Kids. Fuck living forever.

The cynic in me says immortality, it would make things easier and less uncertain; and while I don't like being cynical there really isn't a counter argument I can make. woo.

Immortality and become the ultimate supervillain

I'll fite ya

Wanting genetic survival is as egotistical as you can get.

There's nothing really that special about my genes.

They both have the same amount of importance. I'd suppose I'd take immortality, but only if I can become mortal again.

Quote from: Nexus on October 24, 2015, 09:49:30 AM

Quote from: eggsalad on October 24, 2015, 09:15:46 AM

Wanting genetic survival is as egotistical as you can get.

Not really, unless your reasoning behind it is egotistical. But wanting children is not egotistical at it's base.

99% of people's reasoning is pretty egotistical, though. I can't think of a non-egotistical reason to have children.

"muh bloodline"
"muh genes"
"muh fatherhood"
"muh legacy"

I think such a line of reasoning makes it pretty clear that anything and everything you do is inherently egotistical, as long as you had a choice in the matter.

But people can want to have children for the sake of being able to raise someone with a higher quality of life than they had. In fact that is such a common reason that I'd say most people who thoughtfully have kids do it in part with that in mind. They find happiness in life, and they believe they have the tools to give their children even happier lives than they had.

But people can want to have children for the sake of being able to raise someone with a higher quality of life than they had. In fact that is such a common reason that I'd say most people who thoughtfully have kids do it in part with that in mind. They find happiness in life, and they believe they have the tools to give their children even happier lives than they had.

Which would be noble if having kids was mandatory, which it isn't. Like, if we had no other choice but to have kids, that would be a good mindset.

From your anti-egoism standpoint it seems to me that not having children is the egotistical thing to do, as it removes the people being born into the planet, inflating the value of those who remain, as well as eliminating a great deal of potential happiness.

The potential for great suffering nearly precludes the potential for great happiness. Everyone who considers themselves intelligent knows this. Life is too much of a gamble to allow anyone to experience it. It's the opposite of selfish.

When you have children, it isn't just for your own entertainment, even if you want it to be; almost all people find happiness in life as well, so regardless of your intentions, I don't think it really pans out as a purely self-serving action.

But it is, though.

An individual's intent may be selfish, but again, aren't everyone's intentions always just that?

Some things are more selfish than others.

Quote from: Verbatim on October 24, 2015, 11:32:45 AM

The potential for great suffering nearly precludes the potential for great happiness. Everyone who considers themselves intelligent knows this. Life is too much of a gamble to allow anyone to experience it. It's the opposite of selfish.

What about a child born into a wealthy and caring family, a child that is very much likely to have a great life? Surely a high chance of a good life is better then no life at all.

No life at all is always better.

A "high chance" of a good life isn't good enough. It has to be a 100% chance of a perfect life for there to be no moral quandaries.

The potential for great suffering nearly precludes the potential for great happiness. Everyone who considers themselves intelligent knows this. Life is too much of a gamble to allow anyone to experience it. It's the opposite of selfish.

But it is, though.

Some things are more selfish than others.

It nearly precludes it? So in other words, it doesn't? And the expected outcome is indeed happiness? The intelligence remark wasn't necessary, thanks. And again, life is a gamble to some degree, but the parents have a great ability to influence that gamble. Their intentions matter a great deal for this reason, but to say that it is "too much of a gamble" is up to you, I guess. I dunno, I think either you see way too much suffering around you/grossly overestimate the amount of suffering compared to happiness in the world, or you are a highly fearful/careful person. I wonder if that's the reason for your perspective on the odds. Not that those odds aren't improving anyways, thanks to those who have had children before us.

"But it is, though" ain't gonna cut it. Explain. Are you just agreeing with me that it is egotistical in the sense that literally everything is?

I can agree that some things are more selfish, but that wasn't our purpose here originally. If you want to talk about it in this light, you should illustrate, then, what "too selfish" might be.

Quote from: Incan on October 24, 2015, 11:36:43 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on October 24, 2015, 11:32:45 AM

The potential for great suffering nearly precludes the potential for great happiness. Everyone who considers themselves intelligent knows this. Life is too much of a gamble to allow anyone to experience it. It's the opposite of selfish.

What about a child born into a wealthy and caring family, a child that is very much likely to have a great life? Surely a high chance of a good life is better then no life at all.

No life at all is always better.

A "high chance" of a good life isn't good enough. It has to be a 100% chance of a perfect life for there to be no moral quandaries.

How about we keep reproducing then? Our world continues to improve. We may one day reach that 100% chance and that perfect life, whatever that means for you. After that, continued reproduction will have ensured more lives have been lived in pleasure than ever were lived with any sort of pain.

Being immortal would blow.

How about we keep reproducing then?

How about no, because that's evil and stupid?

Our world continues to improve.

It's not improving fast enough. The world needs to be perfect yesterday. That is the only acceptable rate of improvement.

We may one day reach that 100% chance and that perfect life, whatever that means for you.

It means no suffering or pain, ever. No discomfort. No negative sensation.

This is called "not having been born at all," and it's very achievable.
If we stop having kids.

I know you like to say that no life ends up with a hypothetical +1, but I can't see it like that. For if there is no good, then there being no pain doesn't factor in, and this goes the other way, if there's no pain then nothing is truly good.

Therefore, to me, not existing is a 0. Joy on it's own is useless without knowing pain, and pain is useless without knowing joy.

0 is still greater than -1, and to me, that's all that matters. +1s are worthless if there is no end-game.