3 ms·

Can you elaborate on your angle here? If you’re implying that humans are incapable of choosing not to procreate, that seems pretty obviously incorrect, given th

Can you elaborate on your angle here? If you’re implying that humans are incapable of choosing not to procreate, that seems pretty obviously incorrect, given the vast numbers of people who make that choice. Am I interpreting your comment incorrectly?

kubanczyk 4y ago
It's pretty ironic to what DNA reached after billions of years: writing a Wikipedia article on antinatalism. > the vast numbers of people who make that choice Something tells me that this is going to hmmm... auto-regulate in no time. (reaches for popcorn)
- escapedmoose 4y ago
  So your argument is that, while individual humans are capable of choosing not to procreate, humanity as a whole is incapable. Sure, but that doesn’t seem to contradict anything in the original comment you were replying to. Just because every single human doesn’t abide by a code of ethics, it doesn’t mean we should abandon ethics entirely imo.
- npteljes 4y ago
  >Something tells me that this is going to hmmm... auto-regulate in no time. That voice misleads you. There are things that can be altered via evolution, and many that aren't - or over such a timescale that it practically doesn't matter. For another example, take a look at the topic of suicide. If it would work in the way that this evil little voice implies, we wouldn't even have heard about a single case. Another angle to consider is not taking everything at face value, and also separating the contemplation of something from agreeing or supporting it. There's something to be gained from exposing oneself to a wide variety of topics, thoughts and experiences, no matter how outlandish they seem at first. And you'll find that you are free to distance yourself from the undesirable thing, exactly as free as before. But if it leaves a mark, you can learn something new, which can't happen without the experience.
  - kubanczyk 4y ago
    > separating the contemplation of something from agreeing or supporting it I don't take life advice from people whom I don't trust; it's just too risky. If you have a strong broad argument up your sleeve, it might work better than the "evil" voice. Yes, let's simply delete the evolution from the model, just leave the self-replication.

kubanczyk 4y ago

It's pretty ironic to what DNA reached after billions of years: writing a Wikipedia article on antinatalism. > the vast numbers of people who make that choice Something tells me that this is going to hmmm... auto-regulate in no time. (reaches for popcorn)

escapedmoose 4y ago
So your argument is that, while individual humans are capable of choosing not to procreate, humanity as a whole is incapable. Sure, but that doesn’t seem to contradict anything in the original comment you were replying to. Just because every single human doesn’t abide by a code of ethics, it doesn’t mean we should abandon ethics entirely imo.
npteljes 4y ago
>Something tells me that this is going to hmmm... auto-regulate in no time. That voice misleads you. There are things that can be altered via evolution, and many that aren't - or over such a timescale that it practically doesn't matter. For another example, take a look at the topic of suicide. If it would work in the way that this evil little voice implies, we wouldn't even have heard about a single case. Another angle to consider is not taking everything at face value, and also separating the contemplation of something from agreeing or supporting it. There's something to be gained from exposing oneself to a wide variety of topics, thoughts and experiences, no matter how outlandish they seem at first. And you'll find that you are free to distance yourself from the undesirable thing, exactly as free as before. But if it leaves a mark, you can learn something new, which can't happen without the experience.
- kubanczyk 4y ago
  > separating the contemplation of something from agreeing or supporting it I don't take life advice from people whom I don't trust; it's just too risky. If you have a strong broad argument up your sleeve, it might work better than the "evil" voice. Yes, let's simply delete the evolution from the model, just leave the self-replication.