Discussion Extinction is logical

[It's_all_so_tedious]

Existential antinatalism (the idea that procreation is illogical) & existential promortalism (the idea that it is logical for any mortal living being to die as soon as possible) are unique extinctionist ideologies introduced by the philosopher Gontlemang General-Segolodi.

There is no need for concern over their "moral/ethical implications" because the concept of "morality/ethics" is fictitious.

They are both supported by 3 arguments.

The first is called the argument from unnecessary complexity. It states that in the world there exist living things and non living things & both serve the same purpose, which is to maintain the existence of the universe, through the obedience of the laws of physics in actions that are all predetermined. However, the non living things can do this job by themselves, meaning that the existence of living things adds unnecessary complexity to the world. Thus, it is more logical to make the world simpler by removing the already existing living things & not bringing more new ones.

The second is called the argument from a lack of purpose. It states that it is impossible to prove that a living organism must continue living or that it must create new life, since this would amount to a moral claim & morality is a fictitious concept. As such, it is illogical to do something that you have no obligation to do. One could argue that there is no moral obligation to be dead either so being dead is illogical. This is false, because dead things do not exist any more & the characteristic of being logical or illogical cannot apply to the them.

The third is called the argument from a universal solution. Know life, know problems. No life, no problems. It states that every living thing has to solve problems. The word, "problems" here, is used in a general sense, to refer to having desires. To have a desire simply means to want something. The nature of the desire, doesn't matter. It could be anything, no matter how big (wanting to run for president) or small (wanting to go to the toilet). This argument states that it is illogical to create offspring who will have desires, since they did not need or want anything before they were born. It goes on to state that death is the most logical reaction to having any desires, because death gets rid of desires themselves. Consider for example, the fact that humans need to eat food to stay alive. Instead of dealing with your hunger by eating food, if you instead die, you would permanently, no longer even need to eat. On a larger scale, rather than governments spending huge amounts of money & effort on agriculture, it would instead be a more sensible action to organize a total genocide, to avoid the need for food production.

More information here & here.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Interesting but I doubt the majority of animals- including some humans even think about procreating that logically. They simply follow their innate instincts and desires. I don't think logic holds much power over the forces that exist in the world. Including things like survival and reproductive instinct. But as a principle, it makes sense. I really like the phrase: 'Know life, know problems, no life, no problems.' That's clever.

 

[Unicr0n]

the idea that it is logical for any mortal living being to die as soon as possible

As soon as you understand you can contribute something positive to the world, it is logical to pursue that goal because it does more good for the world than harm. Killing yourself contributes negatively to the world outside of resource usage.

 

[sserafim]

Killing yourself contributes negatively to the world outside of resource usage.

How so? I know it deprives the system of a worker (labor/human capital) and is bad for the economy though

 

[Unicr0n]

How so? I know it deprives the system of a worker (labor/human capital) and is bad for the economy though

Trauma to your family, your friends, your coworkers, people who knew you in school, individuals that find your body, individuals that clean up the mess, the compounding trauma of the individuals that have to investigate your body. Your suicide causes rebounding compound trauma to multiple systems of individuals compared to a natural death.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

Trauma to your family, your friends, your coworkers, people who knew you in school, individuals that find your body, individuals that clean up the mess, the compounding trauma of the individuals that have to investigate your body. Your suicide causes rebounding compound trauma to multiple systems of individuals compared to a natural death.

So would you say it's "bad" to kill yourself then? Perhaps like how doing slavery might be "bad"?

 

[Unicr0n]

So would you say it's "bad" to kill yourself then? Perhaps like how doing slavery might be "bad"?

To me, suicide is bad because it causes more harm than good. Have I done bad things in the past? Yeah. Will I do bad things in the future? Yeah. Good and bad are human concepts. Nothing is inherently "good" or "bad". It depends on one's ethics/morals. Some people may have so few morals that even murdering a human for pleasure isn't "bad" to them. Make of that what you will.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

To me, suicide is bad because it causes more harm than good. Have I done bad things in the past? Yeah. Will I do bad things in the future? Yeah. Good and bad are human concepts. Nothing is inherently "good" or "bad". It depends on one's ethics/morals. Some people may have so few morals that even murdering a human for pleasure isn't "bad" to them. Make of that what you will.

