6 ms·

only child unfortunately.

dolphenstein 16y ago
There has been a continuous replication and mutation of your gene pool since the first prokaryotes came into existence several billion years ago. So you planning to put a halt to it?
- angrycoder 16y ago
  good point
- mdda 16y ago
  Obviously this is a little biased - you're not asking your own non-existent younger brother the same thing, are you?
- koningrobot 16y ago
  There has been continuous suffering and pain since the first prokaryotes came into existence several billion years ago. I can't speak for the grandparent, but yes, I am planning to put a halt to it. There is all the reason to do so, and no reason not to.
  - ckuehne 16y ago
    You realize of course that the logical conclusion of your argument is suicide.
    - koningrobot 16y ago
      Yes. Possibly irrationally (reality is not that simple), I choose to stay alive. It is my life after all. The problem is with creating new lives. Birth inflicts both a life sentence and a death sentence on the newborn, without their consent. That is simply wrong.
      - ckuehne 16y ago
        The conclusion again being it would be best if no sentient being existed at all? Thought experiment: If you go outside right now with a gun in your hand and start asking random strangers "Would you like to die right now?" what do you think how many of them will answer "Yes, please."?
        koningrobot 16y ago
        Yes, it would be best (in the sense of "least bad") if no sentient being existed at all. Whether already existing people like life is like asking whether already addicted people like heroin. You can't use the result to justify forcibly addicting people to heroin.
        alexophile 16y ago
        So you rationally came to the conclusion that life is suffering, and rationally determined that suffering is bad and should be ended, but realize your own reluctance to end such suffering. What, then, do you think to be more likely: you are rational about all these things up until what, from this view, seems like an arbitrary point; or there's another piece to the puzzle - a sort of joy in realizing the absurdity of this existence and seeking contentment in spite of it? Disclaimer: you're free to believe what you want, and it's neither my business nor my concern whether or not you pass on your particular genes, I just can't resist this discussion. Related reading if you're interested: Albert Camus (The Stranger, The Myth of Sisyphus), Sartre (Nausea, Being and Nothingness)
        koningrobot 16y ago
        The point is not arbitrary because it is my life and I get to choose what I do with it. I do seek contentment in spite of it, and I find it in "the zone". But this is irrelevant. You say it's not your business whether or not I pass on my genes. Is it also not your business whether or not I murder somebody you do not know? Creating new persons is not something to be taken lightly, it's at least up there with murder because birth entails death. By all means realize the absurdity and seek contentment, just don't force others into having to come the same long, stressful way to this revelation.
  - exit 16y ago
    YES A THOUSAND TIMES OVER. i post a comment with this sentiment a few days ago, and predictably it got down-voted below -4: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1902911 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1902911 we live in a world full of tremendous suffering. our attachment to survival is the result of a mindless and meaningless processes of selection. no one can do better for their children than to take a stand against this nonsense and never subject them to this world to begin with.
    - yters 16y ago
      If your philosophy is so good you should subject yourself to it first.
    - koningrobot 16y ago
      I saw that post and was going to ask why people were downvoting it, but then I figured it was borderline offtopic, so I didn't bother. If you're looking for some rarely like-minded people, come live the good life at http://www.antinatalism.net/ http://www.antinatalism.net/. :-)
  - lionhearted 16y ago
