

2010-10-17T21:41:00.001-07:00

Every once in a while I promise myself that I'm going to concentrate on cleaning up this blog a bit. You know, tighten up the writing, more professional, less personally revealing, yada yada yada. I'm still trying, but I'm really not sure I have it in me. What it all boils down to is that this blog is about my children, and about my love for them, which is probably awfully perplexing for the folks who don't know me, considering the subject matter. In the end, I'll probably leave such heavy lifting to the other folks around here; they seem to be much better at it, anyway.

Contrary to what I've gleaned from many folks' experiences, raising my children was an unadulterated joy. I loved every minute of it (well, most of them, anyhow). I just never want to leave the impression that I ever think less than the world of them. They are the wellsprings of my best feelings, and I will love them, effortlessly, until that last minute when I cease to exist. As bad as I believe life is, I would suffer it for eternity if I could be there for them. One day I won't be, and that's what hurts more than anything.

Back Online

2010-10-17T21:11:00.000-07:00

Thanks to one and all for keeping things going during my absence. Looks like I've got some catching up to do. I thought I'd start by addressing the most recent comment, and go from there. First, here's the unabridged comment-

Anonymous said...
Hedonism is a theory of value that states : happiness is the only intrinsic good and stress is the only intrinsic bad. My understanding was that Negative Utilitarians, like Classical Utilitarians, are hedonists (or 'negative' hedonists, if they deny the intrinsic, positive value of happiness). This is a claim about what actually is universally valuable, the fact that some people have a positive attitude towards stress or a negative attitude towards happiness is irrelevant. You make it seem as though you 'personally' value your pleasure but you don't 'personally' dis-value your own stress, you regard all stress as intrinsically bad as a matter of fact. Again, the opposite of suffering is not the absence of suffering, the opposite of suffering is happiness. Since every positive has a negative, anyone who claims that stress is intrinsically bad has to concede that happiness is intrinsically good. Also, as a minor point, consent (in my view) is of no intrinsic, moral value. Consent is only required to prevent unwanted, or stressful, states of mind (petting a dog does not require his or her consent since it's assumed that the dog will not suffer as a result). If suffering did not exist, we would not require the consent of unborn children to create them. Alas, it does so I'm with you.

If you claim to be a hedonist, then you have to accept that being unconscious is of neutral value, neither good or bad. Hedonists are consequentialists, the consequences of an action are what make it good or bad. An action that increases suffering or happiness can not be considered good or bad even if the actor had good or bad intentions (only intentions are moral/immoral, actions are just good or bad based on the actual effect that they have on the emotional state of mind of everyone affected by the action). Not all deaths are painful, at least not in theory. From a hedonist point of view, only stress is harmful.If someone was killed painlessly in their sleep, this death would not be harmful, at least not for the deceased. If you claim that something besides stress is harmful, you've abandoned hedonism (since hedonists deny that life itself or the entities that experience happiness/stress have any intrinsic value/dis-value, only happiness/stress have intrinsic value/dis-value).

I'm not really criticizing the NU view because it's the view I'm leaning towards. The worst, logical conclusions to classical utilitarianism (ie. raping a small child if it will produce a greater amount of happiness for, say, 10 people) are far worse than the worst conclusions of NU (ie. killing someone in their sleep, if it could be done without causing any stress to them or their friends, family members etc. to prevent them or someone else from stubbing their toe). It's better to be unconscious than it is to suffer but, it's also better to be happy than it is to be unconscious, which is why I hope the bio-abolition of suffering becomes a reality. Why hasn't this possibility been mentioned by anti-natalists like Jim Crawford and David Benatar?

I'd like to begin by tweaking the commenter's definition of hedonism a bit, not as a matter of contention, but to possibly expand the parameters of the discussion. This reference from my laptop Webster's seems sufficient-

1. Philos. the ethical doctrine that pleasure, variously conceived of in terms of happiness of the individual or of society, is the principal good and the proper aim of action.

