6 ms·
God what an awful prospect. How about when you push the button it only removes the button pushers, so the rest of us are free to continue enjoying our existence
by mock-possum 8mo ago
God what an awful prospect. How about when you push the button it only removes the button pushers, so the rest of us are free to continue enjoying our existence.
- itsanaccount 8mo agoBecause that line of "enjoying your existence" making no mention of the monumental harm we cause to every biome on the planet is exactly the kind of selfishness that the button pushers would like to eradicate.
- greygoo222 8mo agoBiomes are not moral subjects and don't deserve consideration. (Pigs are).
- Capricorn2481 8mo ago> Biomes are not moral subjects and don't deserve consideration. (Pigs are). Where do you think animals live?
- greygoo222 8mo agoCausing harm to biomes is not the same thing as causing net harm to animals inside biomes. The base rate of harm done to animals inside biomes is immense and horrific.
- Capricorn2481 8mo agoYou're doing crazy gymnastics right now. Eliminating biomes drives animals to extinction. In what world could you argue that doesn't deserve even a little moral consideration? I'm not going to argue with someone who works this hard to be a contrarian.
- greygoo222 8mo agoIt's not gymnastics, you just have no background on this topic. Species are not moral subjects. Individuals are. Killing an individual animal that could live a worthwhile life for longer is an individually bad act. Insofar as this happens in the process of species going extinct, that's bad. But it's also the default state of nature. Does replacing a forest with a city cause net harm to non-human animals? That's not clear. It might even be net good. Does that mean we should destroy wilderness on purpose to prevent wild animal suffering? Not yet, we don't have the technology to mitigate knock-on effects, and it should be done a way that does not harm individuals. But I can't get behind viewing biome destruction as some kind of atrocity against the animals within them, at least not as a whole. (Some species have better lives than others).
- itsanaccount 8mo agoI think this is a monstrous thought that will never be explained to you.
- greygoo222 7mo agoWhat is monstrous is the confusion of the natural with the just.
- Capricorn2481 7mo ago> It's not gymnastics, you just have no background on this topic > But I can't get behind viewing biome destruction as some kind of atrocity against the animals within them, at least not as a whole. Well good luck with the doctorate I guess.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- namero999 8mo agoBiome is just a fancy term that encompasses a set of moral subjects.
- wincy 8mo agoAnd I’d call entertaining thought experiments such as this “having such an open mind your brain falls out of the back of your head”.
- stouset 8mo agoThe point is that continuing to enjoy your existence is inflicting a massive toll of suffering around the world, to both others humans as well as non-humans. I’m not saying I’d be one to push the button, but I think it’s worth trying to understand the mindset of someone who would. It’s very arguable that pushing it would be the ethical thing to do.
- trylfthsk 8mo agoNot entirely convinced that outside the torment nexuses used in industrial meat farming, natural suffering is any lesser sans humanity.
- aziaziazi 8mo agoEstimated scale of the torment nexuses: https://considerveganism.com/counter/ https://considerveganism.com/counter/
- stouset 8mo agoThe fish counter is horrifying, I had no idea.
- aziaziazi 8mo agoThe fish counter comes from here https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal-welfare/article/estimating-global-numbers-of-fishes-caught-from-the-wild-annually-from-2000-to-2019/83F1B933E8691F3A552636620E8C7A01 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal-welfare/artic... One could argue there's a double count: about one-fifth of fish are caught to feed other animals (mainly fish, but also terrestrial animals). But I don't think one kill offsets another. > around half of wild-caught finfish numbers are destined for reduction to fishmeal and oil, of which, respectively, 70 and 73% are used for aquaculture feeds
- SoftTalker 8mo agoWhat if the suffering is the point?
- jancsika 8mo agoYou should definitely watch the Black Mirror episode about the robot bees!
- hypeatei 8mo agoWell, some people do choose suicide but I have a feeling that you'd be uncomfortable discussing assisted suicide. These conversations around humanity and suffering typically end in thought terminating takes such as yours. Why even respond if you're effectively throwing your hands up in the air and ignoring nuance?
- greygoo222 8mo agoThe person you're responding to is explicitly saying they would be fine with suicide.
- hypeatei 8mo ago> is explicitly saying I don't think it's explicit, that's why I put the quip in there about assisted suicide. This thread is showing me that perhaps a lot of people would be okay with the "complainers" offing themselves but I'm not sure... my gut feeling is that a lot of optimists hold conflicting beliefs around this.
- greygoo222 8mo agoAs a card-carrying optimist, I am strongly in favor of universal right to die. Maybe you should wait for the people in this thread to report their opinions before making assumptions? I don't want most "complainers" to kill themselves, nor would I recommend them to, but I support their right to. And if they showed me convincing evidence their life contains too much suffering to be worthwhile, I would agree with their decision.
- NoGravitas 8mo ago“optimism, where it is not merely the thoughtless talk of those who harbor nothing but words under their shallow foreheads, seems to me to be not merely an absurd, but also a really wicked, way of thinking, a bitter mockery of the most unspeakable sufferings of mankind” ― Thomas Ligotti, The Conspiracy Against the Human Race: A Contrivance of Horror