3 ms·
I was dead for 12-billion years before I was born... and it would be hard to say it was "better" than this because there is nothing to compare this with. anti-
by mr_spothawk 9y ago
I was dead for 12-billion years before I was born... and it would be hard to say it was "better" than this because there is nothing to compare this with.
anti-natalism is a divide by zero problem.
for the ones of us who are hopeful that we can solve the problems of aging in the next century, there's an option to solve the problem raised in the article: humans keep making the same mistake because by the time they've learned to stop, they're nearly dead already.
I feel for Benatar, but I doubt his motives.
(edits for spelling)
- humanrebar 9y ago> anti-natalism is a divide by zero problem. True. But this math presumes atheism. If there's an eternal afterlife, 12-billion years is also a "divide-by-zero problem". So the whole conversation sort of boils down to "is this it?"
- mr_spothawk 9y ago> If there's an eternal afterlife there isn't. > "is this it?" yeah.. until we can merge our brains to make new brains, we're just gonna be stuck merging our genitals to make new brains. biological systems are what they are.
- uoaei 9y agoThe larger point being made isn't "you'd be happier now if you never existed" but "bringing kids into the current state of things is a net negative for them (they have to deal with the repercussions of an ecological catastrophe amid postmodernism and all its follies)." Arguments can be made that now is a better time than ever to be alive, but that doesn't mean it would be good for them or others if they are born.