Discussion On consent to be born

[DreamEnd]

I don't really understand people who say they didn't consent to being born. I mean I have said so myself a few times here but once I really got to it it just doesn't make sense to me.

Most people here believe in nothingness. Assuming you are nothing, how can you consent or refuse consent? You aren't alive to make the choice nor are you hypothetically present in the afterlife to make that choice. You have to be alive or have some sort of decision making capabilities to be able to claim that you didn't consent to it or you were forced to be born against your consent.

And if you were nothingness how can one claim that it was actually better to be nothing? I mean nobody remembers what they did when they were one years old, how would one remember what nothingness felt like? Some people say it's like sleeping without dreams but when you sleep your brain is still working. No one can really say what nothingness is because they would have to be completely dead, unresponsive for that. And worse, they would have to come back from the dead and tell us that it was actually better to be there.


Now if you don't believe in nothingness and are religious then it's a different story. Some claim we plan our lives. Some claim we sign a hypothetical soul contract. So if you do think that there is an afterlife then it's likely that you did agree to be born. But neither theories can be proven at all.

I just don't get it. I can kind of assume that it's better to be nothing because the existence of suffering in life is perhaps worse but in order to confirm this assumption I would have to truly know that it was in fact better to be nothing. I'm lost.

 

[thewalkingdread]

Seana Shiffrin, a professor of philosophy at the University of California, Los Angeles, and a proponent of the consent argument, has responded to the first objection, which we can call the hypothetical consent objection to antinatalism. She has stated that:


four factors make the appeal to hypothetical consent problematic: (1) the fact that great harm is not at stake if no action is taken; (2) but if action is taken, the harms suffered may be very severe; (3) the imposed condition cannot be escaped without high costs; and (4) the hypothetical consent procedure is not based on features of the individual who will bear the imposed condition.


For clarification, the third factor relates to the fact that one can only voluntarily escape the harms of existence through suicide, an act that often carries significant physical, emotional, and moral costs. The fourth factor refers to how generic hypothetical consent doesn't take into account an individual's "attitudes toward risks and the relationship between harms and benefits" (Shiffrin, 1999). Perhaps most individuals would hypothetically consent to the risks of life, but not all would.

Antinatalism and the Consent Argument

Antinatalism is the view that it is morally wrong to bring new people into existence (although a more universal sense of antinatalism includes all sentient beings, not just humans). The common arguments used to defend antinatalism include the position that existence is an overall harm, negative...

www.samwoolfe.com

 

[Forever Sleep]

My feeling is that it isn't just that we don't give our consent to come here- like you say- we can't.

It's more that other sentient beings (our parents) make the decision for us- knowing what kind of world it is we will be coming in to. Knowing the risks. Knowing 100% certain things will happen- we will witness them dieing and/or, we will die ourselves.

Put it this way. You are faced with the decision on whether to create real AI. You have the knowledge and ability to do it. But- you also know there is a possibility it will suffer. In fact- you know it will be able to experience emotions and pain. It will mourn your death when you die and eventually- it will die too. Let's say in this example- death is unavoidable. You will be its God. It will have questions you won't be able to answer. It may have an existential crisis. It may even hate you for bringing it to life. Do you do it? Because you can? Because it might actually love life? Is it fair to create a sentient being because you can and because you hope it will have a good life when there's also a reasonable probability that it won't?

If we all just appeared magically- the consent argument wouldn't be so valid- we'd struggle to know who to 'blame'. I guess we could still blame God- if we believed in one.

But how I see it is- we're brought into a world that we will be expected to contribute to. Most people have to earn money to live. I doubt many parents have children with the idea that they will provide for them their entire life. So- expectations are placed on us as soon as we are able to start being useful. Plus, there isn't the freedom to leave (easily anyway) when we have come here. We are expected to comply to the rules.

So- I think that's where the anger/ frustration lies. It's mainly targetted at our parents a lot of the time- 'Why did you bring us into this? Knowing how bad things can get- did you not consider that might happen to us? Now that you see our experience though- why won't you let us go? This was your choice- not ours and now, you'd rather us didn't have the choice to go.' I think it's that that people see as unfair. It's slavery ultimately. Most of us are wage slaves to capitalism. Our choices aren't exactly that plentiful- comply to capitalism/consumerism or go destitute or be able to prove that you are so ill that you can't work- in which case, I doubt those poor sods will be grateful they were brought here either.