I suppose the two definitions might be reconciled through argumentation; still, I'm thinking that the one offered by anonymous is somewhat oversimplified, collapsing any levels of nuance or context down to a matter of immediate gratification v. discomfort. This isn't to say the conversation can't go down that road; for instance, one might believe that a simple pinprick definitionally negates an eternity of guaranteed bliss. However, one can just as easily believe that the pain of a pinprick, while 'intrinsically bad' when considered in isolation, can still be folded back into the 'hedonistic good'- say, for instance, when it serves to move you out of the path of a runaway train. Perhaps the point can rightly be made here that I'm making concessions to reality thereby mitigating a purely hedonistic outlook. That's probably true. Then again, I've never found pinprick-type arguments very convincing, especially from an emotional angle. Hell, if that's all we had to worry about, I doubt I'd expend the efforts I do writing on this subject.

Now I'll touch on two or three other points, briefly, and wrap this up-

Also, as a minor point, consent (in my view) is of no intrinsic, moral value.

I'd argue that the issue of consent IS a moral value in the context of certain moral frameworks. Furthermore, IF consent is gleaned to be an essential part of an overall moral schema, that makes it intrinsic, doesn't it? And while the statement "If suffering did not exist, we would not require the consent of unborn children to create them" seems quite relevant, I'm not so sure it rises to the level of logical necessity. At least, I can imagine a reality where suffering doesn't exist, but the rule of consent might still apply.

If you claim to be a hedonist, then you have to accept that being unconscious is of neutral value, neither good or bad.

Unconsciousness- or substitute non-existence, if you will- is of neutral experiential value to the non-existent, granted. I suppose this is because the term 'value' always has a relational context, while 'non-existence' and the 'non-existent' are really one and the same thing. However, unconsciousness DOES have value relative to consciousness. Positive value, in the case of sleep breaks in-between torture sessions, for instance.

How does this relate to antinatalism? For the antinatalist who sees life as intrinsically bad simply because there is ANY suffering, even a pinprick, a neutral (non-existence) becomes a positive relative to life, in the same way that a zero stands closer to the positive set of numbers than a negative one (-1) on a number line. For this sort of antinatalist, it's a matter of extending sympathy borne out of simple self awareness towards those who might someday exist, but don't yet.

There's another sort of antinatalist who feels that while all lives are not necessarily, intrinsically bad, the risk of a bad life far outweighs the right to create new life, especially when there's no possible way of of procuring even uniformed consent from the 'giftee'.

I'm both kinds of antinatalist, by the way :)

...which is why I hope the bio-abolition of suffering becomes a reality. Why hasn't this possibility been mentioned by anti-natalists like Jim Crawford and David Benatar?

I actually address this in my book, and more than likely have touched on the subject somewhere in this blog, though the exact location escapes me at the moment. In a nutshell...

1. We don't know if such a possibility is a real possibility.

2. Even if accomplished, there are no guarantees of maintaining such an 'abolition of suffering'. Things might just as likely revert, or even get worse as technology advances.

3. In the meantime, the stepping stones to our imagined utopia are wrought of suffering, and laid in death. Procreate for the Future! A towering gravestone built in homage to a dream.

Anonymous- I realize you were addressing the O.P., but I thought I'd offer my own slant on things. Thanks for the thoughtful comment, and welcome! (if you're new...there are about a dozen anonymous's running around here). Welcome as well to any other newbies, and my gratitude to all participants of this blog, old and new. I'll be around.

Btw, for those concerned I indeed DO have a roof over my head, and it's not the roof of my '86 Mazda. Four walls, even! 'Nuff said.

It's Official!

2010-09-13T18:59:00.000-07:00

As of last week, I have officially joined the ranks of senior citizenry; or, is that citizenship? The pants are hiked up, better to show off my white penny loafers, the 'Ultimate Matlock DVD Collection' is on order, and I'm feeling damned cranky! *shakes fist at the sound of children playing outside my window* Although for some reason, Glen Beck still seems like an idiot to me...must be the fluoride in my Milk of Magnesia. Damned Commie bastards!

