That can be edited once we reach the technology to do that if we keep moving forward, if the person wants eternal bliss for some reason.

I don't see us ever getting to that point, and I don't think you can even quality that. I do believe there will be a technological ceiling as well.

But I'll play ball. If we ever get to the point in our lives where we can choose our existence... what would be the point? A life without struggle is useless, and a life with struggle is shit. Bliss is the exact same thing as not being born.

And I don't really care if you think your life is better when you struggle -- you shouldn't be allowed to make that decision for anyone else.

You said most, congrats that means there will still be some, and if they were the only ones to survive, they would spread on because of it.

If the human race ever decided to collectively "die out", we'd sterilise everyone and make sure there were plans in place for the confirmed extinction of our species.

Plus, without a diverse enough gene pool, natural selection will get rid of us quickly enough.

Because perfection is not the bliss you think it is. We're built to need suffering.

And that's somehow... right? We're built to suffer... so lets stop building.

Exactly. You're the one making an appeal to authority here saying (with zero proof) that there was an intelligent species that died off willingly because they believe in this ridiculous religion of yours.

I think you're confused. I didn't say that factually -- I meant it as a hypothetical.

Not to mention there's zero proof for a god.

Whatever, you understood my point. It's still an appeal to authority no matter how you slice it.

Not to mention, a lot of these "intellectuals" today probably haven't even encountered the argument, and if they have, they haven't offered it the intellectual respect and consideration it deserves. Kinda like most people on this forum.

Quote from: Essessen on December 08, 2015, 07:34:12 PM

Because you can't complain when you're fucking dead, and the other(s) that lived don't care/believe it was right. Ultimately, whether it was objectively right, if such a thing can even be said, is irrelevant to the outcome.

Except it isn't, because there are more than two organisms on this planet. I can see a strong organism kill a weak organism and say, "That's wrong."

It's not that hard.

It was a hypothetical, but okay, say you do. Why does that matter what you think of it? I see a few possible options stemming from this scenario:
1.) You say it's wrong and do nothing, nothing changes.
2.) You say it's wrong and do something, but the alleged wrongdoer beats you and nothing changes.
3.) You say it's wrong and do something, and wipe out the wrongdoer and now you decide what changes until someone succeeds you.

Whether you were right or wrong in #1 or #2, the other prevails. Whether you were right or not in #3, your authority prevails.

Why does right matter here? Rightness decides no outcome if it's objective, but it is decided by outcome if it is subjective. Other than that, I've got no say on it.

It was a hypothetical, but okay, say you do. Why does that matter what you think of it? I see a few possible options stemming from this scenario:
1.) You say it's wrong and do nothing, nothing changes.
2.) You say it's wrong and do something, but the alleged wrongdoer beats you and nothing changes.
3.) You say it's wrong and do something, and wipe out the wrongdoer and now you decide what changes until someone succeeds you.

Why does anyone have to beat anyone?

Pen is mightier than the sword and all that.

The pen is rightier than the sword, too. Imagine that.

this about antinatalism yet?

Quote from: Essessen on December 08, 2015, 07:53:29 PM

It was a hypothetical, but okay, say you do. Why does that matter what you think of it? I see a few possible options stemming from this scenario:
1.) You say it's wrong and do nothing, nothing changes.
2.) You say it's wrong and do something, but the alleged wrongdoer beats you and nothing changes.
3.) You say it's wrong and do something, and wipe out the wrongdoer and now you decide what changes until someone succeeds you.

Why does anyone have to beat anyone?

Pen is mightier than the sword and all that.

The pen is rightier than the sword, too. Imagine that.

Conflict fuels progress. In the first scenario nobody else was beaten, so you take that one.

Where are you going with this, and by Jove that was an awful pun.

Conflict fuels progress. In the first scenario nobody else was beaten, so you take that one.

Where are you going with this, and by Jove that was an awful pun.

No one has to beat anyone. People can communicate their ideas with each other without hurting anyone. This is how agreements are made peacefully. If the person is reasonable, they can be persuaded into thinking that might doesn't make right, too.

So it does matter. It does make a difference whether might is right or not.

I think this thread is decidedly off topic.

Veganism and anti-natalism go hand-in-hand.

Quote from: Essessen on December 08, 2015, 07:58:17 PM

That's why they can make that choice themselves, and not have it decided by a group that thinks they know what's best for everyone, and that best is having them not exist.

You'll never be able to prove that people will be able to "choose for themselves". Ever. I don't think we'll ever get to that point, personally.

And also, people, once born, are unable to objectively look at their lives.

Since you can't objectively look at your life, which I guess now is a requirement to be able to choose things, why does anything you say hold merit?

Quote

Did you miss something? They won't collectively agree on it, individuality is core to every human.

>hypothetical future, majority of people come to the consensus that life is shit and isn't worth it
>a few contrarians are like "lol nah, we ain't doing that"
>forceful sterilisations for everyone

If we ever got to the point where the government was seriously considering the end of our species, I think it's safe to assume they'll have contingency plans.

I think it's safe to assume that if such a tyrannical regime came about they would not only have the greatest possible comic book line, but be opposed so fervently that it would not work. The way to get man to fight the best he can is to give him no way out, you'll guarantee that.

Not to mention, doesn't that go against your whole ideology of consent is everything? If you're at the point where killing people without consent is okay, you're becoming that which you despise.

Quote from: Essessen on December 08, 2015, 08:05:21 PM

Conflict fuels progress. In the first scenario nobody else was beaten, so you take that one.

Where are you going with this, and by Jove that was an awful pun.

No one has to beat anyone. People can communicate their ideas with each other without hurting anyone. This is how agreements are made peacefully. If the person is reasonable, they can be persuaded into thinking that might doesn't make right, too.

So it does matter. It does make a difference whether might is right or not.

Congrats, you beat them, choosing #3. Albeit not physically eradicating them to mushy pulp, much to Psy's discontent, you went into conflict and beat your enemy.

Congrats, you beat them, choosing #3. Albeit not physically eradicating them to mushy pulp, much to Psy's discontent, you went into conflict and beat your enemy.

I thought you meant physically.

Knowing that, are you going to answer the question, now?

Does might make right?
And if it doesn't make right, what right do YOU have in supporting the meat & dairy industry?

i honestly got the same impression

if he can't answer the last question i gave him, anyway

Well, we're making some headway if he's admitting we're designed to feel shitty.

Though I know you've been knocking at that door a lot longer than I.

Baby steps, man. That's how we get 'em.

Life is pretty darn good actually.

laughed too fuckin hard