So- it isn't quite so much that we didn't consent to come here. It's that it's made extremely hard for us to leave by the very people who brought us here.

It's quite a peculuar state of affairs really. You're allowed to quit a job you detest and you actually consented to do that job initially but (ideally,) they (pro-lifers and especially parents I imagine) don't want us to be able to quit our lives- even though we never agreed to take them on to begin with! I suppose because they've accepted that they must live (although, they may have never experienced ideation) so, they believe that we should too.

 

[DreamEnd]

Seana Shiffrin, a professor of philosophy at the University of California, Los Angeles, and a proponent of the consent argument, has responded to the first objection, which we can call the hypothetical consent objection to antinatalism. She has stated that:


four factors make the appeal to hypothetical consent problematic: (1) the fact that great harm is not at stake if no action is taken; (2) but if action is taken, the harms suffered may be very severe; (3) the imposed condition cannot be escaped without high costs; and (4) the hypothetical consent procedure is not based on features of the individual who will bear the imposed condition.


For clarification, the third factor relates to the fact that one can only voluntarily escape the harms of existence through suicide, an act that often carries significant physical, emotional, and moral costs. The fourth factor refers to how generic hypothetical consent doesn't take into account an individual's "attitudes toward risks and the relationship between harms and benefits" (Shiffrin, 1999). Perhaps most individuals would hypothetically consent to the risks of life, but not all would.

Antinatalism and the Consent Argument

Antinatalism is the view that it is morally wrong to bring new people into existence (although a more universal sense of antinatalism includes all sentient beings, not just humans). The common arguments used to defend antinatalism include the position that existence is an overall harm, negative...

www.samwoolfe.com

Idk to me antinatalism just seems wrong even though what the professor is saying makes a lot of sense. I'm probably biased here

My feeling is that it isn't just that we don't give our consent to come here- like you say- we can't.

It's more that other sentient beings (our parents) make the decision for us- knowing what kind of world it is we will be coming in to. Knowing the risks. Knowing 100% certain things will happen- we will witness them dieing and/or, we will die ourselves.

Put it this way. You are faced with the decision on whether to create real AI. You have the knowledge and ability to do it. But- you also know there is a possibility it will suffer. In fact- you know it will be able to experience emotions and pain. It will mourn your death when you die and eventually- it will die too. Let's say in this example- death is unavoidable. You will be its God. It will have questions you won't be able to answer. It may have an existential crisis. It may even hate you for bringing it to life. Do you do it? Because you can? Because it might actually love life? Is it fair to create a sentient being because you can and because you hope it will have a good life when there's also a reasonable probability that it won't?

If we all just appeared magically- the consent argument wouldn't be so valid- we'd struggle to know who to 'blame'. I guess we could still blame God- if we believed in one.

But how I see it is- we're brought into a world that we will be expected to contribute to. Most people have to earn money to live. I doubt many parents have children with the idea that they will provide for them their entire life. So- expectations are placed on us as soon as we are able to start being useful. Plus, there isn't the freedom to leave (easily anyway) when we have come here. We are expected to comply to the rules.

So- I think that's where the anger/ frustration lies. It's mainly targetted at our parents a lot of the time- 'Why did you bring us into this? Knowing how bad things can get- did you not consider that might happen to us? Now that you see our experience though- why won't you let us go? This was your choice- not ours and now, you'd rather us didn't have the choice to go.' I think it's that that people see as unfair. It's slavery ultimately. Most of us are wage slaves to capitalism. Our choices aren't exactly that plentiful- comply to capitalism/consumerism or go destitute or be able to prove that you are so ill that you can't work- in which case, I doubt those poor sods will be grateful they were brought here either.

So- it isn't quite so much that we didn't consent to come here. It's that it's made extremely hard for us to leave by the very people who brought us here.