On a somewhat more serious note, my apologies for neglecting the blog of late. My head's wrapped around moving right now, but hopefully that'll be over in another 3 or 4 weeks, and maybe I'll be able to get my head together again and write something worthwhile. In the meantime, thanks to all the contributors here who've made my absence pretty fucking unnoticeable, I must say :) Good show to one and all.

Meanwhile, over at the Hoover Hog, Chip Smith has written something worth reading, and he's given his permission to print it here in full. The original has a lot of embedded links that I can't seem to transfer over here, so feel free to wander over there and click, click, click them at your leisure. I just wanted to have a copy over here for reference. Enjoy.

One Man's Exquisite Treasure

In considering the question, "who should exist," economist Robin Hanson perhaps intentionally avoids grappling with the articulated view that the answer could or should be, "no one," proposing instead a framework that Sister Y aptly characterizes as "something like R.M. Hare's Golden Rule, plus economic efficiency." Essentially, Hanson argues that a being should be brought into existence if it would want to exist and can pay for the ride.

When pressed to address the obvious objection that it would seem to be impossible to know with perfect confidence whether a specific being would or would not "want to exist" prior to being created, Hanson comes off as mildy put upon. "It seems odd that I have to specify this in such detail," he sighs in a related thread, "but ... [f]or some creatures we know with great confidence that if they existed, they would prefer to exist." Not surprisingly, he goes on to cite himself as an example of just such a creature. So just do the play math and rev up the clone machine already. Never mind that the objection hasn't been answered. Never mind that other questions remain. This little piggy prefers to exist, and there are more like him in the imaginary queue. What more need we know? People making isn't ethically problematic; it boils down to a recruitment quiz drafted on the fly. Antinatalism is probably just a form of signaling, anyway.

I'm late to the festivities as usual, but, obviously, I think Hanson's recipe is wildly overconfident. I think his discussion of an important question is uncharacteristically careless and flippant, and I think his use of moral language is tellingly selective and profoundly misplaced. I don't think he has thought seriously about the nature and resonance of suffering. I think he wrongly equates pre-vital nonexistence with some kind of qualitative or experientially deprived state and that he fails to consider the evolutionary basis for "a preference for existence" that nevertheless rests on force and entails nontrivial harm and risk. Finally, I am inclined toward the conclusion that Robin Hanson, a prodigiously intelligent and interesting thinker who I often read with admiration and polite envy, is being disingenuous about most of it. I'll try to explain.

By sleight of noun and verb, Hanson's preferential test can of course be asserted to justify subordinate existential states that would strike most people as undesirable or absurd. We may know with great confidence, for example, that if "some creatures" were introduced to heroin, they would prefer continued access to heroin. Can this toggle be invoked to support the claim that such people, identified in advance, should be introduced to heroin, "if they can pay for it"? I suppose Hanson might respond that, unlike being alive, being addicted to heroin is economically inefficient, that it entails countermanding negative externalities, or something. If that is true (and ceteris paribus, it might not be true at all), there would seem to be no shortage of contending preference-based asymmetries to supplant the 'if' and 'then' with similarly dubious implications. If some creatures were to light up, they would cultivate a preference for smoking and remain productive, perhaps even saving society some significant cost in end-of-life care. If some creatures were afflicted with heartbreak, they would nurse their limerance to produces beautiful poetry and music. If some creatures were chemically endowed with psychotic genius, they would guard their angst-inducing delusions while contributing to the advancement of knowledge. There must be countless subjective preferences that, once actualized, will ensure their own demand and buy their own ticket. Are we thus encouraged to create such preferences where they do not as yet exist? Is it OK, as Sister Y asks, to slip someone Ecstasy without their knowledge? Or, per Seanna Shiffrin, to drop gold bricks on impoverished villagers, improving their lot while breaking a few bones?