Well it's a good thing we're all humans here and are largely ruled by human concepts. Pointing out that slavery isn't inherently good or bad because you don't believe in those concepts is pretty hypocritical when you go elsewhere and state your moral position on a topic as if it's the truth.

Notably, when people decided that slavery was morally bad, which people did do, they did so because of that stated reason. It doesn't matter if morals inherently exist in the universe or not, we're talking about the reason someone did something and how that might impact their reasoning relative to the different situation at hand. Pointing out that morals don't exist in that case is nonsensical because it was literally the thing which motivated an action being discussed.

Existential antinatalism (the idea that procreation is illogical) & existential promortalism (the idea that it is logical for any mortal living being to die as soon as possible) are unique extinctionist ideologies introduced by the philosopher Gontlemang General-Segolodi.

There is no need for concern over their "moral/ethical implications" because the concept of "morality/ethics" is fictitious.

They are both supported by 3 arguments.

The first is called the argument from unnecessary complexity. It states that in the world there exist living things and non living things & both serve the same purpose, which is to maintain the existence of the universe, through the obedience of the laws of physics in actions that are all predetermined. However, the non living things can do this job by themselves, meaning that the existence of living things adds unnecessary complexity to the world. Thus, it is more logical to make the world simpler by removing the already existing living things & not bringing more new ones.

The second is called the argument from a lack of purpose. It states that it is impossible to prove that a living organism must continue living or that it must create new life, since this would amount to a moral claim & morality is a fictitious concept. As such, it is illogical to do something that you have no obligation to do. One could argue that there is no moral obligation to be dead either so being dead is illogical. This is false, because dead things do not exist any more & the characteristic of being logical or illogical cannot apply to the them.

The third is called the argument from a universal solution. Know life, know problems. No life, no problems. It states that every living thing has to solve problems. The word, "problems" here, is used in a general sense, to refer to having desires. To have a desire simply means to want something. The nature of the desire, doesn't matter. It could be anything, no matter how big (wanting to run for president) or small (wanting to go to the toilet). This argument states that it is illogical to create offspring who will have desires, since they did not need or want anything before they were born. It goes on to state that death is the most logical reaction to having any desires, because death gets rid of desires themselves. Consider for example, the fact that humans need to eat food to stay alive. Instead of dealing with your hunger by eating food, if you instead die, you would permanently, no longer even need to eat. On a larger scale, rather than governments spending huge amounts of money & effort on agriculture, it would instead be a more sensible action to organize a total genocide, to avoid the need for food production.

More information here & here.

1. What's the logic that states that complexity must be removed if possible? What logic decides that complexity is unnecessary? I also fundamentally disagree with the basis that things only exist to maintain the universe. What's the justification given for that basis?

What's the actual distinction between living and dead things?


2. What are obligations? If morals aren't real, then obligations can't really exist either, since they are fundamentally morally driven motivations. Why is it only logical to do things we are obligated to do? What about things we want to do?

Wanting to do something comes from the way we are programmed - that's why humans and other organisms reproduce, after all. Instinct is just very complex programming built into the system. In that sense, can't we also say that an atom wants to obey the laws of physics?


3. This depends on the logical basis "having problems is undesirable". If we instead implement the basis "having problems is good, actually" then the opposite follows. Both are generated without logical foundation since they are literally the basis for a logical argument which follows.

And I would say that it's entirely reasonable to claim "having problems is good, actually" because solving those problems is often rewarding, at least from the perspective of a human mind. And since problems can't exist without the perspective of a human mind, you can't say problems are bad without involving a human perspective.

 

[Unicr0n]

Pointing out that slavery isn't inherently good or bad because you don't believe in those concepts

I didn't say I didn't believe in the concept of good and evil. I do. That's why I say I've done bad things in the past, will do bad things in the future. Because I have morals/ethics. Don't put words in my mouth please.