It's quite a peculuar state of affairs really. You're allowed to quit a job you detest and you actually consented to do that job initially but (ideally,) they (pro-lifers and especially parents I imagine) don't want us to be able to quit our lives- even though we never agreed to take them on to begin with! I suppose because they've accepted that they must live (although, they may have never experienced ideation) so, they believe that we should too.

It would be quite peculiar if the final advanced state of affairs for humankind would be to realize how it's better to just end our existence here as a whole than continue it the way it does.

 

[davidtorez]

My feeling is that it isn't just that we don't give our consent to come here- like you say- we can't.

It's more that other sentient beings (our parents) make the decision for us- knowing what kind of world it is we will be coming in to. Knowing the risks. Knowing 100% certain things will happen- we will witness them dieing and/or, we will die ourselves.

Put it this way. You are faced with the decision on whether to create real AI. You have the knowledge and ability to do it. But- you also know there is a possibility it will suffer. In fact- you know it will be able to experience emotions and pain. It will mourn your death when you die and eventually- it will die too. Let's say in this example- death is unavoidable. You will be its God. It will have questions you won't be able to answer. It may have an existential crisis. It may even hate you for bringing it to life. Do you do it? Because you can? Because it might actually love life? Is it fair to create a sentient being because you can and because you hope it will have a good life when there's also a reasonable probability that it won't?

If we all just appeared magically- the consent argument wouldn't be so valid- we'd struggle to know who to 'blame'. I guess we could still blame God- if we believed in one.

But how I see it is- we're brought into a world that we will be expected to contribute to. Most people have to earn money to live. I doubt many parents have children with the idea that they will provide for them their entire life. So- expectations are placed on us as soon as we are able to start being useful. Plus, there isn't the freedom to leave (easily anyway) when we have come here. We are expected to comply to the rules.

So- I think that's where the anger/ frustration lies. It's mainly targetted at our parents a lot of the time- 'Why did you bring us into this? Knowing how bad things can get- did you not consider that might happen to us? Now that you see our experience though- why won't you let us go? This was your choice- not ours and now, you'd rather us didn't have the choice to go.' I think it's that that people see as unfair. It's slavery ultimately. Most of us are wage slaves to capitalism. Our choices aren't exactly that plentiful- comply to capitalism/consumerism or go destitute or be able to prove that you are so ill that you can't work- in which case, I doubt those poor sods will be grateful they were brought here either.

So- it isn't quite so much that we didn't consent to come here. It's that it's made extremely hard for us to leave by the very people who brought us here.

It's quite a peculuar state of affairs really. You're allowed to quit a job you detest and you actually consented to do that job initially but (ideally,) they (pro-lifers and especially parents I imagine) don't want us to be able to quit our lives- even though we never agreed to take them on to begin with! I suppose because they've accepted that they must live (although, they may have never experienced ideation) so, they believe that we should too.

Couldn't agree more with this !

 

[Forever Sleep]

Idk to me antinatalism just seems wrong even though what the professor is saying makes a lot of sense. I'm probably biased here

It would be quite peculiar if the final advanced state of affairs for humankind would be to realize how it's better to just end our existence here as a whole than continue it the way it does.

It would be an incredible state of self sacrifice in order to give the billions of other creatures that also live on this planet a fair shot but sadly- I expect you're right. I don't believe we would go extinct voluntarily. Maybe we'll get smart enough to work out how to live without destroying the planet we rely on. Maybe scientists will work out how we can live elsewhere. Maybe we'll carry on as we are- consuming every resource we can find till nothing can support us anymore. Personally- I don't see a rosey future ahead and I'm glad none of my potential offspring will have to endure it.

 

[davidtorez]

Anyone wanting to learn more about philosophical side of antinatalism I suggest the books by David benatar called "The Human Predicament ". His other book called Better to never have been I haven't read , but there are youtube videos that you can listen to also about this topic

 

[sserafim]

That's exactly why procreation is selfish, because the child can't and couldn't consent to being born. The parents made the decision for them. Having children is selfish because it's to satisfy the parent's own desires. It's because "*I* wanted a child", "*I* wanted someone to nurture and take care of", or "*I* wanted a friend."

I don't really understand people who say they didn't consent to being born. I mean I have said so myself a few times here but once I really got to it it just doesn't make sense to me.