Or is there something special about the life-preference as such, even if the flowery scent is most probably an artifact of natural selection? And if life-lust is sui generis -- as it certainly is in when considered in the context of existential (rather than subordinate or post-vital) asymmetry -- should we be obligated to create miserable Golems? I don't think Hanson cares to explore such questions because doing so would tend to undermine the meta-ethical qualification that he assumes should be obvious. Creating preferences may be good or bad (regardless of efficiency) when those affected are already existent, but the idea that never-existent beings are benefited by being brought to life (or conversely that they suffer by not being brought to life) is mistaken. It is mistaken regardless of what degree of confidence may be assigned to the likelihood that they would want their existence once created. More on this later.

Though his position at the outset is presented in insistent terms of economic efficiency, Hanson's stance of disinterested positivism is belied at later turns when his tone assumes a curiously emphatic moral cast. Perhaps irritated by the incipient noise of antinatalist discourse (yes, I'm speculating), I think Hanson insinuates a sly subtext into his reasoning. More precisely, I think he means to turn the tables on those who don't cop to his unscratched pronatalist bias. If I'm right, the tell may be evident in his Hareian suggestion that potential procreators should be guided by a strong positive obligation toward those as yet nonexistent critters nested in the static of pre-flight zilch -- you know, the ones who presumably "want to exist" and can pay for it.

I think Hanson is being worse than coy when he writes:

If asked what gives you the right to prevent the existence of creatures who could fully pay for themselves, you might respond that you need no right, if you have power and a will to use it. Or perhaps you’ll say ethics assures you it is simply impossible to be unfair to creatures who don’t yet exist. But wearing my efficient economist hat, I cannot support such naked selfish aggression, even if I thought it would work. And knowing how hard is coordination, I have serious doubts re feasibility. If you can identify large negative externalities, I will help you to find ways to price them, to discourage the creation of creatures who cannot fully pay for themselves, and the theft of legacy assets. But if not, I prefer to help creatures who can pay for their existence obtain that exquisite treasure.

Emphasis mine. Notice how the deck is shifted with a wink. Notice how the clumsily situated econ-argot serves as misdirection. Rather than consider the agent-specific question of whether and why it should be just (or decent or right or moral) to create a new being out of lifeless chemistry, Hanson cursorily assumes away the arguments of antinatalist objectors, only to unfurl conspicuously judgmental language (what gives you the right ... naked selfish aggression) to place a burden of presumptive guilt on those who, for whatever pre-defined-as-bad reason, would fail to summon ostensibly life-craving beings into existence given sufficient (and, at present, impossible) epistemological vantage. It is in failing to create such new beings, or, more accurately, in actively preventing their existence, according to Hanson, that we commit "selfish aggression" by denying, what he, oblivious or not to his profound metaphysical arrogance, describes as "that exquisite treasure," which is to say -- aesthetically, I suppose -- life.

It's hard to know what to unravel first. One way to begin is by observing that the moral burden Hanson assigns to those who have the ability to create new life (under presently impossible conditions) carries bizarre implications and rests upon a concept of "aggression" that bears no relation to common usage of the term. Under his proposed injunction, every spare moment that is not devoted to creating utility-maximizing lives that are somehow (impossibly for now) predetermined to want their existence -- is a moment in which a potential procreator stands under shadow of suspicion for inflicting violence upon teeming nullities of untapped potential life-preference. Taken seriously, such a view would place every moral agent in an absurdly untenable position. Step away from the happy consciousness emulator for a bit of down time, and you reveal your "naked aggression" by denying those potential someones the "exquisite treasure" to which they are surely and emphatically entitled. There can be no rest for the existence-mixing barkeep, given such stakes. Original sin seems like a shoplifting offense by comparison.

Even if we permit that Hanson's moral rhetoric may be less than sincere (as it clearly is), his confidence in ascribing preference and future-resourcefulness to pre-existent beings in order to enjoin (rather than justify) their creation is questionable on his own terms. Leaving aside the first-order problem of epistemic uncertainty that I don't for a moment forgive, constancy of preference remains a big problem. If we allow that a pre-existent being's optimistically speculated potential to desire its own existence once created constitutes a valid reason to initiate that potential being's actual life, should we not be compelled to insure against events that could radically change this preference? I would argue that the problem of sustainable preference is relevant even and perhaps especially with reference to the far-flung futuristic scenarios that Hanson prefers to entertain. Check back a thousand years later when -- oops! -- a coding glitch in the latest consciousness simulator has led to a quantum holocaust. In a dynamic universe aswarm with unknown unknowns, stochastic variables are predictably inevitable and certain to thwart our best intentions from time to time. There might also be mischief, of course, and life-loving sadism to account for. And minds that change.

