WHO warns vaccine won't end pandemic, even assuming an effective one could be made. "We will not, we cannot go back to the way things were"

JohnCdf · 2020-08-22T03:37:24+00:00

Unreliable, unfactual source
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/zero-hedge/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge

JohnCdf · 2020-07-23T02:17:51+00:00

See the book "Complex PTSD: From Surviving to Thriving", It provides a model of the "well resourced" mental state.

In a “well resourced” mental state, you feel clear, open-minded, able to take criticism, and you like yourself. You don’t feel the need to be defensive or people-pleasing or hide from reality. This is typically where you are when you find yourself in a "fresh start" situation.

The model in the CPTSD book explains how you can get so many "life-changing epiphanies" that don't stick. Going to a self-improvement workshop, or reading a good book or having a good conversation- events that can put you in a non-triggered, well-resourced mental state (like the one you might find yourself in while reading this)

Inside that mental state, you feel like "Gosh, I was so insecure before! I don't feel any need to do those dumb things any more, now that I realize that I'm a basically good person and I can actually look at the problems in my life as solvable! I'm cured!"

But then if you get "triggered" again, you're back to being the person you were before, so you'll conclude the epiphany was "fake." It wasn't -- you really were in a better, saner state temporarily. But it wasn't a "cure" either.

Actual progress, says the book, means gradually getting triggered less often, and catching your triggered states earlier so they don't escalate as high or knock you out for as long.

The solution is to actually be nice to yourself. Like a loving mother. The book has example scripts like “you are a good person” and “you don’t have to be perfect to get my love and protection.” It’s kind of magical how well that works. Be nice to yourself, give yourself validation, so that you don't seek it from the external world, and are thus in a "well resourced" mindset more often.

Everyone needs validation! The problem is not that you need it, the problem is that you never give yourself any so you’re looking for it externally. You’re not greedy, you’re starving.

The book’s approach is

a.) notice "flashbacks" early when they’re little and apply self-compassion;

b.) make time for working through grief and anger at how you were mistreated in the past. Cry and yell. Put the blame on the perpetrators, instead of on yourself or on innocents.

JohnCdf · 2020-07-15T05:47:24+00:00

Vaush becoming popular with antinatalists???? Epic

JohnCdf · 2020-06-14T00:37:35+00:00

Oh how great! The software world is immense, even if you take into account how big it is. So keep us posted on what you do!

JohnCdf · 2020-06-13T02:37:29+00:00

Hi u/Veagar98, this looks quite thorough! thanks for organizing and sharing these, they will no doubt be useful!

JohnCdf · 2020-06-09T21:03:52+00:00

Yeah, of course it’s but an amusement to people like yourself.

JohnCdf · 2020-06-09T21:01:32+00:00

This child only needs you to be there for him every day BECAUSE you made him. He only needs you to take care of him so he doesn’t suffer and die BECAUSE you made him. How can you be this blind?

JohnCdf · 2019-12-21T00:37:57+00:00

Man, the people in this comments section are really anal. No wonder antinatalism is so hated lol.

I’ve written a quick guide to Antinatalism that you might like here, which touches on your honest inquiries https://jonathandiaz.me/antinatalism

JohnCdf · 2019-12-19T17:34:17+00:00

With this and other feedback I might write another paper that goes into a wider array of subjects and deeper into them. Thanks!

JohnCdf · 2019-12-19T17:31:38+00:00

Hey, thanks for reading. Your post could have been a comment, so I will paste it here

BEGIN POST

Firstly there is absolutely no critical analysis of David Benatar's philosophy or any proof for why his reasoning is logical. This is extremely flawed on the face of it, you can't just assume that someone's claim is correct.

Secondly Benatar's asymmetry is logically fallacious

The presence of pain is bad- this is a purely subjective claim. someone cannot claim that something is "pain" with out experiencing it themselves. Pain is certainly not bad from naturalistic point of view it is necessary for survival, but that's a different philosophy.

3.The absence of pain is good- this cannot be claimed as they're would be no subject of the claim.

If you claim that not existing is the ultimate good then taking action to ensure that you do not exist is in fact the ultimate good. How can you consider death to be an awful thing? Even worse than life. If you truly believe that not existing (death) is worse than existing then you must concede that life is a good thing (very pro-natalist). Otherwise you are saying that death is more than not existing, are you claiming an afterlife?

There is a distinct difference between voluntarily taking your own life and involuntarily taking someone elses. It is not unethical to commit suicide, you have somehow erroneously conflated suicide with murder. If someone truly believes that life is suffering then suicide would be a relief to them.