    I shouldn't have downvoted this. I apologize for that. This is something you believe in. Though, I think it's misguided. I think a lifetime of extreme suffering would be worth it, just for the rare moments when you feel truly blessed to be alive. In the hardest times of my own life, there's been a few memories that have pushed me forwards. One of them was walking outside of a friends house after a light rainstorm, and seeing a ray of sun shine through water dripping off of a plant. It was just so simply beautiful. I saw a green sunset once. I saw the Perseid meteors on top of a mountain. This is before getting into all the triumphs and creation and science and business and trade and conversations and coffee and learning and teaching I've done. Life's magnificent. The suffering is a very worthwhile price to pay for it. Actually, I actively enjoy the suffering to some extent, because it makes me stronger and able to live more, live stronger, do more. Heck, I wrote an entry called "Give Me Strife and Suffering (but in manageable doses)" on my blog if you're interested in an alternative perspective - http://www.sebastianmarshall.com/?p=205 http://www.sebastianmarshall.com/?p=205 I reject the notion that suffering is a bad thing. It's bad if you don't know what you're suffering for. But suffering for worthy causes, for knowledge, for life, for creation, for art, for beauty, for things like that... I wouldn't trade it for the world. As my ability increases, I actively increase the amount of suffering I go through - to grow stronger, to do more, to be more, to serve more, to build more, to create more... I don't know. Have a think on that. I like suffering for what I believe in, so long as I'm doing it in an intelligent way that forces me to grow. I think it's a worthy thing, and actively chase it... and I think this attitude has served me well and helped me do a lot of great things. Perhaps it's a worthwhile frame of mind to experiment with for a while? You don't have to believe it, just ask, "If I accepted suffering for worthy causes, and came to enjoy the suffering, how would I feel and act here?" Try it for a week or two? You could always ditch that perspective if it doesn't suit you well.
    - koningrobot 16y ago
      I don't believe for a second that you like suffering. Would you want to spend the rest of your life at the hands of a skilled torturer? I don't think so. Therefore, you don't like suffering. What you do like is a combination of suffering with benefits. You like suffering when it makes you stronger. I call bullshit and say you like becoming stronger, and you'd do away with the suffering if you at all could. And what good is the being stronger anyway? It serves only, maybe, to avoid or diminish future suffering. I'd go so far as to say that what you like is short-term suffering if, and because, it helps you avoid long-term suffering. You "like" the pain you feel when you put your hand on a hot stove because you can use it to know you are about to burn your hand. The pain helps you avoid more pain. How about if you could know you are about to burn your hand without feeling this pain? How about if you didn't need hands at all? You see my point? The benefit of "not burning your hand" is only a benefit because the alternative is worse. You can't win, you can only minimize your losses. Don't get me wrong; I like life most of the time, and I have had these "simply beautiful" experiences you describe. But that is no justification for forcing other people to live. Because that is what my comment, though unclear on this, was ultimately about: no more kids. For anyone. Ever. Once you are in life, you are guaranteed to suffer, and you need hands, and all this wisdom about not being able to have your cake and eat it too, learning to enjoy the simple things (i.e., be complacent), the world not owing you anything, et cetera. But these things are not relevant to the question of whether procreation is acceptable. I will consider your suggestion. I like to believe I already suffer my fair share for worthy causes, but I may be wrong.
  - jcromartie 16y ago
    "The deeper sorrow carves into your being the more joy you can contain." -- Kahlil Gibran
    - koningrobot 16y ago
      The need for joy is a fact of life. Joy, no matter how plentiful, cannot justify imposing on someone the need for joy, just like heroin, no matter how plentiful, cannot justify imposing on someone the need for heroin. Surely everyone agrees with the latter, why not with the former?
      - msg 16y ago
        Heroin restricts your range. Joy increases it.
- anthonyb 16y ago
  You do that every time you have a cold, too. Or smack a mosquito :)
RyanMcGreal 16y ago
So marry someone with lots of siblings.
- josh33 16y ago
  I inherit 42 in one month from the 11th :)

