Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discussion

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

OK, I'm back. Let's see if we can fix this train wreck.

First of all I would like to state a few disclaimers. I realize this is most likely something that will never be accomplished, regardless, I think it is important to deduce what the optimal endgame solution for suffering should be. I see no reason for the quick dismissal when a lot of you are quite comfortable discussing metaphysical concepts such as the existence of God, if anything that's a more useless discussion.
Second, I don't appreciate the demonization of my rhetoric. I am not advocating mass-genocide and I am not a pessimist (not that it would matter anyway). If anything my standpoint is extremely optimistic considering it implicates convincing all of humanity of something that, not that I'm complaining, got me mocked on a forum filled with adherents to communism and other "extremist" ideologies which are generally frowned upon.

Back on topic now:
The point of the mental exercise was simple and it didn't require any further details (no point in nit-picking it). Most of you said that you would have no problem allowing that situation to continue to exist. I think that answer goes down a slippery slope and I have to wonder where you would draw the line. Kalali even said "Simple math would indicate that even if just two people benefited at the one's expense that it's a net gain".
I don't want to smear him with an argumentative cliche but following that logic there is nothing wrong with slavery, after all, the United States greatly benefited (and still is) from the economical momentum that slavery provided.

On a side note, we know why most people have children even though it has obvious immediate negative consequences. The main reasons are; momentum (i.e. everybody is doing it), economical stability (i.e. I need someone to take care of me when I'm old), desire of unconditional love, ego (i.e. I want to pass my seed into the future/be immortal/ whatever) and last but not least, by accident and ignorance (no knowledge or access to contraception). It may be a rather cynical way to look at it but it's indisputable.

Now onto the more juicy bits of this conversation. JayJay said a few pages back that he didn't understand the connection I made between Disneyland and the elephant being eaten alive by lions.
The point was that if suffering isn't a different game and it is indeed " just the opposite end of a spectrum known as pleasure" and it can be counteracted by pleasure then the following scenario should be plausible. If someone is slowly dying of a severely debilitating and incurable disease, I should be able to take a few people with me, go to Disneyland, have a blast and make everything better again. Sure they're still suffering but more people had fun and that's all that matters right?

In conclusion, I have arrived at two ideal and solid endgame solutions. The easy one: stop all life on earth once and for all.
And the second and even more ambitious one which you would probably find more agreeable; eliminate all non-human sentient life and create a self sustainable virtual reality world for the humans where their consciousnesses would be free of all suffering and free to pursue whatever zany things it wants without the restraints of our natural environment.

Far-fetched? Yes. Utopian? I guess. Impossible? Most likely. A desirable outcome? I believe so. Idiotic, moronic and evil? Nope.

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

Your rhetoric doesn't need to be demonized. By any reasonable standard it would be considered completely and utterly despicable.

To be frank the primary reason it was ended was because it became an economic liability. Slaves aren't consumers. In any case you seem to believe that suffering is one-dimensional and happiness is one-dimensional. Utter nonsense... If I buy an ice cream cone I will enjoy it and be happy. If I win the lottery I will also enjoy it and be happy. There is most certainly a difference in the level of happiness that I experience, however. Equally so, if I get a paper-cut I will experience suffering and be unhappy. If I am tortured endlessly I will experience suffering and be unhappy. Again, however, there is stark difference between the levels of suffering/unhappiness I experience. The reason I provided the one-dimensional answer is because you provided a one-dimension question; essentially that you have infinite suffering on one hand and infinite happiness on the other. A 1:1 ratio will produce no net losses or net gains, but 2:1 makes the choice infinitely desirable because of the infinitely superior outcome.

These don't at all seem like bad things. Perhaps the least desirable reason would be ignorance and accident, but even then it's not something to be despised. And of course education can be provided to rectify that issue.

This makes very little sense. The world doesn't work that way at all. Pleasure doesn't always come at the expense of someone else's suffering. And vice versa. But it's unreasonable to think that a trip to Disneyland cannot justify a paper-cut.

And of course you have yet to remotely prove why suffering is somehow the most important and only value, and that it's not just the opposite of pleasure.

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

Pleasure does come at the expense of suffering simply because you can't have one without the other, at least not in any tangible circumstance (the VR thing I talked about would be a solution but we're nowhere near it). Therefore yes, it does work that way.

And fair enough, let's say sentience is the only thing of value, suffering and pleasure both being symptoms of it.
I would have no problem with sustaining a papercut to go to disneyland but that is not the case with our world, the net product of life on earth is not papercut vs. Disneyland.
While pleasure has some sort of superficial value on an individual level, suffering is a whole different game. No one would exchange a violent beating or chemotherapy for Disneyland.

Using a natural argument (you're pretty fond of those right?), pain and pleasure are different and shouldn't be considered equal opposites simply because while they are both a product of the central nervous system they both came about differently. Pain is the more primitive sensation and the more effective in driving organisms, pleasure came about later on and stuck around probably because it's more beneficial to have some positive reinforcement as well. Example of natural difference: I would eat something because it tastes good but I will eat the shit out of anything if I am starving.