Most people here believe in nothingness. Assuming you are nothing, how can you consent or refuse consent? You aren't alive to make the choice nor are you hypothetically present in the afterlife to make that choice. You have to be alive or have some sort of decision making capabilities to be able to claim that you didn't consent to it or you were forced to be born against your consent.

And if you were nothingness how can one claim that it was actually better to be nothing? I mean nobody remembers what they did when they were one years old, how would one remember what nothingness felt like? Some people say it's like sleeping without dreams but when you sleep your brain is still working. No one can really say what nothingness is because they would have to be completely dead, unresponsive for that. And worse, they would have to come back from the dead and tell us that it was actually better to be there.


Now if you don't believe in nothingness and are religious then it's a different story. Some claim we plan our lives. Some claim we sign a hypothetical soul contract. So if you do think that there is an afterlife then it's likely that you did agree to be born. But neither theories can be proven at all.

I just don't get it. I can kind of assume that it's better to be nothing because the existence of suffering in life is perhaps worse but in order to confirm this assumption I would have to truly know that it was in fact better to be nothing. I'm lost.

I think it's more likely that you were tricked into being born

 

[DreamEnd]

That's exactly why procreation is selfish, because the child can't and couldn't consent to being born. The parents made the decision for them. Having children is selfish because it's to satisfy the parent's own desires. It's because "*I* wanted a child", "*I* wanted someone to nurture and take care of", or "*I* wanted a friend."

I think it's more likely that you were tricked into being born

Well personally I dont see being born or tricked into being born a bad thing for me personally. Yeah I ended up here cuz i fucked everything up but if I didnt then I wouldnt be here

 

[sserafim]

Well personally I dont see being born or tricked into being born a bad thing for me personally. Yeah I ended up here cuz i fucked everything up but if I didnt then I wouldnt be here

Well if you don't see it as a bad thing for yourself, then that's good for you I guess. Personally, I'm mad that I'm here in this life and on this earth. Life is suffering and it's something that I never wanted in the first place. I don't think that I would willingly consent to this. I think I was probably tricked into reincarnating

 

[DreamEnd]

Well if you don't see it as a bad thing for yourself, then that's good for you I guess. Personally, I'm mad that I'm here in this life and on this earth. Life is suffering and it's something that I never wanted in the first place. I don't think that I would willingly consent to this. I think I was probably tricked into reincarnating

if you are so worried about reincarnation and afterlife I have about 15 different beliefs of different tribes who talk about the journey of your soul after death and the many different paths it can take

 

[thewalkingdread]

And if you were nothingness how can one claim that it was actually better to be nothing? I mean nobody remembers what they did when they were one years old, how would one remember what nothingness felt like? Some people say it's like sleeping without dreams but when you sleep your brain is still working. No one can really say what nothingness is

Your complaint about "nothingness" is valid and true.

When people talk about "nothingness" they are doing something called reification.... i.e. they are treating some abstract concept as if it were a real thing, when it's not.

But your observations have nothing to do with the consent argument because it isn't about it being "better to be nothing". This is from another argument for anti-natalim: the assymetry argument.

Basically, It's better "to be nothing", (as you've put it), than to be born because that which is never born, never suffers. And the lack of suffering is a good thing.

 

[divinemistress36]

I asked my parents why they brought me into this world despite how fucked up it is and I ended up mentally ill and their answers were "you don't think these things can happen"

 

[DreamEnd]

Your complaint about "nothingness" is valid and true.

When people talk about "nothingness" they are doing something called reification.... i.e. they are treating some abstract concept as if it were a real thing, when it's not.

But your observations have nothing to do with the consent argument because it isn't about it being "better to be nothing". This is another argument for anti-natalim: the assymetry argument.

Basically, It's better "to be nothing", (as you've put it), than to be born because that which is never born, never suffers. And the lack of suffering is a good thing.

I agree but the assumption that you are really nothing after death is doing the heavy lifting here. I mean with all the beliefs there are about what's after death it could literally be anything that we don't know about so I am really not sure. What if you instantly reincarnate into something else? Idk

 

[thewalkingdread]

the assumption that you are really nothing after death is doing the heavy lifting here

There is no trace, no evidence, to suggest that there is an "afterlife" or "beforelife"... This is all somewhat entertaining but useless metaphysical speculation.

