4 ms·
This is negative utilitarianism, right? For instance, if you could press a button and wipe out humanity without (much) suffering, would you do it? Personally I'
by MichaelGG 9y ago
This is negative utilitarianism, right? For instance, if you could press a button and wipe out humanity without (much) suffering, would you do it? Personally I'd have a quick reminisce then all slam it.
But practically, this isn't an option (yet). Nor is voluntary extinction. The people susceptible to this message or any such message (better for environment; your group of people is bad and shouldn't continue; life is more fun without kids) are more likely to be the kind of people that would contribute to a positive next generation.
The bulk of growth that'll receive and cause suffering is from people that won't ever listen or heed such a message. Hence anti natalism will only increase suffering in the world.
- ythn 9y ago> Personally I'd have a quick reminisce then all slam it. What the heck? You'd destroy our entire species to "spare" those that don't have it good?
- UnpossibleJim 9y agoWouldn't it be easier to eliminate yourself from the spectacle of watching the less fortunate. Because this type of thought process only comes from the "club seats" of world society. If you read actual studies on happiness, what the first world world categorize as fairly destitute aren't as miserable as we imagine. While we, with our fat bank accounts and our ever quest of acquisition, just aren't as happy as we seem to think we deserve. To quote The Big Lebowsky, "Fucking Nihilists".
- MichaelGG 9y agoIf your goal is to minimise suffering, that's the only humane choice, barring friendly AI coming online.
- Omnus 9y agoYou're saying you would willingly destroy all of humanity? Or did I read that wrong?
- MichaelGG 9y agoYes that's the only sensible choice if you want to minimise suffering. Maybe in the future we'll have benevolent AI. Without that, it looks like we increase a ton of suffering.