[Article] All of suffering and problems begin with sentience itself! (v2)

[TAW122]

Perhaps I have written a similar article before, but recently, I had a realization when looking at humanity, sentient beings, and even looking at the geological or universe itself, at least at the macro level. Basically, all the problems and challenges that one faces all stem from sentience (life) itself, as with living things. At the macro level (referring to millions or even billions of years of sentience, even before humans existed), all the sentience is just suffering and such, after the big bang and start of the universe. Then again, the universe is non-sentient and was just 'there', but I digress a bit.

Even all the pleasure and fleeting joy that one experiences in life can be traced back to sentience. The pleasure and fleeting joy is insignificant from the lens of those who don't exist (or never will exist). Of course, as people who are non-introspective or did not have enough self-awareness to recognize it, are stuck in a loop of pleasure and copes without enough awareness to think beyond the surface level.

Here is a video by Bill Wurtz on YouTube and I will explain my perspective and how I interpret it, versus how normal people (mainstream people, normies, and people outside of SaSu, basically non-nihilists) interpret things.



How TAW122 interprets it
As someone who is an antinatalist and nihilist, I can see that we (humans) are just temporary sentient beings, albeit with much more capability than other species, but that all our suffering, problems, and issues all being with sentience. Of course, while the video explains the start of the world, and I can acknowledge that, I see it and interpret it as the start of all the problems that we face as sentient beings. Basically, if there was no us to being with, there would be no suffering for us (perhaps other species as well, like the ones that existed before humans or even possibly ones that exist after humanity's end of reign).

How normies (mainstream masses) interpret it
Of course, normies in general do not share antinatalist views nor nihilistic views of the world and just accept that they are born, they experience 'sentience' itself (pain, pleasure, suffering, and all arrays of emotions). In fact, furthermore, they don't even question the "why" they exist and are merely just purposefully distracting themselves with ignorance and bliss for the most part. Additionally, they view the video as something that is magnificent and some sort of 'miracle' or rare opportunity to exist as sentience is like winning the lottery for them (which it isn't!). This is also one factor (perhaps a major one even) towards why pro-lifers assign the inherent value of life and refuse anything that could put that worldview in doubt or be contested.

The main differences between TAW122 (me, as well as a fair bit of SaSu members, nihilists, and antinatalists) see and interpret things is that sentience is something that was imposed unto the individual without the individual's say and not some miracle or virtue or value. However, most normies and masses don't have that mindset, therefore, they just view existence as something that is amazing as that is the only thing they knew when sentience arrived for them. In other words, they never looked or questioned existence (at least the majority of them) and even if they did, they often reject anything that could challenge or contradict their worldview and indoctrination (upbringing). Thus, they even view this 'limited' time being sentient as being the most valuable thing, even if they know that existence is a temporary state in the eyes of the universe, over astronomical swathes of time (over 13 billion years old). Sadly, this isn't just limited to theists, but also atheists and secular folk as well.

As someone who is more nihilistic and fatalistic about sentience, I could see that sentience itself is a net negative that has more costs and burdens than that of gains (some victories in an overwhelmingly long and arduous torture state (being alive and suffering) with potential for extreme torture – be it diseases, infirmity, natural disasters, other fellow human beings' actions). This is also why I take the position and stance of that of an antinatalist, as I believe that bringing in non-sentience to sentience is a net negative and unethical as the non-sentient being never consented to being sentient. As an additional point: If there was no start, there could be no end. If there was nothing, then there could be no victory nor loss. Nothingness is neither a negative nor a positive, but a neutral state.

Sure, some people (including myself) have enough self-realization/awareness to recognize that we are trapped in sentience until we decide to take our fate (decision to continue sentience or CTB) in our own hands. However, most normies and the mainstream masses do not recognize (or even purposefully reject) the bigger picture of sentience itself. To them, just existing is a state that they are and don't think anymore deeply beyond that.

In conclusion, this article explains the thoughts and points that shaped my worldview and how I view 'sentience' itself. In addition to that, it also explains why sentience itself is more of a net negative than a net positive from an objective, realistic point of view. While there are fleeting moments and periods of joy, most people tend to focus on those while ignoring the vast majority of times where mundanity is present and even at worst, great suffering that happens at the worst times of one's sentience. Somehow they justify it by it being just part and parcel of the 'human experience', but I digress.

 

[CTB Dream]

ya sntnt v prblm make pain sffr no sntnt no exp

 

[Forever Sleep]

I tend to lean in this direction also. The only problem being that those humans most likely to reproduce likely don't see it this way at all! Even if their lives are objectively terrible, they may still see life as something worthwhile passing on.

I also don't think people who do think like that are necessarily delusional. They've just experienced life very differently to the way we have.

The disadvantage I think suicidal people have is that a lot is blamed on mental illness or mental abnormality. In some ways it's worse that so many people who think like this likely have been diagnosed with something or other.

So- I think pro-lifers will always have the upper hand in being able to say- 'Yes but, your thinking is negatively skewed. Your perception of life isn't accurate so- neither are your conclusions about it.'

I guess that could be counter argued with- 'Ok, but none of this would even be necessary if I wasn't alive or, wasn't sentient.' Still- they may carry on insisting that you're simply 'broken' but can be 'fixed' to live a joyful or at least a reasonable life you would be grateful for. (Not that I believe that in all cases.)

I think that's a major stumbling block. We need them to register that not all people can be 'cured'. Not everyone does get that happy ending- no matter how much people try to help them.

Then, I guess it's the whole: Is any amount of suffering acceptable? That's complicated to some extent. Some people do suffer a great deal but still insist they enjoy life. I suppose the pro-lifers like to believe that meds will do that for us also. We'll suffer but be numb enough to tolerate it!

I'm not sure that it is fair to expose a sentient being to suffering though. Even if they experience joy as well. Especially not without its permission and especially seeing as, once it's been conscripted into this pain fest, it doesn't realistically have the open option to opt out.

Yes, we can suicide but that brings with it even more pain most likely! Huge emotional turmoil as we wrestle with the guilt trip of hurting our loved ones. Methods that can be brutal and unreliable and possibly maim rather than kill. It's certainly not a fuss- free option for us. So- it's effectively forcing us into an experiment where there are risks right up to the end.

Of course, the problem is, the pro-lifers have presumably accepted their own pain and burdens in life. It was 'character building' or, whatever (bullshit) they choose to sugar coat it with. Maybe it was for them though. Maybe they came through the other end happier. Doesn't mean everyone will though...

Weird isn't it? It's almost like a regression back to nature. We all know nature can be massively cruel but it's like- mweh- that's nature. You'd think- with our level of self awareness and empathy that we'd have figured out- the natural world is cruel, as is the human one. Maybe it might be kinder to spare another sentient entity from the dangers in both. But then, we must be guided mainly by our loins I suppose.

Perhaps it is unfair or irresponsible for parents not to consider all the possible permutations of bringing life here. But there again, maybe they did consider these things. Maybe they had plans in place in case their child became ill or had emotional problems or, was bullied.

I think the other problem is that maybe love blinds us. I've heard people say pretty much that they'll face any problem with love as a family and, it will all work out. I guess everything just goes rose tinted in a way. Not sure but I reckon our hormones can wreak havoc over sense.