As Wittgenstein said: whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

 

[DreamEnd]

There is no trace, no evidence, to suggest that there is an "afterlife" or "beforelife"... This is all somewhat entertaining but useless metaphysical speculation.

As Wittgenstein said: whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

Well I respect your opinion but I think the vast amount of evidence we have with ndes, psychedelic experience, widely held beliefs by different indigenous tribes and civilizations even go as far as the Aztec civilization I think it's absolutely fair to claim tbere is something more to us than just flesh but that is my opinion

 

[theboy]

it does not seem to be a good idea to have children because of the world we live in.

 

[walkingdead2023]

I don't really understand people who say they didn't consent to being born. I mean I have said so myself a few times here but once I really got to it it just doesn't make sense to me.

Most people here believe in nothingness. Assuming you are nothing, how can you consent or refuse consent? You aren't alive to make the choice nor are you hypothetically present in the afterlife to make that choice. You have to be alive or have some sort of decision making capabilities to be able to claim that you didn't consent to it or you were forced to be born against your consent.

And if you were nothingness how can one claim that it was actually better to be nothing? I mean nobody remembers what they did when they were one years old, how would one remember what nothingness felt like? Some people say it's like sleeping without dreams but when you sleep your brain is still working. No one can really say what nothingness is because they would have to be completely dead, unresponsive for that. And worse, they would have to come back from the dead and tell us that it was actually better to be there.


Now if you don't believe in nothingness and are religious then it's a different story. Some claim we plan our lives. Some claim we sign a hypothetical soul contract. So if you do think that there is an afterlife then it's likely that you did agree to be born. But neither theories can be proven at all.

I just don't get it. I can kind of assume that it's better to be nothing because the existence of suffering in life is perhaps worse but in order to confirm this assumption I would have to truly know that it was in fact better to be nothing. I'm lost.

Me too! Today I'm in the hotel because I had a fight with my parents! I moved out… I do think it's better if I'm dead not because I moved out I'm 24 I can handle life expenses but I can't handle hate I felt in my parents tone! We are truly suffering to prove ourself and I'm tired of it.

 

[thewalkingdread]

the vast amount of evidence we have with ndes, psychedelic experience

Well... they are indeed evidence — for altered concious states of the mind...not for the existence of an "afterlife".

widely held beliefs by different indigenous tribes and civilizations even go as far as the Aztec civilization

You are making two logical fallacies here.

One is to assume that a belief is true because a vast amount of diverse groups believe in the same thing (i.e some form of "afterlife")... this is a clear cut Ad populum fallacy.

The other is that you are assuming that because some belief is millenial or ancient therefore It must be true... Appeals to ancient wisdom fallacy.

 

[DreamEnd]

Well... they are indeed evidence — for altered concious states of the mind...not for the existence of an "afterlife".

Not really, you have shamanic history taking ayahuasca for hundreds if not thousands years and connecting with the spirit world. Some people who take ayahusca sometimes connec with deceased ones, there is even a book on it.

https://www.amazon.com/Ayahuasca-Un...6ac739e25f5d350783a1d9502c57505c&gad_source=1

and also this: https://www.psypost.org/new-study-r...re-and-their-link-to-personal-transformation/
Two studies of ayahuasca ceremony participants found that at least 50% of these individuals had an ayahuasca-induced personal death experience. These experiences were associated with an increased sense that consciousness will continue after death and increased concerns for the environment. The paper was published in the Frontiers in Psychiatry.

You are making two logical fallacies here.

One is to assume that a belief is true because a vast amount of diverse groups believe in the same thing (i.e some form of "afterlife")... this is a clear cut Ad populum fallacy.

The other is that you are assuming that because some belief is millenial or ancient therefore It must be true... Appeals to ancient wisdom fallacy.

