Venting no rational being would put themselves into this situation

[Darkover]

why would i put my self in a dilemma where i am faced with meeting my own demise or having to figure out how to get free from such a life in the first place
why would i choose to be in a position where i am forced to work or starve where everything i do will be lost when i die
no rational being would put themselves inside a machine that destined for nothing
why would i want to play a game that's rigged from the start some start with no resources while another's start with many resources i.e money,land,houses
why would i come alive enslaved in awful shit to a shit hole and hellhole
why would i want to live in a world where it's a slaughterhouse for most living things cause one day your here the next gone
why would i come alive where my only goal is to survive but the only guarantee is that i die
why would i come alive where you have to make your own way in the world enslaved in awful shit

 

[derpyderpins]

It's perfectly fine for you to believe everything there except that no one can be "rational" and disagree. There are plenty of people who would choose existence and they aren't all "irrational." They evaluate their existence differently than you do. They willingly deal with others and aren't forced into it, thus they are not slaves. They have no desire to end their lives because they perceive there to be value in continuing to live. They don't see the world as "awful shit to a shit hole and hellhole." They don't think they need to "win" the game and are content just trying to improve their standing from when they start to when they finish.

They aren't objectively wrong and they aren't ignoring rationality. That doesn't mean you are wrong, either.

 

[lyfsoverrated]

its irrational that there isn't an acceptance by the majority for our decision to end life.

 

[Darkover]

There are plenty of people who would choose existence and they aren't all "irrational."

i am looking on it from a pure logical point of view choosing to come alive inside a death trap is not a rational decision

 

[derpyderpins]

i am looking on it from a pure logical point of view choosing to come alive inside a death trap is not a rational decision

Lol and you calling it a death trap is not helping your bid to be considered the rational and logical one. Life is far more complex.

 

[Forever Sleep]

That's what puzzles me about people who believe we did actually choose to come here. That we chose to be born into these particular lives.

I come to the conclusion that either A) We were lied to about this place. B) That there is a far greater plan at work. That our lives are in some way courses to learn certain things. To what end though- I can't fathom. Again- why would it even be worth it? You need to learn about bereavement, abuse, suffering- WHY??? Or C) We don't choose to come here. There's nothing mystical at work. Our sense of self simply arises from the way the brain works.

I actually feel like C) is most likely. A) or B) seem to rely on predestiny. If there really is some greater plan at work that we were either tricked into participating in or, we willingly chose to- then presumably, whoever is controlling all this shit knows what we're about to go through and has some reason for putting us through it. I can't for the life of me fathom what that could be though.

Of course, all we do know for sure is that our parents thought it would be a good idea to bring us here. Having antinatilist views myself, I can't really see that as a well thought out, logical choice. I sort of suspect it isn't a lot of the time though. I think it's an innate need for a lot of people. Plus, to be fair, I think a lot do it with the best of intentions.

 

[Darkover]

I think it's an innate need for a lot of people.

if it wasn't for sexual desire the species would die out, if getting pregnant was a choice made by two people instead of it being down to random chance then i imagine there wouldn't be enough babies to keep the population in equilibrium

 

[Forever Sleep]

if it wasn't for sexual desire the species would die out, if getting pregnant was a choice made by two people instead of it being down to random chance then i imagine there wouldn't be enough babies to keep the population in equilibrium

I don't know. Some people I've known, especially women really wanted children. Including my own Mum. Some of my friends were so desperate to have children, they put themselves through IVF. Can't say I fully understand it myself. I occassionally get maternal but, not that often and my most maternal, protective instinct is to leave my unborn children where they are. I expect it's different when you're in love or, think you're in love though. I think that screws with any kind of logic.

 

[AbusedInnocent]

Lol and you calling it a death trap is not helping your bid to be considered the rational and logical one. Life is far more complex.

I think it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt that coming into existence is always a harm, nobody has even dared to try to prove that life is something positive.

It's a fairly simple problem and a very important one, I would say living your whole life not taking the time to figure out whether or not it's worth living is quite irrational.

 

[derpyderpins]

I think it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt that coming into existence is always a harm, nobody has even dared to try to prove that life is something positive.

Most people are happy and satisfied with being alive: https://ourworldindata.org/happiness-and-life-satisfaction

Therefore not only is coming to existence not always a harm, it usually isn't by the best measurable metric one can present.

It's a fairly simple problem and a very important one, I would say living your whole life not taking the time to figure out whether or not it's worth living is quite irrational.

I think everyone should regularly question whether their own life is worth it to them. I'm only saying that they could come to either conclusion without being irrational.

 

[Shar]

It's perfectly fine for you to believe everything there except that no one can be "rational" and disagree. There are plenty of people who would choose existence and they aren't all "irrational." They evaluate their existence differently than you do. They willingly deal with others and aren't forced into it, thus they are not slaves. They have no desire to end their lives because they perceive there to be value in continuing to live. They don't see the world as "awful shit to a shit hole and hellhole." They don't think they need to "win" the game and are content just trying to improve their standing from when they start to when they finish.

They aren't objectively wrong and they aren't ignoring rationality. That doesn't mean you are wrong, either.

they aren't rational, just emotional.

