3 ms·

This does not appear to be an April Fool's Day joke or otherwise satirical. It is, however, hard to make seriously. If I'm understanding him right, the claim is

This does not appear to be an April Fool's Day joke or otherwise satirical. It is, however, hard to make seriously. If I'm understanding him right, the claim is that it is a moral wrong to being someone new into the universe and the supporting evidence for this is: - The worst pain is more bad than the greatest pleasure is good - Satisfaction is fleeting - Lifespan is limited and bad things happen more than they ideally ought to - Humans cause ecological and social damage. What astounds me is that nowhere in this 3400 word piece does the author consider (a) the frequencies of pain vs pleasure, or (b) the good done by humans in the world. He notes that "daily life is filled with dishonesty, betrayal, negligence,... Of such harms, everybody is, to varying degrees, a perpetrator," but misses the obvious corollary: life can also be full of honesty, loyalty, love, etc. These too would not exist without people. This focus only on the debit side of the moral ledger of humanity is an oversight bordering on intellectual dishonesty. The point about ecological damage, and the existence of adoptable children, are both more reasonable critiques of "natalism". That is a nuanced topic worthy of discussion, but this article doesnt add much to the discourse there, more adding them as an afterthought to the overwrought "existence is pain" thesis. Edit: formatting and clarity

theodric 6y ago
We don't need no people, we need fewer people. A lot of our problems would be less pronounced of we simply reduced their scale. https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/ https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/
- sneak 6y ago
  There is no consensus or scientific basis for the claim "we need fewer people". Pure opinions such as this should, IMO, come with an argument for holding such a view, especially when presented as a statement of fact.
  - falcolas 6y ago
    Any attempts to create a consensus or scientific basis would, based on our current society's views towards science, only further to harden people's stance that science is wrong. Especially if it agreed with the principle that fewer people would be better for the environment. Which makes sense, logically. Fulfilling a human's basic needs involves world-wide supply chains filled with oil-guzzling vehicles. Fulfilling their entertainment needs requires even more of the same.
  - hansvm 6y ago
    They briefly explained their desire in the very next sentence. > A lot of our problems would be less pronounced of we simply reduced their scale. The statement "we need fewer people" might still not hold of course, but is their supporting argument controversial enough to need further elaboration?
- raarts 6y ago
  Human population will peak around 2065, and drop off afterwards. This is the consequence of birth rates dropping (even in Africa) wherever people get our or poverty, and women can afford birth control. There is no need to be worried about overpopulation in the long run. If the trend continues we'll be extinct in a few thousand years. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/14/world/world-population-shrink-intl-scli-scn/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/14/world/world-population-sh...
sneak 6y ago
I don't think it's hard to take seriously, and at least one of the claims you make about TFA is factually incorrect.
kbelder 6y ago
Yeah, I've always found these nihilists to be fairly shallow; they're stuck working from a bad perspective and can't allow for others. If you tell them that your life is mostly good and a net positive, they'll think you're lying or deceived. I get that their life sucks; but my kids are happy, just like me, and a universe without them is a poorer place. Also, their existence allows for indefinitely more descendants, the overwhelming majority of which will be happy to be alive. As a capper, I have four kids, so I've MORE than replaced myself.
- BobbyJo 6y ago
  Hey, not all of us nihilists are pessimists. Some of us enjoy existence, whether or not it is an illusion or serves any purpose.

theodric 6y ago

We don't need no people, we need fewer people. A lot of our problems would be less pronounced of we simply reduced their scale. https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/ https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/

sneak 6y ago
There is no consensus or scientific basis for the claim "we need fewer people". Pure opinions such as this should, IMO, come with an argument for holding such a view, especially when presented as a statement of fact.
- falcolas 6y ago
  Any attempts to create a consensus or scientific basis would, based on our current society's views towards science, only further to harden people's stance that science is wrong. Especially if it agreed with the principle that fewer people would be better for the environment. Which makes sense, logically. Fulfilling a human's basic needs involves world-wide supply chains filled with oil-guzzling vehicles. Fulfilling their entertainment needs requires even more of the same.
- hansvm 6y ago
  They briefly explained their desire in the very next sentence. > A lot of our problems would be less pronounced of we simply reduced their scale. The statement "we need fewer people" might still not hold of course, but is their supporting argument controversial enough to need further elaboration?
raarts 6y ago
Human population will peak around 2065, and drop off afterwards. This is the consequence of birth rates dropping (even in Africa) wherever people get our or poverty, and women can afford birth control. There is no need to be worried about overpopulation in the long run. If the trend continues we'll be extinct in a few thousand years. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/14/world/world-population-shrink-intl-scli-scn/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/14/world/world-population-sh...

sneak 6y ago

I don't think it's hard to take seriously, and at least one of the claims you make about TFA is factually incorrect.

kbelder 6y ago

Yeah, I've always found these nihilists to be fairly shallow; they're stuck working from a bad perspective and can't allow for others. If you tell them that your life is mostly good and a net positive, they'll think you're lying or deceived. I get that their life sucks; but my kids are happy, just like me, and a universe without them is a poorer place. Also, their existence allows for indefinitely more descendants, the overwhelming majority of which will be happy to be alive. As a capper, I have four kids, so I've MORE than replaced myself.

BobbyJo 6y ago
Hey, not all of us nihilists are pessimists. Some of us enjoy existence, whether or not it is an illusion or serves any purpose.