No, what I am saying is there is a reason so many different civilizations before and tribes had some form of rituals surrounding death and letting the person go. I think there is merit to those claims which is why I believe that the afterlife exists. There is no reason to believe there is nothing after death for me because this view is incredibly limited by current standards for evidence that we have. Psychedelic experiences show that there is more to this reality than there truly is, even ego death and that kind of stuff allows you to gain access to deeper levels of reality than when you are sober. "Altered state" doesnt mean it isnt real.

 

[divinemistress36]

Not really, you have shamanic history taking ayahuasca for hundreds if not thousands years and connecting with the spirit world. Some people who take ayahusca sometimes connec with deceased ones, there is even a book on it.

https://www.amazon.com/Ayahuasca-Un...6ac739e25f5d350783a1d9502c57505c&gad_source=1

and also this: https://www.psypost.org/new-study-r...re-and-their-link-to-personal-transformation/
Two studies of ayahuasca ceremony participants found that at least 50% of these individuals had an ayahuasca-induced personal death experience. These experiences were associated with an increased sense that consciousness will continue after death and increased concerns for the environment. The paper was published in the Frontiers in Psychiatry.

No, what I am saying is there is a reason so many different civilizations before and tribes had some form of rituals surrounding death and letting the person go. I think there is merit to those claims which is why I believe that the afterlife exists. There is no reason to believe there is nothing after death for me because this view is incredibly limited by current standards for evidence that we have. Psychedelic experiences show that there is more to this reality than there truly is, even ego death and that kind of stuff allows you to gain access to deeper levels of reality than when you are sober. "Altered state" doesnt mean it isnt real.

I have a psychic medium friend who communicates with the dead she was pretty spot on about a friend who had passed away . I personally can't wait to go back to the source

 

[broth0100]

I asked my parents why they brought me into this world despite how fucked up it is and I ended up mentally ill and their answers were "you don't think these things can happen"

Jeeeeezzz the neglect of foresight

 

[thewalkingdread]

"Altered state" doesnt mean it isnt real.

You're right. It doesn't... And I've never said otherwise.

All I said was that ndes, psychedelic experiences

are indeed evidence — for altered concious states of the mind...not for the existence of an "afterlife".

Hallucinations are, in some sense, pretty much "real" for those who experience them, for instance.

I asked my parents why they brought me into this world despite how fucked up it is and I ended up mentally ill and their answers were "you don't think these things can happen"

People think more about the pros and cons of buying a car than about the pros and cons of having a child... Sad but true.

 

[DreamEnd]

You're right. It doesn't... And I've never said otherwise.

All I said was that ndes, psychedelic experiences


Hallucinations are, in some sense, pretty much "real" for those who experience them, for instance.



People think more about the pros and cons of buying a car than about the pros and cons of having a child... Sad but true.

That would highly depend on what the psychedelic experience or an nde consist of. Like I said before. Some people connect with their dead relatives. I know you can just brush it off as a hallucination but that's not the only purpose of psychedelics. They open up your consciousness to much more information than the sober mind allows. It doesn't mean it's just real for you. It means it's real for everybody but it cannot be accessed by a sober mind. It's the reason why something like 70% of lsd users become religious after being atheists and trying lsd.

 

[davidtorez]

That's exactly why procreation is selfish, because the child can't and couldn't consent to being born. The parents made the decision for them. Having children is selfish because it's to satisfy the parent's own desires. It's because "*I* wanted a child", "*I* wanted someone to nurture and take care of", or "*I* wanted a friend."

I think it's more likely that you were tricked into being born

Not to mention *I* wanted a slave to look after me when I get old. It's a procreational pyramid sheme!

 

[Jorms_McGander]

if you were nothingness how can one claim that it was actually better to be nothing? I mean nobody remembers what they did when they were one years old, how would one remember what nothingness felt like?

If you'll accept a couple-days coma or other, briefer periods of traumatic unconsciousness as being nothing then I have been back there--at least my consciousness severely limited and my recollection nullified--and the answer is simple from my view.

I do not recall what nothingness felt like. That is precisely what was so pleasant about it. I was and am always a little disappointed to come back to consciousness after a fainting spell. But after I was in a coma, once I was told how close I came to death (car crash), and the chance occurrences which saved my life, I was crestfallen.