During a recent news cycle, we learned about the horrific fate of a lovelorn woman. Perhaps Dr. Jacquelyn Katorac, preferred existence at one time. It seems likely enough, really. Perhaps when she was a littel girl, or when she was in medical school lost in study, or when she first fell in love with the man who would later reject her affection -- perhaps at such times she was disposed to affirm her life in terms that would neatly satisfy professor Hanson's existential criteria. Perhaps she once regarded her life -- or all life -- as an "exquisite treasure." I don't think such conjecture is unreasonable. But if we submit, arguendo, that this woman -- by all accounts well situated to pay for her existence -- once and perhaps greatly preferred being to its alternative, as most of us do, we are in a position to consider what she would have been denied had she never been born, and to further consider this counterfactual against the terrifying reality that she actually experienced in the final days and hours of the precious life that she never asked for.

I wonder how and whether Dr. Katorac's preference shifted when, in a state of jealous desperation, she made what her unrequited lover would later characterize as "an unbelievable error in judgment" by trying to gain access to his home through an open chimney. Robin Hanson may not feel troubled to dwell over the acute panic and the white-hot shockwaves of implacable regret that this woman surely must have experienced as her body became wedged within the the hot and unyielding crampspace of a brick and mortar stack. He might not feel pressed to contemplate the agony that must have come in waves as her descent locked and her mind raced in shambolic retrospect over the choices (if they were even choices) that led her to such a position. Were Dr. Katorac's arms raised above her head when her progress down the chute was retarded by brute physics? Or where her arms locked at her side, or in some awful pretzled contortion? Which would you prefer? As time pressed on and the heat became unbearable, did she succumb to sleep in her wedged position only to awake in a renewed state of panic? Did her mind drift into some passive state, or was punishment constant unto her death? Did she hold out hope? Were there spiders in the chimney, as there usually are? Did she piss herself? Did she regress to cry out for the mommy who created her? Every quale and detail is fucking relevant. Because it happened in real physical space to a real living human being, who but for a chance meeting of gametes, would have been prevented and denied ... what?

It may be observed that Dr. Katorac is but one individual, and further that her suffering resulted from choices that she made freely, if under strange duress. I doubt the latter part is true, but cling to this if it helps. It hardly matters, because we know that her fate is and will be multiplied in the deaths and sufferings of countless others, most of whom, we may speculate with equal or greater confidence, were constitutionally endowed with an adaptive preference for life. I could more easily have chosen a clear-cut victim by example. Perhaps a raped and tortured child, as the textbooks prefer. There have always been more than a few. But I want to stay with the good doctor dying in the chimney. To appropriate a Hansonian term, her plight feels "near." And I sincerely wish, as she must have wished, that none of it had happened. It didn't have to. It never does.

As Hanson finds cause to fake outrage over the plight of the never-weres who may never be, he should take pause to consider, in good faith and with some imaginative effort, the profound horror that some certain quantity of once-life-affirming beings will absolutely endure no matter what degree of caution is exercised to ensure that they gratefully accept and embrace the "exquisite treasure" that he prefers to enthrone. If Dr. Katorac had never been brought into existence, the nearly inconceivable ordeal that marked her end would likewise not have been. That much, I submit, is simple. But to confront this existential counterfactual in particular (which we may do in countless other instances and iterations) is to confront the equation that Hanson and other overconfident pronatalists seem content to loosely rhetoricize without overmuch reflection. Hanson assures us that it is possible to be "unfair" to a nullity, indeed he is confident that we behave aggressively toward some whose existence we "prevent."

Can this be true? No, it cannot.