 

[derpyderpins]

they aren't rational, just emotional.

Argument? Support? There are people who have come to this place and then recovered and left. Were they rational when here but when they found meaning in life became irrational, or were they always irrational?

Considering most people are happy it seems like an equally valid argument to say we suicidal are the emotional rather than rational ones, although I don't think that's true because I think you can rationally consider life and come to either conclusion.

 

[4everHeartBroken]

why would i put my self in a dilemma where i am faced with meeting my own demise or having to figure out how to get free from such a life in the first place
why would i choose to be in a position where i am forced to work or starve where everything i do will be lost when i die
no rational being would put themselves inside a machine that destined for nothing
why would i want to play a game that's rigged from the start some start with no resources while another's start with many resources i.e money,land,houses
why would i come alive enslaved in awful shit to a shit hole and hellhole
why would i want to live in a world where it's a slaughterhouse for most living things cause one day your here the next gone
why would i come alive where my only goal is to survive but the only guarantee is that i die
why would i come alive where you have to make your own way in the world enslaved in awful shit

Whoa! Interesting post here! Very genuine and very REAL questions you're asking. Looking forward to seeing your responses! Thanks for posting this!

 

[Hotsackage]

Need to work together on this, but we are so consumed by capitalism and religion doesn't address who have been screwed over by biology, are intelligent humans, some of it does, but I can see why some here wouldn't want to be here in the first place.

 

[Shar]

Argument? Support? There are people who have come to this place and then recovered and left. Were they rational when here but when they found meaning in life became irrational, or were they always irrational?

Considering most people are happy it seems like an equally valid argument to say we suicidal are the emotional rather than rational ones, although I don't think that's true because I think you can rationally consider life and come to either conclusion.

It doesn't matter if most people are happy or not. Those who do not exist do not need happiness, nor will they suffer. So objectively, living is bad. You have nothing to gain by being alive. Except now you will have to work to achieve happiness that was never needed in those billions of years t you didn't exist. For what? so that in the end you die anyway, lose everything and return to where you came from. What an incredible thing they call life, right?
Isnt that fucking joke, doesnt that makes you laugh? because it makes me, life is a bad joke

People choose to live based on emotions, not logic. They are afraid of dying or because they don't want to miss the pleasures of eating pizza. There is nothing rational about that.

 

[derpyderpins]

It doesn't matter if most people are happy or not. Those who do not exist do not need happiness, nor will they suffer.

okay, I'm with you: nonexistence is neutral, nothing, the number 0

So objectively, living is bad.

... lost me

You have nothing to gain by being alive.

This is why it does matter that most people are happy. That is what they gain.

Except now you will have to work to achieve happiness that was never needed in those billions of years t you didn't exist. For what?

The experience of life, which many many people find to be a worthwhile exchange.

so that in the end you die anyway, lose everything and return to where you came from. What an incredible thing they call life, right?
Isnt that fucking joke, don't makes you laugh? because it makes me, life is a bad joke

People choose to live based on emotions, not logic. They are afraid of dying or because they don't want to miss the pleasures of eating pizza. There is nothing rational about that.

Are you saying there is nothing rational about "I like thing, therefore I will try to experience thing more"? I think this board needs to understand what "rational" means, because that is, objectively, a logical line of thinking. "I like thing, therefore I chose to experience thing" IS logic. It may not be logic you like, because you don't like thing, or you don't think liking something has value, but it is a logical thought process.

"I am currently alive. This comes with good feelings and bad feelings. I could kill myself, then there would be no good and no bad. I will weigh the good against the bad. . . I am done weighing the good against the bad and have decided I will continue living because I enjoy the good more than I dislike the bad." That is rational thinking. That is logic. By definition.

 

[Shar]

okay, I'm with you: nonexistence is neutral, nothing, the number 0


... lost me


This is why it does matter that most people are happy. That is what they gain.


The experience of life, which many many people find to be a worthwhile exchange.


Are you saying there is nothing rational about "I like thing, therefore I will try to experience thing more"? I think this board needs to understand what "rational" means, because that is, objectively, a logical line of thinking. "I like thing, therefore I chose to experience thing" IS logic. It may not be logic you like, because you don't like thing, but it is a logical thought process.

"I am currently alive. This comes with good feelings and bad feelings. I could kill myself, then there would be no good and no bad. I will weigh the good against the bad. . . I am done weighing the good against the bad and have decided I will continue living because I enjoy the good more than I dislike the bad." That is rational thinking. That is logic. By definition.

1- non-existence is not neutral, there is simply no value.

2- again, everything you said about experience or them being happy is irrelevant. By not being alive you wouldnt miss any of the pleasures you mention, making them all irrelevant. But you literally ignored it and are pretending like you have a point, you know that right?


3 - Not when the effort to get this thing brings you suffering and you could avoid the need to have this thing completely.

 

[derpyderpins]

1- non-existence is not neutral, there is simply no value.

Seems greatly like a distinction without a difference.

2- again, everything you said about experience or them being happy is irrelevant. By not being alive you wouldnt miss any of the pleasures you mention, making them all irrelevant. But you literally ignored it and are pretending like you have a point, you know that right?

