Video Commentary

I found a couple places featuring my YouTube efforts here and here.

"Any film, even the worst, is better than real life."

Quentin Crisp

David Benatar Radio Interview

To listen, go here. All in all, a very fair interview, I thought. Near the end, the interviewer remarks on the surprising number of emails sympathetic to Benatar's position. This further supports my belief that the inherent logic of the argument strikes a chord with more people than one might imagine, given the sometimes vociferous reactions issuing from the pro-natalist camp. As with religion, I think there are lots of people who passively accept the culturally embedded notion that 'the species must endure', simply because they've never been exposed to a coherent expression of the alternative. But once they hear it, bells go off. Seems promising.

Thanks to Chip for the ref.

No Thanks, Axlotl Tanks

Over at TheViewFromHell, Curator has posted a story about an Italian woman, Eluana Englaro, who's been in a vegetative state for 17 years following a car accident. Her father would like to pull the plug, but after CONSULTING WITH THE VATICAN, the prime minister of that country has seen fit to disallow Eluana's right to die through removal of her artificial feeding apparatus. Here's some of the 'reasoning' behind his decision...

"Justifying his campaign to save Englaro's life, the prime minister added that, physically at least, she was "in the condition to have babies...".

Reading this got me to thinking about the technological side of the transhumanist movement, and about the fact that, while biotechnology seems to be advancing by leaps and bounds, the same can't necessarily be said regarding the moral state of the human animal, by whose hands this technology will be wielded. To tell you the truth, the idea that the state might one day have the ability to prolong my life indefinitely, and against my will, scares the bejesus out of me. And now there's this new little sci-fi twist to add to my nightmares.

I'm terribly afraid that at some point in the not-so-distant future, a window of opportunity is going to close on humankind's chances for extinction; barring, of course, some cataclysmic event, like a comet slamming into the earth. Or a much better scenario- some kind of viral or other sort of natural intercession that renders men and/or women sterile. Or, each of us can simply choose not to play the game of dystopian risk with our progeny. And if all of us did THAT, then there'd be nothing to worry about at all, now would there?

Backtracking

This post is mostly meant as a bookmark for myself as I seek to fine-tune my understanding and expression of the fundamental Benatar asymmetry. Good reading, though.

Interlude

The reasons I love life are the reasons I hate it. The lies within the truths within the Lie.

link

It may be true that a picture speaks a thousand words; and a song, perhaps, even more. But consider all the other words that get left out.

Per 'This Conversation'

First this disclaimer, aimed at those in the mental health establishment who think they know better than me what to do with MY life:

I, James Crawford, have not experienced suicidal ideation in several years, nor have I EVER attempted suicide either by active or passive means (Christ, look what we've come to!).

Now to the post proper:

I just wandered downstairs a few minutes ago, and on my way outside to have a smoke (yes, I know...coffin nails), I happened to catch a few minutes of the new episode of 'House' (apologies to fans of the show, but I find the protagonist a trifle too glib). It seems the patient of the week made a suicide attempt, and there followed a conversation between two of the doctors about the 'morality' of the attempt. Doctor #1 seemed somewhat sympathetic, while doctor #2 saw fit to chastise the man for what he perceived to be an act of selfishness.

"The guy had no right! What about his wife and kids?" (paraphrase)

Now, here's my question- what's the difference between this attitude, and the following situational statement?

"We're holding you hostage until you pay up; however, we'll try to make your stay as comfortable as we can."

Treatment and Autonomy

Though it’s not the subject of this blog, certainly the philosophies of antinatalism and legalized suicide share SOME common ground, intersecting at the point of human suffering. Sister Y has posted an article over at The View From Hell; and her thoughts on personality vis-a-vis decision making, along with some others in the corresponding comments section, have me thinking about practical answers to the dilemma as outlined in her post. Here’s my solution:

First of all, we set up regional, user friendly suicide centers ala ‘Soylent Green’, to which any potential self-terminator can freely apply. The only requirements are that the applicant must endure a pre-established waiting period. I suggest 6 months to a year. During this time, the subject will be required to undergo ‘counseling’...but NOT the kind established merely to be a coercive obstacle. I’m thinking more along the lines of a ‘friendly ear’, with no mind towards thwarting the subject’s ostensible wishes. This method offers the subject a chance to talk everything out with no fear of moral judgment or sanctions, with the ‘counselor’ serving the function of soundingboard. I’ve found that sometimes the best way for sorting out feelings is to hear yourself talking about them. Of course, during these interviews concerns can be expressed, and alternative solutions offered, INCLUDING the medicinal sort...but all done with the understanding that the final decisions are left WHOLLY up to the subject, thus retaining the sense of the individual’s autonomy. It seems to me that such a pressure-free environment can itself offer a mode of healing and clarity, if indeed there are resolvable issues on the side of life.

If at the end of the waiting period the applicant is still resolved to suicide, so be it. They’re assisted in tidying up their affairs (IF they request assistance), delivered to the local euthanasia center, where they receive a nice last meal in a comfortable, non-threatening atmosphere, then led into a room filled with their favorite art, or music, or whatever they request within reason, and are administered an overdose of barbiturates. Fini.

Of course, if at any time during the waiting period the subject opts out of the plan, they are released from any further obligations, and allowed to go on their way. Later on down the road if they again choose to end their lives, the process starts over from scratch. All in all, this is the most humane solution I can think of. It addresses the concerns of those who fear hasty decisions made under the influence of temporary emotional duress, or anomalous farts in the brain chemistry, or what have you, while still maintaining a bottom line personal autonomy.

So, any flaws in my thinking here?