A nullity is not an entity. Those who are never born are deprived of nothing because they are nothing eternal. Hanson's glib assertion that we can aggress against those who would, if created, prefer existence is bullshit. Tested against reality, his words collapse into meaningless ether. Hanson fails to explain how or why those hypothetically posited would-be life-lovers are or could ever be deprived or harmed in any way by being left to the default infinity of stateless non-vitality to which they -- we -- will all return as a matter of course anyway. If some actual, experiential deprivation could be shown to manifest through the ostensibly negligent (or inefficient) inaction that denies a potential quantity of gristle-and-nerve the "exquisite treasure" of inhaling and exhaling and craving pizza, then Hanson might have some ground upon which to prop his Darwinian bias, perhaps by reference to a hedonic ledger that pits the banked suffering of uncorked souls against the benefits of a mostly rewarding and productive life that nevertheless may end up rotting in a chimney. Trouble is, souls are make-believe, and the ledger doesn't yield to whim. Where there is no person, there is no personal experience. Zip. Nada. Like the time before you were born, and after you die.

A world in which Dr. Katorac is never brought into existence a world in which she experiences nothing and is done no violence. The world in which she was brought into existence is the real world in which she actually experienced throes of agony that most of us are loath to imagine. While the actions that led to her creation, and perforce to her ordeal, may logically, if arguably, qualify as "aggressive," the inaction that creates no cluster of subjective experience cannot meaningfully be described as exacting any tangible harm or deprivation against a person who might otherwise have been. To argue otherwise is to relinquish reason to mysticism.

Robin Hanson is no mystic. Like all of us, he is more likely entranced by his own biased life narrative. His vacuous assertions cannot change the fact that nothing is nothing, and the imaginary harm that he posits will remain impotent and meaningless before the real and unpredictable pain that sentient beings will experience in the real and unpredictable world that he feels so blessed to perceive, thanks to a cosmically indifferent scheme of happenstance and blind natural selection. I want to hammer this much because it's one thing I know for sure. Where there is no being to be deprived, there is no deprivation, no harm, no aggression. No then or now. No tomorrow. No yesterday. Nothing ever. While the moral (and economic) relevance of beings who do not yet exist may be propositionally considered insofar as their creation is being contemplated, a nobody cannot lay claim to any preference or desire, and a nobody cannot be harmed by the denial of a preference that a somebody insists it would express if only it could.

The asymmetry looks back and yawns. The argument isn't going away.

No one should ever have children. There is no good reason to bring another being into existence. Life is not a treasure, exquisite or otherwise. It's just one damn thing after another, until it ends in death. If you're lucky, it won't hurt too much. If you're luckier still, it won't be at all.

Should Drug Addicts Be Sterilized?

2010-08-11T12:25:00.001-07:00

Philanthropic v Eco-Antinatalism

2010-08-11T12:12:00.000-07:00

I've been reading over Filrabat's delightful series on antinatalism this morning. It's quite a treat, both thoughtful and compelling. He has a section in there dealing with so-called ecological antinatalism, outlining the differences between that mode of reasoning and the one explicated by proponents of philanthropic antinatalism. He makes a lot of good points. I can't say I disagree with a one of them.

Having said that, I feel the need to emphasize that from the angle of practical application, philanthropic and eco-antinatalists are on exactly the same page i.e. the voluntary extinction of the human race through non-procreation. Though there's something to be said for philosophical purity, I also recognize that both sides are motivated by empathetic concerns. And even though I'll readily admit that eco-antinatalism is ultimately grounded in what I feel to be a romanticist's fallacy- as if nature somehow becomes divine when divorced from human nature- still, our differences fall outside the scope of our shared concern, which is that humans should stop breeding.

The only reason I bring this up is because I think it's important to recognize that folks coming from different pre-suppositional bases can be moved toward common goals. If someone in the New Age bookstore is persuaded to remain childless for the sake of 'Mother Gaea', I may be intellectually put off, but in the end a node of suffering goes unmanifested, and a life is saved. It would be the same if a fundamentalist Christian were talked out of having a child because of the risk of eternal damnation. Of course, I would love it if everybody saw things my way, and for the same reasons, but until that day when pure enlightenment rains down upon all of humanity, I'm willing to settle for what I can get :)

On the other hand, if you're one of those antinatalists motivated purely by misanthropy, you're one sick puppy, and I hereby revoke your membership! :O

Commenter Modern Man Said:

2010-08-11T11:10:00.000-07:00

I made the mistake of staring at a pregnant woman today; the resulting existential dread was unbearable.