Btw slavery has always been seen with more of a negative light than a positive one no matter who benefited. Slave owners had a lot to lose with a rebellion which is why Sparta lived in constant fear despite accepting slavery. They were aware that it was 'wrong' [why else would one rebel]? But they operated under the terms of Those Who Walked Away from Omelas. Life from them, to them, had to exist that way. Because it worked and allowed them to survive. They knew it was wrong but they chose to keep doing it anyway. There were women who would kill themselves after hearing that their city's warriors had lost because they knew the life of a slave wasn't for them--they knew what it would entail and it's why they didn't own slaves themselves.

doesn't matter if morals inherently exist in the universe or not, we're talking about the reason someone did something and how that might impact their reasoning relative to the different situation at hand.

Reasoning IS morals. They are concepts that you give thought to and attribute 'good' and 'bad' to. But GOOD and BAD are man-made concepts. They don't exist no matter what way you try to spin it. One person might think murder is bad. One person might think murder is good. These are morals. But in reality, murder is neither bad nor good. It simply is. You can try to justify why it may be good but that doesn't make it any more true than why it might be bad to you. Neither position is actually true except in your head.

I mention that these concepts are neither good or bad BECAUSE suicide is neither good nor bad either, in reality. Suicide was once regarded positively in the older days. Greek mythology heavily relied upon it and it was seen as as not necessarily cowardly. Nowadays, society of first world countries have demonized it. Does it make suicide actually bad or actually good? No. It simply is. It is up to the individual to label suicide good or bad. I see suicide as both bad and good. Bad because it hurts others and takes away your potential. Good because it frees you. Are either of these things actually good or bad? No. Someone else might think it's good because it hurts other and bad because it frees you. It's all subjective, not real.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

I didn't say I didn't believe in the concept of good and evil. I do. That's why I say I've done bad things in the past, will do bad things in the future. Because I have morals/ethics. Don't put words in my mouth please.

Reasoning IS morals. They are concepts that you give thought to and attribute 'good' and 'bad' to. But GOOD and BAD are man-made concepts. They don't exist no matter what way you try to spin it. One person might think murder is bad. One person might think murder is good. These are morals. But in reality, murder is neither bad nor good. It simply is. You can try to justify why it may be good but that doesn't make it any more true than why it might be bad to you. Neither position is actually true except in your head.

Once again, whether or not good and bad exist DOESN'T MATTER to that discussion.

I was talking about WHY people stopped doing slavery. And how that's relevant to why someone today might be persecuted for their race. If people decided to stop doing slavery because inferiority is not a reason for persecution, then they won't do discrimination today because of inferiority. That's all there was to that statement. Stop trying to make your moral relativism relevant to that discussion.


You're right, let me directly quote you:
"Slavery isn't "right or wrong", it simply is. Humans assign the label of "moral atrocity" but that doesn't mean it actually is. Morals are opinions, not facts."

How is that not saying that you don't believe in concept of good and bad?

 

[sserafim]

Trauma to your family, your friends, your coworkers, people who knew you in school, individuals that find your body, individuals that clean up the mess, the compounding trauma of the individuals that have to investigate your body. Your suicide causes rebounding compound trauma to multiple systems of individuals compared to a natural death.

Do you think that other people's emotions and trauma matter more than your own then? It's honestly selfish to expect someone to stay alive for others. It could even be argued that suicide is "good" because it allows for the end of the person's pain and suffering

To me, suicide is bad because it causes more harm than good. Have I done bad things in the past? Yeah. Will I do bad things in the future? Yeah. Good and bad are human concepts. Nothing is inherently "good" or "bad". It depends on one's ethics/morals. Some people may have so few morals that even murdering a human for pleasure isn't "bad" to them. Make of that what you will.

What if life/living is causing someone harm?

 

[Unicr0n]

that's relevant to why someone today might be persecuted for their race. If people decided to stop doing slavery because inferiority is not a reason for persecution, t

You are misattributing racism to slavery. There were white, mexican, Native American slaves in America prior to the Africans being sold to the USA by South America. White people were slaves. Native Americans owned slaves as well of the enemies they captured. Before this, slavery was based on where you came from, too. So Spartans owned Helots which was anyone who wasn't a Spartan. They didn't care about your race. Slavery up till the USA basically had never been about race. Slavery in the USA began to introduce racism, where slaves were then based on your race due to whites reproducing with Africans. But slavery prior to that hadn't to do with the colour of your skin but where you came from.

Do you think that other people's emotions matter more than your own? It could be argued that suicide is "good" because it allows for the end of the person's pain and suffering

To me now, yes. To younger me, no. I believe suicide is both good and bad.

 

[sserafim]

To me now, yes.

Why? It's your life, not someone else's

 

[Unicr0n]

Why? It's your life, not someone else's

I care about reducing the amount of harm I cause to other people because I harmed a lot of people as a child/teen and feel guilt for it. My family would not be as unfortunate as it is today if I hadn't hurt them. Sometimes it's not the world's fault, sometimes it's our actions that cause suffering. I could kill myself instead of changing and working to be a better person. That would be so easy. I wouldn't have to feel guilt for what I'd done, never have to learn my lesson and try to be better.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

You are misattributing racism to slavery. There were white, mexican, Native American slaves in America prior to the Africans being sold to the USA by South America. White people were slaves. Native Americans owned slaves as well of the enemies they captured. Before this, slavery was based on where you came from, too. So Spartans owned Helots which was anyone who wasn't a Spartan. They didn't care about your race. Slavery up till the USA basically had never been about race. Slavery in the USA began to introduce racism, where slaves were then based on your race due to whites reproducing with Africans. But slavery prior to that hadn't to do with the colour of your skin but where you came from.

To me now, yes. To younger me, no. I believe suicide is both good and bad.

Sure. I don't disagree with that historical assessment on slavery as a concept. But the reason slavery in the USA was ended was ultimately because people decided that race was not a sufficient justification to keep people enslaved.

Keep in mind, we're literally talking about anti-black racism in the USA. Context is very vital here. Whether the Greek and the Vikings did colorblind slavery before the American/Colonial institution of slavery is not that relevant.

 

[Unicr0n]

Sure. I don't disagree with that historical assessment on slavery as a concept. But the reason slavery in the USA was ended was ultimately because people decided that race was not a sufficient justification to keep people enslaved.

Keep in mind, we're literally talking about anti-black racism in the USA. Context is very vital here. Whether the Greek and the Vikings did colorblind slavery before the American/Colonial institution of slavery is not that relevant.

No one was talking about slavery in this thread prior to you mentioning it and you didn't refer to one type of slavery.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

No one was talking about slavery in this thread prior to you mentioning it and you didn't refer to one type of slavery.

I mean sure, but I assume you remember what you wrote. It's more of a response to you in this thread, which is unfortunately now locked:

Why I've been blackpilled on racial equality, and why I'm probably going to kill myself.

I'm a 22-year old, African-American male...and I think my race might be inferior. First off, I'll admit I've never lived the stereotypical "black experience". I didn't grow up poor or in "the hood" or whatever. I was raised upper-middle class by parents who were both college-educated and had...

sanctioned-suicide.net

I wouldn't have brought it up here if I didn't find your response to this thread inconsistent with what you said over there.

 

[Unicr0n]

I mean sure, but I assume you remember what you wrote. It's more of a response to you in this thread, which is unfortunately now locked:

Why I've been blackpilled on racial equality, and why I'm probably going to kill myself.

I'm a 22-year old, African-American male...and I think my race might be inferior. First off, I'll admit I've never lived the stereotypical "black experience". I didn't grow up poor or in "the hood" or whatever. I was raised upper-middle class by parents who were both college-educated and had...

sanctioned-suicide.net

I wouldn't have brought it up here if I didn't find your response to this thread inconsistent with what you said over there.

Maybe keep thread discussions separate for the sake of everyone else who isn't in tune, especially discussions which were locked [which might hint you trying to circumvent a locked thread]? Even I didn't realise what you were talking about because it wasn't in this thread. My response wasn't inconsistent.

 

[FuneralCry]

It's only logical to me as if nobody exists then nobody can suffer, they wouldn't be able to mourn for the absence of existence, there are no disadvantages to being permanently unaware yet in existence there is unlimited potential for cruelty, harm and torture. Existence truly is so unnecessary, useless and just creates problems there was never a need for, in fact I see existence itself as the true problem, it's beyond tragic to me how this species hasn't gone voluntarily extinct yet, the existence of life is such a terrible tragedy.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

Maybe keep thread discussions separate for the sake of everyone else who isn't in tune, especially discussions which were locked [which might hint you trying to circumvent a locked thread]? Even I didn't realise what you were talking about because it wasn't in this thread. My response wasn't inconsistent.

How is your response not inconsistent? You went out of your way to say that slavery isn't good or bad because there is no such thing as good and bad (unprompted and for no reason since it wasn't relevant to that discussion) and then come over here explicitly saying that killing yourself is bad.

If I get banned for that, sure, that's fair. I won't dispute that. But until you can show me how that's not inconsistent, I won't drop the issue without being forced to.

 

[Unicr0n]

How is your response not inconsistent? You went out of your way to say that slavery isn't good or bad because there is no such thing as good and bad (unprompted and for no reason since it wasn't relevant to that discussion) and then come over here explicitly saying that killing yourself is bad.

If I get banned for that, sure, that's fair. I won't dispute that. But until you can show me how that's not inconsistent, I won't drop the issue without being forced to.

Despite being filled with all of the negative stereotypes of women, Pandora is neither a bad girl nor a good girl. She is simply a girl. People ascribe the label "good" or "bad" to her based on their opinions [these opinions that we call "ethics" or "morals"]. I could call her "good"; I could call her "bad". It doesn't make it true. The Greeks understood that negative things happening are not inherently bad or good. You should learn from them. Good and bad is an OPINION not a FACT. That is why I'm not inconsistent. I can have my opinion on slavery or suicide and the opinion be irrelevant because in reality, there's no such thing as good and bad just as your opinion on slavery is just as irrelevant. I will still assert my opinion because I'm a dumbass that blurts the first thing that comes out my head due to low impulse control

If you keep trying to addle me on this then I'm going to report you for evading a thread lock. You can discuss this in PMs but maybe not discuss a thread locked discussion on another thread.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

Despite being filled with all of the negative stereotypes of women, Pandora is neither a bad girl nor a good girl. She is simply a girl. People ascribe the label "good" or "bad" to her based on their opinions [these opinions that we call "ethics" or "morals"]. I could call her "good"; I could call her "bad". It doesn't make it true. The Greeks understood that negative things happening are not inherently bad or good. You should learn from them. Good and bad is an OPINION not a FACT. That is why I'm not inconsistent. I can have my opinion on slavery or suicide and the opinion be irrelevant because in reality, there's no such thing as good and bad just as your opinion on slavery is just as irrelevant. I will still assert my opinion because I'm a dumbass that blurts the first thing that comes out my head due to low impulse control

If you keep trying to addle me on this then I'm going to report you for evading a thread lock. You can discuss this in PMs but maybe not discuss a thread locked discussion on another thread.

Have I ever actually claimed that negative things happening is inherently good or bad? I'm only calling you out on your hypocrisy because YOU are trying to have it both ways. You're saying it's ok to be inconsistent because your opinion is irrelevant, not that you're not inconsistent. That's fair. But that still means that you ARE inconsistent.

And I think it's relevant here since it ties in to what you're trying to say in THIS thread, though if a mod found that to violate TOS and banned me I wouldn't think that was unreasonable. Feel free to report me if you're as petty as I am.

 

[Unicr0n]

Have I ever actually claimed that negative things happening is inherently good or bad? I'm only calling you out on your hypocrisy because YOU are trying to have it both ways. You're saying it's ok to be inconsistent because your opinion is irrelevant, not that you're not inconsistent. That's fair. But that still means that you ARE inconsistent.

And I think it's relevant here since it ties in to what you're trying to say in THIS thread, though if a mod found that to violate TOS and banned me I wouldn't think that was unreasonable. Feel free to report me if you're as petty as I am.

Opinions are not fact. Deal with it.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

Opinions are not fact. Deal with it.

Weak mindset. That's just your opinions. Unlike you, my opinions are actually all factual.