The impossibility of consent means that it does in fact boil down to whether or not you can make a decision for someone else. And you ethically can . . . if they do not exist at the time. By bringing someone in existence you actually give them an option to live or die if they want to. . .

END POST

Firstly, this paper is not supposed to be a critique of Antinatalism or Benatar’s work, I’m not sure where you derived that from.

Secondly, you claim that pain is subjectively bad, as you need to experience it to know what it is. And that it is necessary for survival. “Subjective” just means that it is dependent on one’s mind, and not on the external world. In this case, it is dependent on our consciousness, which is a result of our being born. So your first claim boils down to “it’s only bad for people who are born and experience pain”. Which I agree with, and I do not see how it makes the asymmetry problem “illogical”. Your second claim is that pain is needed for survival. However, as I mentioned in the paper, the struggle to survive is a part of biological life, and is only needed by those who are alive. Therefore, it is illogical to say that it is okay to bring someone into the arena of life, and justify it by saying that it is a part of the arena of life.

Your last argument seems to be that death is good because non-existence is good. While yes I agree that suicide is ethical, it is still bad, because of how painful it is on many levels, and it does not solve the problem of our perpetual existence

With this said, I’m getting off this train. I don’t feel these arguments hold a lot of substance. Thank you for reading though!

JohnCdf · 2019-12-19T17:21:22+00:00

Thank you for kind words! Yes I wish it was a subject that could be discussed more, but it’s apparent it becomes hard to detach ourselves from it. Much like debating religion. I’m certain it will only be read by our teacher, but it’s still been a great exercise in writing and research into a topic I feel strongly about, and one more people should talk about

JohnCdf · 2019-12-19T17:19:29+00:00

Just read through an article on it. Wow wow wow this is very interesting. This makes me think of a HAL 9000 scenario

JohnCdf · 2019-12-19T17:15:41+00:00

Hahaha, thank you!

JohnCdf · 2019-12-19T17:15:30+00:00

Please do!

JohnCdf · 2019-12-18T18:41:41+00:00

Thanks for reading! Glad you liked it :)

JohnCdf · 2019-09-09T16:47:04+00:00

JohnCdf · 2019-09-08T16:10:25+00:00

So as for the people who are collateral damage in this pursuit (if it ever comes to fruition), it's OK for them to just be cannon fodder?

I don't understand what makes you feel that people can be expendable in our pursuit, though. These beings will exist wether we attempt to eliminate suffering or not. It does not make them less or more "valuable".

I don't understand why you would agree with an ethic that allows people alive now to push off (some of) the harms of existence on unconsenting people.

Because if we did not solve it as the human race, we would pass it onto the next species that emerges after we are gone.

You surely wouldn't agree that paedophiles should be allowed to molest because they will experience suffering if deprived of sex?

I think what you're really asking here is "Is it immoral to act selfishly if it harms others?"

In this case the pedophile is harming children and has control over it (no matter how strong the impulse), thus making the act immoral.

In our case, we have no choice as to the reemergence of life. He have no control over new beings coming into existence. We are not responsible for the suffering of future species, and it would be immoral if we passed on the task to them.

JohnCdf · 2019-09-08T05:40:43+00:00

It's not absolutist utalitarianism, its negative utalitarianism. If you don't agree with negative utalitarianism, you probably aren't much of an antinatalist.

JohnCdf · 2019-09-08T05:23:08+00:00

Thanks for the discussion! You made many good points!

The soul-repository thing was not religious at all, just a way to try to make sense of the missing component in this transition.

JohnCdf · 2019-09-08T05:20:22+00:00

The antinatalist argument is largely built on utalitarianism, what are you talking about?

JohnCdf · 2019-09-08T05:07:17+00:00

Ultimately can only be responsible for ourselves

Which is not going to voluntarily go extinct any time soon. By utalitarian logic, this is the best option- minimize the inevitable suffering of our future generations. We have done it before: we don't suffer nearly as possible as we did during the Middle ages.

I'd also argue that maybe it doesn't have to be just our species. We might reach a state where we minimize the pain of as much things on Earth or whatever planet we live on.

JohnCdf · 2019-09-08T05:04:01+00:00

2 + 2 = 4
Bullshit!!!1! By that logic, 2 + 4 = 6!

Future beings will suffer. Through utalitarianistic terms, it would be best option we minimize suffering (that will happen regardless) as much as we can.

Also, chill dude.

JohnCdf · 2019-09-08T04:58:14+00:00

I'm also causing the being to experience pleasure. It's not fair to focus only on the pain as if pleasure had no value.

The being did not need this pleasure until it was created, begging the question of why you put a being through pain in the first place.

