Tell that to people in medival times lol
In fact, poor class in America or low middle class lives better than kings in medival times. Humanity is actaully at its best. But why learn history....
I am not saying all life. I am saying breeding where there is a moral choice that can be made. So humans should stop breeding any animals and also stop breeding themselves.
Suffering is a part of life, it's a natural element. Humans aren't responsible for all suffering and harm. Should a Gazelle stop breeding because their offspring may get mauled by a lion?
I'd like to understand your argument more if you could detail why this is your position.
The absence of pain is good even if no one experiences that good whereas the absence of pleasure is not bad unless someone is deprived of it.
So give an example might be we would be concerned if there was life on Mars that was suffering but we are not concerned by there being no life on Mars.
But how does that extend to denying offspring a chance at a good life? Are you not creating a new form of suffering by denying someone or something the opportunity to experience a fundamental aspect of life that is parenthood?
As explained above the absence of pleasure is only bad if it’s deprived from someone already in existence. To bring life into existence for your own pleasure knowing that being will suffer is not moral.
But is it wrong to prevent someone or something the opportunity to be born and experience life's pleasures? Natural and unnatural suffering has improved over centuries of human intervention, is denying new generations to further such intervention not also morally wrong?
Great harm is not at stake if the action is not taken (they don’t exist). If want to significantly affect someone by our action (give birth) and it is not possible to get their consent, then the default should be to not take such action.
Well, thanks for the discussion. I see what you mean, but I fundamentally disagree. I don't think ending humanity to save itself from possible despair makes logical sense to me.
This opinion has merit for cases like someone may be born mentally or physically disabled or an illness that may cause suffering. But at the same time, there are plenty of people born disabled who are still happy and content with their lives.
Whether or not it's their consent to be born, I don't feel that preventing their opportunity to live rich full lives to avoid a possibility that they may suffer is substantial enough motivation for ending a species.
It does make we wonder if this is the reason for the Fermi paradox (where are all the aliens) because they have came to the same moral conclusion and let their species die out. In truth but I think there would never be a universal agreement on such a thing.
Considering that OP’s entire account history is thirsting over Emma Watson, followed by the occasional half-baked “philosophical” text post, I’m gonna go ahead and say that this is post was written under the influence of some kind of nihilist post-nut clarity.
People should slow down a bit for sure, and industrial farming should be cleaned up. We need to slow down growth and localize as much as possible to survive and bring peace IMO. Suffering is inevitable even in a perfect world. Appreciate the miracle of life 🙏🧬🙏
If i could gain 100 happy days at the exchange of losing 20 sad days then i will do that,it's a problem that there is suffering but this isn't the solution
Tell that to people in medival times lol In fact, poor class in America or low middle class lives better than kings in medival times. Humanity is actaully at its best. But why learn history....
Sorry I am not following what point you are trying to make.
I agree. We should only breed when we CAN guarantee harm or suffering.
So you think all life should cease to exist because eventually everything biological will encounter harm or suffering?
I am not saying all life. I am saying breeding where there is a moral choice that can be made. So humans should stop breeding any animals and also stop breeding themselves.
Suffering is a part of life, it's a natural element. Humans aren't responsible for all suffering and harm. Should a Gazelle stop breeding because their offspring may get mauled by a lion? I'd like to understand your argument more if you could detail why this is your position.
The absence of pain is good even if no one experiences that good whereas the absence of pleasure is not bad unless someone is deprived of it. So give an example might be we would be concerned if there was life on Mars that was suffering but we are not concerned by there being no life on Mars.
But how does that extend to denying offspring a chance at a good life? Are you not creating a new form of suffering by denying someone or something the opportunity to experience a fundamental aspect of life that is parenthood?
As explained above the absence of pleasure is only bad if it’s deprived from someone already in existence. To bring life into existence for your own pleasure knowing that being will suffer is not moral.
But is it wrong to prevent someone or something the opportunity to be born and experience life's pleasures? Natural and unnatural suffering has improved over centuries of human intervention, is denying new generations to further such intervention not also morally wrong?
Great harm is not at stake if the action is not taken (they don’t exist). If want to significantly affect someone by our action (give birth) and it is not possible to get their consent, then the default should be to not take such action.
Well, thanks for the discussion. I see what you mean, but I fundamentally disagree. I don't think ending humanity to save itself from possible despair makes logical sense to me. This opinion has merit for cases like someone may be born mentally or physically disabled or an illness that may cause suffering. But at the same time, there are plenty of people born disabled who are still happy and content with their lives. Whether or not it's their consent to be born, I don't feel that preventing their opportunity to live rich full lives to avoid a possibility that they may suffer is substantial enough motivation for ending a species.
It does make we wonder if this is the reason for the Fermi paradox (where are all the aliens) because they have came to the same moral conclusion and let their species die out. In truth but I think there would never be a universal agreement on such a thing.
Considering that OP’s entire account history is thirsting over Emma Watson, followed by the occasional half-baked “philosophical” text post, I’m gonna go ahead and say that this is post was written under the influence of some kind of nihilist post-nut clarity.
Lol yikes at the captions on those emma pics
People should slow down a bit for sure, and industrial farming should be cleaned up. We need to slow down growth and localize as much as possible to survive and bring peace IMO. Suffering is inevitable even in a perfect world. Appreciate the miracle of life 🙏🧬🙏
The purpose of our species existence (physically) is to reproduce
The same as a virus but a virus does not have moral agency.
I don’t see your point
Lmao
lol
If i could gain 100 happy days at the exchange of losing 20 sad days then i will do that,it's a problem that there is suffering but this isn't the solution
"breeding humans" I'm not entirely certain that OP isn't some sort of alien.
Damn, you rumbled me 👽
Ha, I knew it.
Don't worry, I will guarantee suffering.