I would say all of them are undesirable, being selfish and having a kid just because you want something to love you or take care of you or because your ego is bigger than Mel Gibson's antisemitism boner is despicable. Plus I was just answering to someone who asked why people breed.

*clap*... *clap*... *clap*...
And slavery is technically totally OK as long as it's productive enough right?

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

I hate bringing the whole 'call out fallacies' into this but:

This is known as begging the question. "It's true because it's true." Your reasoning makes no sense. I get pleasure by drinking water; this causes no one suffering. There are probably billions of things every day that we do which don't cause any suffering but do give us pleasure.

Why would we accept that? Pleasure and suffering are both valuable, sentience can be considered to have value as well. There doesn't have to be one ultimate value, there are a ton of important things to take into consideration when deciding whether or not an action is moral (and of course this is if we're actually using action-ethics; there are also virtue and deontological frameworks).

Says who? Again you claim there is more suffering than pleasure experienced on earth; if we look at suicide rates we can see this is obviously not the case. Either way you need to prove this point as the burden is on you (extraordinary claim much?), not me or the rest of us.

Why? What makes pleasure so superficial and suffering so deep?

I would definitely dispute that claim (mainly the 'violent beating' part) but this comparison doesn't help you at all. You're just furthering my position, that suffering and pleasure can be counteracted by each other depending on their severity.

I'm not an expressly natural law advocate, as I said it's got some good points but obvious flaws (I wouldn't be able to wear glasses). But notice how this doesn't support your argument at all. Pain may be the more powerful motivator, but infinite pleasure is equally as potent as infinite pain.

Didn't say that, but as you seem to agree there is a marked difference between a life of forced servitude and some extra change in your pocket.

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

I didn't mean "you can't have one without the other" in that sense obviously, I meant it in a, and I hate to use this word, holistic way. People get born disabled, get run over by cars, get cancer and all that and not to mention the animal world. To ensure the existence of pleasure you need to perpetuate life, by perpetuating life you perpetuate suffering as well.

Sentience is by definition the "container" of both pain and pleasure so I didn't think you'd disagree.

There not being enough suicides is not a good argument simply because of the addictive nature of life. Most people are very much invested in their life and they will hang on no matter what.
I would like to see some reliable statistics from concentration camps but I don't think suicide rates were incredibly high (let's say 50% or something) even there.
13% of people are disabled, most people die in horrible ways and when we take animal suffering into account (either in the wild or the 9 billion a year or so bred for human consumption only in the US) I say the equation is in my favour.

I told you already, I did give some sort of credit to pleasure. Go ahead and pursue it as long as it's not hurting anyone/anything (see my VR crap). I myself don't just sit around thinking of ways to end suffering all day long otherwise I would go insane pretty fast.
I would still argue that infinite pleasure doesn't amount to much if infinite pain is around. I tried a few things but you reject each premise so it doesn't seem like we would ever agree. I would shift the burden of proof on you and ask you what's so great about pleasure that makes it counteract suffering but that would be unfair... it sucks having a minority opinion.

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

I'm surprised this thread even exists. This is some funny shit right here. Do the negative utilitarians in here need everyone else to die with them or it just isn't good enough for them or something? What ass-backwards logic, lol, mind boggling.

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

No need to pluralize it, it's just me in here. And why are you being an asshat all of a sudden?

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

No, you’ve pretty much converted me.

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

I love you man... *bear hug*

Edit: If I still had my fantasy land I'd let you join =P

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

It was harsh rhetoric, but you haven't exactly contributed a convincing argument. Wouldn't you agree that your saying it would be better off if there was no life? So you admit that you would rather be dead than alive? Following this train of logic, I'm wondering if your suicidal, or have a serious case of cognitive dissonance, where you seem to be of the belief that things would be better without life having existed, yet don't seem to be able to formulate a way in which to phrase and/or put your plan into action. TLDR; you don't believe what your saying or you would have acted on what you were saying already(cognitive dissonance).

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

It was harsh rhetoric, but you haven't exactly contributed a convincing argument. Wouldn't you agree that your saying it would be better off if there was no life? So you admit that you would rather be dead than alive? Following this train of logic, I'm wondering if your suicidal, or have a serious case of cognitive dissonance, where you seem to be of the belief that things would be better without life having existed, yet don't seem to be able to formulate a way in which to phrase and/or put your plan into action. TLDR; you don't believe what your saying or you would have acted on what you were saying already(cognitive dissonance).[/quote:1vju7rxp]

I've addressed that just about ten billion times in this thread alone.

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

Re-skimmed. I dunno. I think pleasure is subjective. You seem to be living your life as a positive utilitarian by maximizing the good is something I skimmed on page 2. Or maybe you would phrase that minimizing the bad... by convincing other people not to have children?

Wouldn't you agree that the future is unknowable?
(perhaps all pain and suffering can eventually be gotten rid of as we gradually progress into a more utopian/less violent society)
Wouldn't you agree that the average pleasure per pain ratio has drastically increased in favor of pleasure?
I would... to me the pleasure is subjective, just like art. I get more pleasure than pain from living. So I will continue living.