I felt like I had been out. There was nothing. No recollection, it was more complete than any ego death or profound hallucination or lapse in consciousness I've ever achieved. There is no question of what it's like over there in non-sentience. There is no answer, either. When I woke up there was nothing to recollect because there had been no person during that time.

I can't say it was nice, lol. I wasn't. What was nice was that the level of physical trauma not only shut down my higher functions, it also completely erased my memory of events leading up to the accident. I had gone through the door and there was no awareness of anything about it. Because there was no. more. me. When I came back, I was just there again. I was very let down to be alive. I used the word crestfallen earlier. The story has come to its conclusion.

When I go back, I will do it with a lot less anxiety. There is no fear in an empty space.

 

[DreamEnd]

If you'll accept a couple-days coma or other, briefer periods of traumatic unconsciousness as being nothing then I have been back there--at least my consciousness severely limited and my recollection nullified--and the answer is simple from my view.

I do not recall what nothingness felt like. That is precisely what was so pleasant about it. I was and am always a little disappointed to come back to consciousness after a fainting spell. But after I was in a coma. Once I was told how close I came to death (car crash), and the chance occurrences which saved my life, I was crestfallen.

I felt like I had been out. There was nothing. No recollection, it was more complete than any ego death or profound hallucination or lapse in consciousness I've ever achieved. There is no question of what it's like over there in non-sentience. There is no answer, either. When I woke up there was nothing to recollect because there had been no person during that time.

I can't say it was nice, lol. I wasn't. What was nice was that the level of physical trauma not only shut down my higher functions, it also completely erased my memory of events leading up to the accident. I had gone through the door and there was no awareness of anything about it. Because there was no. more. me. When I came back, I was just there again. I was very let down to be alive. I used the word crestfallen earlier. The story has come to its conclusion.

When I go back, I will do it with a lot less anxiety. There is no fear in an empty space.

Yes I have heard of that but I don't know enough about comas at all. I know some people can have ndes too which are peaceful but it's mostly nothingness like you said. I honestly don't know what's the difference between completely dead and in a coma

 

[Jorms_McGander]

Yes I have heard of that but I don't know enough about comas at all. I know some people can have ndes too which are peaceful but it's mostly nothingness like you said. I honestly don't know what's the difference between completely dead and in a coma

Well it's actually really fascinating in that "death" really doesn't exist as any hard delineation. Whatever medical condition you can think of (me too), medicine has brought somebody back from beyond that point. Except for the obvious physical traumas and stuff. But I mean heart rate, brain death, etc etc.

Historically, we weren't any better at determining the point of death. Consider the tales of zombies and grave bells and people whose bodies were left hanging or mutilated post-hanging to ensure death. Also for generations, doctors would be necessary to determine death after a hanging. But hanging only kills in a majority of cases. Other victims being cut down while still alive in some way or another and even capable of a full recovery to consciousness ended up forcing doctors in the UK to violate the Hippocratic oath and end those lives not finished by the gallows.

That's a lot and I haven't even mentioned NDE. There's a lot to think about with all this stuff but I guess I'll just leave you with that. "Death" is only a fact when it's REALLY obvious. Otherwise case studies exist of a person who has been revived after crossing some boundary we consider medically dead.

 

[Deleted member 8119]

I don't really understand people who say they didn't consent to being born. I mean I have said so myself a few times here but once I really got to it it just doesn't make sense to me.

Most people here believe in nothingness. Assuming you are nothing, how can you consent or refuse consent? You aren't alive to make the choice nor are you hypothetically present in the afterlife to make that choice. You have to be alive or have some sort of decision making capabilities to be able to claim that you didn't consent to it or you were forced to be born against your consent.

My thoughts exactly. Consent depends on existence. The same consent argument could be used against them, I guess if we give nothingness powers, they can't consent to not exist either. However, once someone is already born, that's very different, there is a ton of non-consent as part of life.

 

[sserafim]

Not to mention *I* wanted a slave to look after me when I get old. It's a procreational pyramid sheme!

Literally. I asked my mom why she had me and she said "who's going to take care of me in old age?", not to mention the fact that we're born into a state of modern day slavery. Once we're born, we're already slaves to the system. Society is a pyramid scheme.