Thread 24818460

I should focus on killing myself and taking as many people as I can with me. That's what this book is getting at right?

>>24818460 (OP)
>Benatar is an atheist[16][17] and is ethnically Jewish.[23] He has expressed concern about what he views as a hostile environment toward Jews at institutions such as the University of Cape Town

>>24818460 (OP)
If that's what you got from the book then your reading comprehension is very poor, or you haven't bothered to read it (in which case, why shit up the board)

>>24818506
You if this were real life I would've treated you to the back of my hand for acting this smug and uppity.

>>24818460 (OP)
That would require too much action, determination and sovl, which you could actually use to change yourself if possessed in the first place.

>>24818460 (OP)
You failed at comprehending the TITLE

>>24818469
>I’m a Jew but I don’t believe in God
This is the dumbest stance humanly possible. The whole point of being a Jew is worshipping God.

Reminder that anti-natalists are likely to be mentally ill and have a personality disorder

This doesn't mean that anti-natalist arguments can be dismissed solely due to this fact (inb4 crying about ad hom); it does however add context to why autists make these threads and are completely unable to understand why they are wrong. It also has direct implications regarding Benatar's quality of life argument (i.e. anti-natalists are stuck in a rigid ideological system as a cope for to sustain their defective worldview).

Say you're designing a logo and you want to market test for the most appealing shade of red. Would you want most of those in your sample population to suffer from protanopia?

Anti-natalists are at a complete poverty when it comes to weighing quality of life. Their defective nature simply precludes them from accepting any rationalization outside of their own self-indoctrination. They don't necessarily mean to be disingenuous because such is simply written into their nature.

Also note that the more you talk to them the more you'll realize a sick fascination with harm, violence, and death. These people don't want to reduce harm, they want to justify their resentment and spread their misery.

>>24818460 (OP)
No, you should focus on creating genetically engineered superhappy people.

https://www.abolitionist.com/anti-natalism.html

>Benatar's policy prescription is untenable. Radical anti-natalism as a recipe for human extinction will fail because any predisposition to share that bias will be weeded out of the population. Radical anti-natalist ethics is self-defeating: there will always be selection pressure against its practitioners. Complications aside, any predisposition not to have children or to adopt is genetically maladaptive. On a personal level, the decision not to bring more suffering into the world and forgo having children is morally admirable. But voluntary childlessness or adoption is not a global solution to the problem of suffering.

>Yet how should rational moral agents behave if - hypothetically - some variant of Benatar's diagnosis as distinct from policy prescription was correct?

>In an era of biotechnology and unnatural selection, an alternative to anti-natalism is the world-wide adoption of genetically preprogrammed well-being. For there needn't be selection pressure against gradients of lifelong adaptive bliss - i.e. a radical recalibration of the hedonic treadmill. The only way to eradicate the biological substrates of unpleasantness - and thereby prevent the harm of Darwinian existence - is not vainly to champion life's eradication, but instead to ensure that sentient life is inherently blissful. More specifically, the impending reproductive revolution of designer babies is likely to witness intense selection pressure against the harmfulness-promoting adaptations that increased the inclusive fitness of our genes in the ancestral environment of adaptation. If we use biotechnology wisely, then gradients of genetically preprogrammed well-being can make all sentient life subjectively rewarding - indeed wonderful beyond the human imagination. So in common with "positive" utilitarians, the "negative" utilitarian would do better to argue for genetically preprogrammed superhappiness.

>>24818469
Benatar also supports mutilating baby penises, despite supposedly being an anti-suffering utilitarian.

https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1162/152651603766436216