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

My life: first do no harm, minimize suffering (present and future) and maximize the happy stuff where possible. I'm very centred on the suffering though.
I guess you could say I live my life as an extremely negative, positive utilitarian but that's just simply because I'm just one person in a world that disagrees with me. Ideally, I stand by what I said but you know... you can't be a communist in a capitalist society (or whatever the appropriate analogy may be).
I keep on living (even though, not that it matters, I've been suicidal for as long as I can remember) because I would accomplish nothing by killing myself. Slavery wouldn't have gotten abolished if every abolitionist just killed themselves.
And correct, I consider anti-natalism to be a way of minimizing future suffering, which brings me to your next point.
I don't think:

The world's human population has increased from three billion people or so in 1960 to almost seven billion now. There are certainly more "happy" people around but their numbers are still dwarfed by the less fortunate. It's not only a third world problem either, I could be wrong but I think antidepressants are the most prescribed drug in the US.
If you count in animal suffering (which you definitely should), nature is still as cruel as ever but humanity has surpassed it, the nine billion animals raised for food every year in the US alone account for more suffering than I could imagine. So yeah, the ratio has actually worsened.

The future doesn't look very bright for humanity and the animals are definitely unfixable. That's why I proposed two endgame solutions:
-the one I like most, the easier, voluntary "nuke it from orbit" scenario. You don't even have to kill anyone, just have one last generation and set the nukes to detonate after everyone has died of old age.
-and the even more unachievable solution which placates your psychology more, which is the virtual reality thing I mentioned a few times

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

About the people in the third world: A lot of them are suffering, but very few of their lives are pure suffering. There is small bits of pleasure many of them get. Weather it be coming home to a humble meal, or getting a ball and playing some soccer. In my opinion, it's better to live just so you can get those tiny bits of pleasure, than to concentrate entirely on ones misery.

And Ronald, I'm being serious, if you wish to help end people suffering: Join the Peace Corps. Provide some aid to people who need it, and maybe this whole delusion of Mass Extinction might leave you, or maybe it wont, but you would have at least helped some people.

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

Oh yeah, it must be really cool to be born into the third world, you get your loaf of bread and cup of muddy water a day. What more could you want? And all because your parents needed someone to plow their fields. Sounds like a great deal.
You call it a delusion, I call it a solution. I don't see you offering any alternative other than "but, but life is life man".

And I have my reasons for not volunteering for foreign charities:
-I don't like most of them and their policies
-I have enough shit to deal with as it is, I'll let the gullible upper-middle class american high-school graduates do that instead
-I'm a selfish asshole just like the rest of you (but at least I'm not as selfish as to have children and exploit animals and other people for my pleasure)

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

I just can't except that mass killing is ever a solution. I'm mostly peaceful, though I see justification in war sometimes. However, I just can't justify full destruction just because people are alive!

And like it or not, I'm going to have a child. You see Ronnie boy, there is something called "Love" in this world. I know to you it's probably just a selfish delusion that doesn't matter, but to me and most other people, it's a great feeling. I can't wait to be a dad, the idea of bringing in a living being into this world sounds amazing (and the act of creating 'em aint too bad either tehehe). You can call me selfish, a monster, but I'm not. I'm not going to ask you about your relationship with your parents, but mine is great. I love them! And there is a flaw in your logic: people have different life experiences. And that's what life is, an experience, and each is unique. And you can't spend your life constantly trying to protect yourself from suffering, because it's going to find you no matter what. Rather than coming up with the idea of "I want everything gone so I can never feel misery again!" maybe you should just live. Live a normal life. Don't purposely avoid any suffering, deal with it when it happens. Suffering teaches us lessons, it's just reality. So please, just live a life, I life of pleasure and suffering, a life of love and loss, a life.
Happy living, my good chap.

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

How many times do I have to tell you I don't want to kill anyone. And my relationship with my parents is satisfactory tyvm, they even admitted that having children wasn't the greatest idea and they wouldn't do it allover again for which I commend them.
You just don't "get it" and you bring personal crap into the conversation like your relationship with your parents.
As for the mush you call an argument...
[yt:2golfxmj]WlBiLNN1NhQ[/yt:2golfxmj]

Good day to you sir.

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

It's not an argument, it's more like an observation.

Another flaw in your argument you factor out is Human Emotion. For most of your argument, you make your conclusion like a computer. Essential, you justification for your extinction proposal is:
There is more misery in the world than pleasure because (?) therefore, the logical choice is extinction of all life in order to end all misery.

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

I really don't care about your mindless spam anymore, in case you didn't get the message before: fornicate yourself

Negative Utilitarian Extreme: Extinction/Blackout Discus

Ha, it's funny because Fornicate is a less offense term for sex so you can get away with you telling me to fuck myself. :lol:

And I'm going to bring this up one more time: I've met Holocaust survivors. Their families where killed around them before they're eyes. They where always surrounded by corpses. They where on the verge of dying everyday. What did they tell me? They told me to enjoy my life, have a family, enjoy myself. And, I'm going to trust the advice of people who went through real suffering.