During my approximately three mile commute to work, rarely a day goes by when I don't see at least a small handful of very young women pushing baby strollers. Ofttimes, these are double and triple deckers, with more in tow! My general reaction is one of nausea. In fact, I'm feeling a bit of that now just writing about it. I suppose this is the existential dread Modern Man is referring to. It's not only the knowing, but the understanding that these parents are utterly oblivious to the horrible futures some of these children will face.

I was out walking the dog late last night. Somewhere nearby a window was open, and I could hear the lyrics of a rap 'song' repeated ad nauseam-

I wanna make love to you.
I wanna make love to you.
I wanna make love to you...

Chanting along was the voice of what I imagined to be a girl somewhere in her mid-teens-

I wanna make love to you.
I wanna make love to you.
I wanna make love to you...

Over and over again, in an abstracted monotone reminiscent of a chantey sung by zombies during their evening repast of human fricassee (dem bones, dem bones, dem huuuuman bones). It gave me the shivers, because I knew she would indeed be making love, again and again and with different partners, most likely popping out babies like watermelon seeds. Naturally I'm generalizing, but in my neighborhood the odds are on my side. Procreation is commonly a mindless endeavor around these parts; outwardly discouraged at times, but tacitly supported in ten thousand ways by society at large. I have no hopes for directly reaching any of these people. My ideas are foreign and hostile, and will find no purchase in a lower working-class culture where almost all energies are invested in scraping out a living, with a little left over for cheap recreation ala baby making. It's discouraging.

I suppose antinatalism could rightly be termed 'elitist' in the derogatory sense of the word. Who am I to tell people what to do with their own bodies? In the final analysis, is this philosophy simply the other side of the authoritarian coin already occupied by the anti-abortion movement? I don't believe it is, but I can certainly appreciate the defensive posturing of those who are afraid I want to 'violate' their rights as citizens. And to be perfectly honest, I would violate those rights if I had a realistic opportunity of doing so. In my eyes, I'm saving lives, pure and simple. I guess that makes me an ideologue. Hopefully, not a blind one.

Of course, some cogent arguments from the other side might someday prove me wrong. I've yet to see any of those, though I'm still waiting.

A Voice Out of the Past

2010-08-08T22:00:00.000-07:00

Almost exactly a year ago, and after years of searching, I managed to find an old friend through Facebook. He moved into our house as a renter after my parents' divorce. He's actually mentioned briefly in my book. We lived recklessly together for a time, and/but eventually wound up living in the same religious cult for many years.

Funny, after finding him we didn't really communicate much after the initial contact. He sent me an email Christmas card to which I didn't reciprocate, and that was about it until a couple of days ago, when I got a message that started like this-

Thought I'd say hi. Your daughters are doing really well, congrats.:) I had a heart ablation procedure last weekend, so I'm indigent for sure now. I remember asking the doc to not let me wake up.

After relating some of my own recent trials and travails- including a rather nasty upcoming one, I'm afraid- he returned with this-

Life is definitely not kind as we would like. The Buddhists got it right, in NW timberland lingo, "Life's a shit sandwich and then you die." The Buddha called it suffering. Anyway, if you make it this way, there will always be a place for you in my home. Don't forget to occasionally use the public libraries to maintain online communication. An iPod touch for $150 will keep you connected with everyone; that's pretty important. Please keep in touch. Don't fade on us. :)

I may immediately file a bankruptcy when the bills have come in. Been there. Done it.

Love from your friend

It's hard to write beyond this point. How do I express the hatred I feel for an impulse that creates a person like this? This guy and I go way back, into our teens. We've suffered emotional and physical violence together, as well as inflicting it upon each other on occasion. We've loved, and lost, and lost again. I feel him falling away between my fingers, along with everything else; as I am falling away through others' fingers. Loss, loss, loss. It's the way of things.