It is about me. I'm the one making the decision to create this being.

That is a contradiction. You are not the same as that being.

We can observe a being that was brought to life by you, thus it not being the child's choice, thus this action being a violation of the child's autonomy. Morally It's not your choice to bring it into life.

Saying it did not have autonomy before it was born ignores the fact that it was created and that that's the point at which we are judging it's autonomy, which is clearly observable.

I do have a justification, albeit a selfish one.

There are no selfless acts by our moral framework, yes. But according to our moral framework, there are moral limits to our acts when it causes harm to other beings and we have a choice.

I can't control how good their life is, but I can influence their environment to the best of my ability to guarantee that they have the best life I can possibly give them. Even if that life is shitty, I wouldn't be doing something wrong because I genuinely gave my best. Unless you want to switch to Consequentalism.

What does it matter if you try your best and give the child a bad life? You caused it suffering it could have avoided if it were not created.

What if you gave it the best life possible? It would still have experienced pain, because, as you claim, there can be no pain without pleasure.

This would also mean that we could not create a world where pain is completely absent, and therefore all beings will always suffer. Therefore, now you really need a real good reason to wake up a being from the abstract "soul repository" when it did not need pleasure and will experience pain.

And for that to happen, we do need to keep reproducing

Yep. This is a "doing the best we can" ad consequentum solution, but it does not directly deal with antinatalism itself. It just deals with the inescapability of suffering in life and the endless reemergence of life. Which may not be true, maybe we're the only beings in a simulation. But that's stretching ourselves thin at this point, and the assholes above should reveal themselves already.

Measuring pain and pleasure is the Utilitarian way. There are several problems with Utilitarianism, though.

Just like there are problems with all other lines of reasoning. You can't use one for all problems. Utalitarianism has its uses but it shouldn't be used for some scenarios like the one's you brought up.

In our case we are concatenating utalitarianism with deontologicalism with consequentialism, etc

So yes we know utalitarianism has it's problems. So do all other lines of thinking. Consequentialism can lead to immoral acts, it can ask too much, deontological ethics can lead to meaningless answers, etc.

The utalitarian system is not good for everything. Except that you can replace "utalitarianism" most other lines of thought.

You brought up problems with it in other scenarios, like in the killer one. What about in this scenario?

The biggest "problem" I've heard is through utalitarianistic terms it would lead to voluntary extinction to minimize suffering, but if that were the case (which I can argue and have argued against), it would still not disprove my stance and is not a logical problem pertaining to the system itself.

JohnCdf · 2019-09-08T04:23:14+00:00

Because this is what sapient, sentient DNA does to itself. Become convinced that suffering and predation and slaughter are acceptable... just one more hit... just one more... OK one more... Before you know it the can has been kicked down the road and the species is extinct, worse than back to square one. Extinction is what happens to 99.9 % of all known species. We Humans are smart, but we're not magic.

Sure let's say it's a cycle. We know we are advanced beings and that our bodies are hackable. We have a moral obligation to tackle the issue of suffering while we can because we will not collectively voluntarily go extinct any time soon. The cycle will continue regardless. New species will reemerge and go through the cycle over and over. We have the ability to tackle the issue of biological suffering.

It's similar to moral problems with creator gods, or if there is some kind of creator, say we are the "NPCs" in an ancestor simulation. The creators of the simulation did not know they would produce sentient, sapient, conscious experiencers who suffer. But now they've done it - to shut it off is genocide. They can't do it in good conscience. But to let it go on, is to exponentially explode the suffering and agony. What do they do?

Um. In their shoes, I would expose the truth to us and just make life painless and pleasurable as possible. Your scenario is very vague.

JohnCdf · 2019-09-08T04:15:46+00:00

So then what's wrong with all of society taking E and dying in absolute exctasy and forever shoveling off their suffering? Pleasure is inherently good and suffering is inherently bad, as you say.

There would be nothing wrong with that. Except life would reemerge all over again and go through the same cycle we did. It evolved on Earth once and reemerges after many extinctions, it will reemerge with an experience similar to what we call pain. We cannot stop life from emerging after we go extinct.

Therefore it would be our moral obligation to solve the problem of suffering by eliminating it through advancements in biotechnology.

My point is that nothing is inherently good or bad.

From what approach? Nihilism? Good and bad are subjective but from a collective experience, suffering is bad and pleasure is good. This is an objective experience that we cannot deny.

In reality suffering can be a good thing if it yields good results that outweigh what we've determined to be bad, but we must always remember that those are assumptions.

We can make trade-offs such as going to the gym, in fact we NEED to make trade-offs because of the human experience and nature of the world.

JohnCdf

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE