Life is awesome - argumentum ad populum

[Jackalope]

Do you not know the meaning of phased extinction? We're all going to die some day, does the thought of extinction frighten you?

Yes, I'm well aware of what the term means. No, extinction doesn't frighten me. It's probably inevitable.

What frightens me are kooks who want to hurry the process along.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, and I'm going to do my damndest to "pop out" at least one more than you Alei. Because I know one thing for certain; if there were ever a conflict between our progeny that decided the fate of humanity, I'd want at least one more soldier to stand behind your soldiers with a rock in hand. Nothing frightens me more than a world run by wrestling enthusiasts.

[Vaginasaur]

Thanks for finally initiating the debate, appreciate it.

Hi,

I think pessimism is the rational perceptive to have.

---

Good for you. You have an opinion. It doesn't mean it's true, it means it's your philosophy. In reality, it is not the only rational perception to have. Don't think I didn't notice you went on to claim that cancer can be cured by video games, and rambled ignorantly about the actual power of mind. If you really thought pessimism is the rational perception, then why would you expect people to even want to be cured of cancer? That sort of thing requires optimism. I'm left unclear about your ability to rationalize anything now.

---

I'm objectively pessimistic and subjectively optimistic. We have three psychological phenomena that make self-assessments of our life's quality unreliable, the first being the pollyanna principle which is the most general and most influential of the psychological phenomena which gives us a tendency towards optimism. The second being what could be called adaptation, accommodation or habituation which gives us a tendency to adjust to significant dissatisfaction and adapt to the new situation with new expectations accordingly. The third being the implicit comparison with the well-being of others which only gives a comparative rather than an actual indicator of the quality of one's life. From an evolutionary perspective these psychological phenomena favour reproduction and militate against suicide. Thus, if we knew the true quality of our life, people would be more prone to killing themselves, or at at least not pass on their DNA to the next generation. Pessimism, then, tends not to be naturally selected.

You have got to stop pretending to be a psychology expert. Those things you mentioned are not phenomena, they're personality traits. Some people view the world as you do, some view it optimistically, some view it from a mud hut with nothing but survival on their minds, and some view it with chaotic irrationality. There are limitless ways of thinking, feeling, learning, and being. You're reading too many fruity fucking pseudo-psychology blogs. Anyway, it's painfully obvious that you have a narrow understanding of psychology, and humanity in general.

You have to stop coming from a position of authority because you obviously know nothing about the brain or its evolution...

---

Throughout the history of this planet, only a small percentage of life has been doing this contemplating the universe thing, and having high-minded conversations about how beautiful life is and how wonderful their experiences have been. But life isn't anything like this, it's a replicating DNA molecule that has been reproducing and consuming itself for approximately 4 billion years.

If that was all life was, we wouldn't be able to do things like "this contemplating the universe thing." Life is learning, contemplating, feeling, suffering, joy, and without these things, we'd be rocks.

---

Well, in nature we have all these organisms eating each other, and if it wasn't for an asteroid impacting Earth, this place could still have been dominated by dinosaurs, there would be no grace or beauty, it would still be an ugly bug planet.

I happen to think that bugs and dinosaurs are fabulously gorgeous. There would still be organisms eating each other because that's life. Get used to it. It's not going to change.

Do I have to point out that you've never seen a dinosaur?
Do you find a lion tearing open a zebra while it's still alive fabulously gorgeous?

---

Does it have a purpose? No, it was just an accident of biology, which perpetuated all these different manifestations of life.

Possibly it has no meaning in the broad sense. If I didn't love my children, or find it to be meaningful to be their mother, I would have just let them starve to death or something. If everyone held this meaningless position, then evolution by natural selection would have ceased the reproduction of our DNA. Children would not survive past infancy if the the beings whom spawned them found taking care of them meaningless. It is instilled in us to find meaning in things, for without it the continuation of our species would not occur.

This is my intention with this philosophy, an antinatalist approach to the human species. Not to neglect the children already brought into existence obviously, but to cease procreation of our species.

Although the mother finds the meaning in protecting them while they're in eggs, she abandons them when they're born, almost as if she finds no meaning in protecting them now. She's reproduced, passed on her DNA, and her job is done. Yeah, they're an endangered species.

The reason why they're an endangered species is because they lack the instincts to care for their young and protect them against the harms of nature, thus natural selection does not favour this species.

---

He got the point, ladies and gentleman.

Snobby bitch.

---

And what are we? We are simply puppets animated by the non-benign chemistry that has been pulling our strings for hundreds of thousands of years.

Speak for yourself.

This is essentially what all sentient life is.

You think you have a self, a solitary unity self with a fixed identity? Well, sorry to break it to you, but you don't. Your subjective experiences are just the end result of electrochemical activity in your brain.

Interesting claim. Evidence?

---

You experience your reality through your senses (human physical senses of a normal functioning human being include: sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, balance and acceleration, temperature, kinetic sense, and pain) your brain then takes this information and asks the question, "what is this?" and is answered via the information and beliefs you already have. The brain then asked another question, "what should I do with this?" or "what does this mean to me?" and is answered via the information and beliefs already there. You then make a decision, which translates into your behaviour and emotion.

That's pretty much the basics of conscious experience.

So, what's your point? Life isn't worth living because we can attribute our consciousness to taking in and processing information about the world around us, and reacting accordingly? Fucking, so what.

No, now you're using a straw man.

---

Our species has become so deluded from reality that we can't even see the only thing which is meaningful - sentience - that which we take for granted. None of this material has any real value, it's all just perceptual, the value is inside ourselves. The conscious welfare of all sentient beings is what matters.

This is not pessimism. This is altruism. Get your isms straight before running off at the mouth.

---

Yes, I realise it's very altruistic too, sorry for not mentioning so. This is the reason why I'm a vegan in my personal life, I can't bear the thought of killing another animal for the consumption of its meat, the only time I would do this is if I can across an animal that was in severe pain and had no hope of surviving, which I would put out of its misery like any decent human being would.

Spare all the pigs, and cows because you feel bad for them, but end the human species? I find many flaws in that. Do these animals not procreate? They do. They're breeding like mad, all to have their children suffer the fate of death to become bacon for bacon enthusiasts like me. How wretched are they to be so selfish? It's the nature and order of things to breed. You're not some resplendent hero because you don't enjoy your spot on the top of the food chain. You are, however, silly.

Newborn babies are less conscious than the piece of meat that you had on your plate last night, should we start eating them? Should we start eating our dogs or little cute fluffy kittens because it's only our social conditioning from preventing us from doing so, or does the sentient welfare of your pet mean something to you? Chains don't have tops by the way, we're all interconnected. Isn't a parasite top because it feeds off us, and don't we get eaten by other animals? Aren't we just a by-product of a DNA molecule consuming, cannibalising and reproducing itself?

---

We still create sentient beings that are capable of experiencing pain and suffering for our own edification. We haven't demonstrated any capacity to solve this hate problem, we think we can somehow take control of nature when we are the very part of the problem we seek to solve.

Wait.. didn't you state before that we just meaninglessly replicate our DNA? Now we do it for our own edification? So there's meaning, at least. Think things through. Please. Do you even know the root of hate? Does a spider wrap a fly up in it's own junk, and then suck it's innards out because he hates the fly, or because that's how the fly survives? Not all of us think we can take control of nature, but you seem to passionately wish you could... especially strange for a self-proclaimed "pessimist".

---

Humans are self-conscious beings. Most people don't think about their reproductive choices, they don't ask the question as to why our species should procreate. Children are brought into this world either via accidental fertilisation, or to pass on the genes of the previous generation or some other selfish intent such as utilisation, it is never for the sake of that child.

Chimps are self conscious beings, and neither do they think about their reproductive choices. Maybe you should poach some Chimps and eat them out of spite. You are not in the minds of all people on this planet. You are not aware of nature in any sense. You are trapped inside you're own shriveling mind, never questioning your own thoughts, or how ridiculous they might sound to other people before you say them. You have a lot to learn. I suspect there's a long, hard road ahead for you.

I'm pretty sure we have more cognitive abilities than any chimp, and they don't exactly use contraception of any kind.

---

We will not be able to control the technology that we are currently busy designing and experimenting with. We hope that this will lead humanity to inevitable moral progress. It won't.

Who is "We", and why do you continue to use all-encompassing language that insinuates that you have some sort of omniscient insight to the opinions on technology from every person in the world? Some people don't think that at all, so now you're just mindlessly assuming, and making irrational claims.

---

So, I'm assuming that you believe in a utopian society of some sort?

Well, I am a socialist, but I do not believe in a utopian society. How on earth did you arrive at that question? I simply stated that you can't go around pretending to know how each person in this world values technology.

What's the purpose of technology? To make human experience more comfortable, right? What is it also used for?
What does the end result of a socialists world view look like?

---

You can continue to fill your head with daydreaming and nonsensical wishful, hopeful thinking and talk about how beautiful and joyous your DNA ride is, or you can recognise that it isn't a ride at all, just a stupid molecule creating biological experiments.

pessimistic thinking is just as much a "seat" on the "DNA ride" as wishful/hopeful thinking. If you believe that it isn't, please explain how and why you came to believe this.

---

Well, having a negative value judgement on life, I believe that this species is at a dead end and the continuation of the perpetuation of our species is utterly meaningless and creates more suffering for sentient beings, and that bestowing sentience on another organism is an unethical imposition.

You're on a "DNA ride" just like the rest of us with opposing views on the world. Sounds like yours is just more boring, and you're track is a bit wonky. Your own life is meaningless. Do you make no unethical impositions? Is coming here and telling a mother of four healthy children who love to live that she is a selfish bitch for bringing her children into the world, just because you fucking think so NOT an unethical imposition? Think.

You're between the walls on this issue because of your attachment to your children, it was selfish of you, but you didn't know any better. You'll just have to come to accept those facts...

---

Ask yourself this question - Which would I prefer?

Meaningless and amoral universe with a cycle of unnecessary pain, suffering and death inflicted on the present generation by the generation preceding it due to insane and deluded animals mistakenly believing that they are bestowing something precious - sentience - that needs to be perpetuated at any costs.

Meaningless and amoral universe with no unecessary pain, suffering and death inflicted on future generations by the present generation.

Pretty tough decision to make isn't it?

Well, no, not at all. Once again this is your opinion on the meaning of life, or rather, lack thereof. Pain and suffering are a part of life. What you're suggesting is that we stop reproducing in order to stop inflicting anymore unnecessary pain on beings that didn't ask to exist. It's illogical. It just doesn't work that way.

---

It's not illogical at all, we know through our subjective experience what the pleasure pain principle is, and what the consequences of sentience are.

Yes, and most people who are born want to live. They want the consequences. Those who don't do something about it.

Everyone's life is worse off than one thinks it is...

You have a right to your opinion, but no right to impose it as a supreme ideal upon others.

Well, since I consider this argument logically sound, you have no right to procreate.

You need help. Real help. Not silly frou-frou retreat help. Perhaps you have an iron or protein deficiency. My right to procreate will never be revoked for this insane philosophy of yours. I'm gonna keep procreating. You can tell us your opinion, but like I said, you have no right to impose your opinion upon me, or society. Dream on.

You're a selfish, sadistic cunt.

---

Anyway, just my thoughts. We only know what we know with the information, beliefs and priorities we have at any given moment in time. No need to hate, just appreciate what we all have in common.

Thanks.

Yes, and as you age you will come to realize that the more you know, the more you know you don't know.

---

I don't think that's likely, this is the most important question in terms of our existence. You're using argumentum ad hominem by the way.

You're a person who lacks wisdom, because you don't even want to grow.

You lack the basic knowledge to have this debate...

[5thHorseman]

[Shell B]

It's not a debate.

[Vaginasaur]

It's not a debate.

What is it then?

[Shell B]

Mental masturbation followed by attempts to direct it into debate followed by more mental masturbation that often cannot even be described as a response to said attempts at debate. Sorry, but there is an awful lot of responding to questions with questions or irrelevant statements.

[Vaginasaur]

Ethics works on value equations, reasoning and logic... Your statement is nonsensical.

[Erinome]

I find myself hungry for a puppy sandwich all of a sudden.

[5thHorseman]

I have a hot dog you can chew on .....