I understand what you're saying, and I'm not ignoring it. I greatly dissagree that potential happiness is irrelevant.

Option 1: Never live. 0 happiness. 0 suffering. As I said, neutral, or "simply no value" in whatever way that makes a difference.

Option 2: Live. Happiness and suffering.

Option 2(a): More happiness than suffering.

Option 2(b): More suffering than happiness.

Never living does not mean the other options do not exist. The question posed is if someone would choose life. They could very well prefer to take their chances with option 2.

You wouldn't apply your logic anywhere else. "Hey, want to go get ice cream?" "The ice cream could taste good or bad, so I'd prefer to not go, therefore any potential good taste is irrelevant." "Suit yourself, I'm going to go take my chances with the ice cream." "IRRATIONAL". I'm not ignoring your argument, I just don't think it's good.

3 - Not when the effort to get this thing brings you suffering and you could avoid the need to have this thing completely.

lol now you are ignoring what I am saying. See above. They are using logic to reach their decision and you are using different logic. Both are rational.

 

[Shar]

Seems greatly like a distinction without a difference.


I understand what you're saying, and I'm not ignoring it. I greatly dissagree that potential happiness is irrelevant.

Option 1: Never live. 0 happiness. 0 suffering. As I said, neutral, or "simply no value" in whatever way that makes a difference.

Option 2: Live. Happiness and suffering.

Option 2(a): More happiness than suffering.

Option 2(b): More suffering than happiness.

Never living does not mean the other options do not exist. The question posed is if someone would choose life. They could very well prefer to take their chances with option 2.

You wouldn't apply your logic anywhere else. "Hey, want to go get ice cream?" "The ice cream could taste good or bad, so I'd prefer to not go, therefore any potential good taste is irrelevant." "Suit yourself, I'm going to go take my chances with the ice cream." "IRRATIONAL". I'm not ignoring your argument, I just don't think it's good.


lol now you are ignoring what I am saying. See above. They are using logic to reach their decision and you are using different logic. Both are rational.

it does matter, neutral state can only be experienced by those who exist. I guess because you can't differentiate between both, you're making mistakes. The example of ice cream, being one of them. You only choose ice cream because you have a prior need for pleasure, in other words, some value. Assuming you are in a neutral state (0), adding +1 would be beneficial, but irrelevant for someone who has no value (does not exist).

However, if you are in a neutral state, you may get -1 with this choice, as the ice cream may taste bad and make you shit your pants later. Assuming that I can avoid the negative variable as whole and make the positive variable redundant, there is no rational reason for me to choose to continue participating in this numerical sequence.

Therefore, all options 2 are irrational. I mean, irrational would be the worst choice, I'm not going to play semantics here. For every decision in the world there is a logic behind it, it doesn't change that it could be a bad one, that causes you more suffering.

 

[derpyderpins]

it does matter, neutral state can only be experienced by those who exist. I guess because you can't differentiate between both, you're making mistakes.

I understand and I am differentiating. I completely get it. No existence = I don't want anything = I'm not missing out because I don't want/can't feel. It's not complicated and not confusing me.

It simply doesn't rebut the fact that good also exists and can be worth pursuing, no matter how much you repeat it. Someone blissfully unaware of a possibility is still missing out on that possibility. Things can be better, and people may prefer to pursue the better. They can completely understand what you are saying about not being able to miss out if you aren't alive and still rationally choose to take the experience of life with its good and bad.

However, if you are in a neutral state, you may get -1 with this choice, as the ice cream may taste bad and make you shit your pants later. Assuming that I can avoid the negative variable as whole and make the positive variable redundant, there is no rational reason for me to choose to continue participating in this numerical sequence.

Until you calculate with odds and chances. If it's a 90% chance of +1 and a 10% chance of -1 it's a winning bet and you are arguably using faultier logic by avoiding it. This is why happiness/ satisfaction statistics matter to this discussion.

Therefore, all options 2 are irrational. I mean, irrational would be the worst choice, I'm not going to play semantics here. For every decision in the world there is a logic behind it, it doesn't change that it could be a bad one, that causes you more suffering.

It could be a good one that gives you more pleasure. Most of the time, it is.

You can logically take your conservative, no risk no gain approach. Someone can logically take the risk understanding they are more likely to have a gain from it.

 

[AbusedInnocent]

Most people are happy and satisfied with being alive: https://ourworldindata.org/happiness-and-life-satisfaction

Therefore not only is coming to existence not always a harm, it usually isn't by the best measurable metric one can present.


I think everyone should regularly question whether their own life is worth it to them. I'm only saying that they could come to either conclusion without being irrational.

Your best measurable metric is subjective personal assessment which is prone to cognitive biases and is shaped by one's prior beliefs?

I think a have a stronger argument, I'll be making a post going into detail about why I think antinatalism is logical, would like to hear your thoughts so maybe check the politics&philosophy section for my post in 2 days or so.

 

[davidtorez]

Who here would take a week's worth of the best times life could offer , vacations, money , great food , great company etc for a week of the most hellish torture , cancer pains, getting whipped bashed etc?