Anyway, this and Shadow's thoughtful missive have me feeling a bit maudlin, and Seinfeld's almost on, so I guess that's it for tonight. I really need to write some poetry, but I don't seem to have it in me these days, if I ever did. Anyway, blessings to Rich, and to you all. See y'all on the flip side.

P.S. Don't be concerned about that 'nasty upcoming' part. I'm always overly dramatic when I'm feeling maudlin; comes with the territory :)

Back From the Dead

2010-08-01T21:10:00.000-07:00

Well, it was a rough week, but the worst is behind me for now. Thanks for all the well-wishing, folks. I'll try to get my mind back in the game in the next few days, and maybe post some stuff. Other than that, not much to say tonight. I appreciate those who've contributed in my absence. I also wanted to mention that both Shadow and Filrabat, regular contributors here, have started- or returned to, as the case may be- blogging on my favorite subject. Check 'em out.

I did happen to see an interesting episode of the Simpsons the other day. Is the creator of the Simpsons, Matt Groening, a closet antinatalist? It's doubtful, but I can't help but wonder.

Watch it here.

Ok, so the anti-children Springfieldians' motivations are less than philanthropic. At least they have some rationale behind their cause, where Marge's justification can be summed up by her final line of the episode-

Looks like everything's back the way it was, which is the only way it should ever be.

Notes...

2010-07-24T12:04:00.000-07:00

Well, I'm typing here this morning after having been up all night in excruciating pain (more to come, at least for the next few days), suffering through a bout of some mysterious intestinal disorder which flares up every year or so. It's resulted in several surgeries in times past, but no real answers. I've learned to live with it, and this particular attack is one of the milder ones i.e. I'm not crawling around on the floor and puking up black stuff. Ain't life grand?

Sorry I haven't posted much lately. Noodling my way through some difficulties, the details of which I won't bore you with. Also, I've recently joined a gym...trying to make sure I'm in really good shape when I die:) Anyway, my thoughts have been a bit scattered of late.

Fortunately, Sister Y over at TheViewFromHell, has taken up the gauntlet, and is more than adequately representing the subject we're all here for. It's been really nice to see her back, hasn't it?

Meanwhile, Chip Smith of The Hoover Hog fame is still ironing out his freethinking manifesto, which I'm sure we're all looking forward to reading.

Lastly, my book got a VERY nice review over at the Spanish Inquisitor, a very good atheist blog I've frequented for the last couple of years or so. Check it out, if you're so inclined.

Ok, I guess that's about it for now. Looks like I'll be chillin' for a couple of days, at least, so if any epiphanies fall out of the ceiling in the meantime, you'll all be the first to know. Until then, best wishes to one and all.

The Real Reason More Women are Childless

2010-07-12T20:07:00.000-07:00

Here. Interesting article and comments section.

Contributed by commenter Karl.

Our First Entry!

2010-07-07T14:02:00.000-07:00

And it's a goody, contributed by commenter and host of TheViewFromHell, Curator AKA Sister Y. The ball, as they say, is rolling.

UPDATE: I went ahead and started a new blog dedicated to an antinatalism pamphlet (link top left margin). Send your pdfs to the email listed there, and I'll post them. Thanks!

DOUBLE UPDATE: Compoverde has contributed a flyer as now, as well. You can view it at the aforementioned link. Totally awesome!

Flyer 1

Antinatalism Pamphlet

2010-07-07T10:08:00.000-07:00

Compoverde says:

On another topic. Would anyone be willing to work with me on ideas pamphlet advocating anitnatalism? This can be a nice summarization of the philosophy and why it would be beneficial to follow it.

Sort of an antinatalist Chick tract? I don't know whether or not we could integrate some kind of artwork, but with or without, this seems like a great idea. Does anybody know how to do this kind of thing? Something printable and easily put together? And done in a way that young people could relate to, preferably. Hell, I'd drop these things all OVER the fucking place!