There has been a continuous replication and mutation of your gene pool since the first prokaryotes came into existence several billion years ago. So you planning to put a halt to it?

angrycoder 16y ago
good point
mdda 16y ago
Obviously this is a little biased - you're not asking your own non-existent younger brother the same thing, are you?
koningrobot 16y ago
There has been continuous suffering and pain since the first prokaryotes came into existence several billion years ago. I can't speak for the grandparent, but yes, I am planning to put a halt to it. There is all the reason to do so, and no reason not to.
- ckuehne 16y ago
  You realize of course that the logical conclusion of your argument is suicide.
  - koningrobot 16y ago
    Yes. Possibly irrationally (reality is not that simple), I choose to stay alive. It is my life after all. The problem is with creating new lives. Birth inflicts both a life sentence and a death sentence on the newborn, without their consent. That is simply wrong.
    - ckuehne 16y ago
      The conclusion again being it would be best if no sentient being existed at all? Thought experiment: If you go outside right now with a gun in your hand and start asking random strangers "Would you like to die right now?" what do you think how many of them will answer "Yes, please."?
      - koningrobot 16y ago
        Yes, it would be best (in the sense of "least bad") if no sentient being existed at all. Whether already existing people like life is like asking whether already addicted people like heroin. You can't use the result to justify forcibly addicting people to heroin.
        alexophile 16y ago
        So you rationally came to the conclusion that life is suffering, and rationally determined that suffering is bad and should be ended, but realize your own reluctance to end such suffering. What, then, do you think to be more likely: you are rational about all these things up until what, from this view, seems like an arbitrary point; or there's another piece to the puzzle - a sort of joy in realizing the absurdity of this existence and seeking contentment in spite of it? Disclaimer: you're free to believe what you want, and it's neither my business nor my concern whether or not you pass on your particular genes, I just can't resist this discussion. Related reading if you're interested: Albert Camus (The Stranger, The Myth of Sisyphus), Sartre (Nausea, Being and Nothingness)
        koningrobot 16y ago
        The point is not arbitrary because it is my life and I get to choose what I do with it. I do seek contentment in spite of it, and I find it in "the zone". But this is irrelevant. You say it's not your business whether or not I pass on my genes. Is it also not your business whether or not I murder somebody you do not know? Creating new persons is not something to be taken lightly, it's at least up there with murder because birth entails death. By all means realize the absurdity and seek contentment, just don't force others into having to come the same long, stressful way to this revelation.
- exit 16y ago
  YES A THOUSAND TIMES OVER. i post a comment with this sentiment a few days ago, and predictably it got down-voted below -4: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1902911 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1902911 we live in a world full of tremendous suffering. our attachment to survival is the result of a mindless and meaningless processes of selection. no one can do better for their children than to take a stand against this nonsense and never subject them to this world to begin with.
  - yters 16y ago
    If your philosophy is so good you should subject yourself to it first.
  - koningrobot 16y ago
    I saw that post and was going to ask why people were downvoting it, but then I figured it was borderline offtopic, so I didn't bother. If you're looking for some rarely like-minded people, come live the good life at http://www.antinatalism.net/ http://www.antinatalism.net/. :-)
- lionhearted 16y ago
  I shouldn't have downvoted this. I apologize for that. This is something you believe in. Though, I think it's misguided. I think a lifetime of extreme suffering would be worth it, just for the rare moments when you feel truly blessed to be alive. In the hardest times of my own life, there's been a few memories that have pushed me forwards. One of them was walking outside of a friends house after a light rainstorm, and seeing a ray of sun shine through water dripping off of a plant. It was just so simply beautiful. I saw a green sunset once. I saw the Perseid meteors on top of a mountain. This is before getting into all the triumphs and creation and science and business and trade and conversations and coffee and learning and teaching I've done. Life's magnificent. The suffering is a very worthwhile price to pay for it. Actually, I actively enjoy the suffering to some extent, because it makes me stronger and able to live more, live stronger, do more. Heck, I wrote an entry called "Give Me Strife and Suffering (but in manageable doses)" on my blog if you're interested in an alternative perspective - http://www.sebastianmarshall.com/?p=205 http://www.sebastianmarshall.com/?p=205 I reject the notion that suffering is a bad thing. It's bad if you don't know what you're suffering for. But suffering for worthy causes, for knowledge, for life, for creation, for art, for beauty, for things like that... I wouldn't trade it for the world. As my ability increases, I actively increase the amount of suffering I go through - to grow stronger, to do more, to be more, to serve more, to build more, to create more... I don't know. Have a think on that. I like suffering for what I believe in, so long as I'm doing it in an intelligent way that forces me to grow. I think it's a worthy thing, and actively chase it... and I think this attitude has served me well and helped me do a lot of great things. Perhaps it's a worthwhile frame of mind to experiment with for a while? You don't have to believe it, just ask, "If I accepted suffering for worthy causes, and came to enjoy the suffering, how would I feel and act here?" Try it for a week or two? You could always ditch that perspective if it doesn't suit you well.
  - koningrobot 16y ago
    I don't believe for a second that you like suffering. Would you want to spend the rest of your life at the hands of a skilled torturer? I don't think so. Therefore, you don't like suffering. What you do like is a combination of suffering with benefits. You like suffering when it makes you stronger. I call bullshit and say you like becoming stronger, and you'd do away with the suffering if you at all could. And what good is the being stronger anyway? It serves only, maybe, to avoid or diminish future suffering. I'd go so far as to say that what you like is short-term suffering if, and because, it helps you avoid long-term suffering. You "like" the pain you feel when you put your hand on a hot stove because you can use it to know you are about to burn your hand. The pain helps you avoid more pain. How about if you could know you are about to burn your hand without feeling this pain? How about if you didn't need hands at all? You see my point? The benefit of "not burning your hand" is only a benefit because the alternative is worse. You can't win, you can only minimize your losses. Don't get me wrong; I like life most of the time, and I have had these "simply beautiful" experiences you describe. But that is no justification for forcing other people to live. Because that is what my comment, though unclear on this, was ultimately about: no more kids. For anyone. Ever. Once you are in life, you are guaranteed to suffer, and you need hands, and all this wisdom about not being able to have your cake and eat it too, learning to enjoy the simple things (i.e., be complacent), the world not owing you anything, et cetera. But these things are not relevant to the question of whether procreation is acceptable. I will consider your suggestion. I like to believe I already suffer my fair share for worthy causes, but I may be wrong.
- jcromartie 16y ago
  "The deeper sorrow carves into your being the more joy you can contain." -- Kahlil Gibran
  - koningrobot 16y ago
    The need for joy is a fact of life. Joy, no matter how plentiful, cannot justify imposing on someone the need for joy, just like heroin, no matter how plentiful, cannot justify imposing on someone the need for heroin. Surely everyone agrees with the latter, why not with the former?
    - msg 16y ago
      Heroin restricts your range. Joy increases it.
anthonyb 16y ago
You do that every time you have a cold, too. Or smack a mosquito :)

RyanMcGreal 16y ago

So marry someone with lots of siblings.

josh33 16y ago
I inherit 42 in one month from the 11th :)