Tag: sentience

On retributivism and punishment.

Eye for an eye notions, retributivism and punitivity are profoundly intuitive to many, the idea that we ought punish someone for the sake of punishing them, that once you’ve done x, you deserve to have x punishment done to you, the idea that we shouldn’t without restraint harm a child rapist who is no longer a threat and sitting in a prison cell all day offends them deeply.

They may say something like:

  • ”Why shouldn’t we shove a broomstick up this evil rapist’s asshole, why would that be bad to do that if he did the same thing?”

The answer is obvious – for the exact same reason why it was bad when he stuck his dick up the child’s ass – because it causes pain and suffering, which is always bad.

Sometimes you may tolerate one suffering to avoid a greater one, like getting the vaccination to avoid the greater suffering of a deadly disease, or tolerating a boring workplace to obtain money, which you also only need to obtain resources that help you prevent some condition of suffering in your life in one way or another, but suffering itself is always a bad thing.

Even a masochist hurting themselves for sexual pleasure or a bipolar individual cutting themselves for emotional relief are not enjoying negative qualia (it is impossible for negative qualia to be enjoyable) – self-harmers are already experiencing suffering, so to blend out that worse suffering, they have to inflict pain onto themselves, using pain to eliminate a greater pain, for the masochist it would be sexual frustration, for the cutter it might be depression.

So if harm (negative qualia) is always bad, then it can never be the better option to inflict it, unless it prevents an even greater, more intense harm, i.e you see the child rapist raping the child, so you push him off that child to prevent more harm.

The problem with this in the context of punishment is that when the harm causer is being punished, they are usually already detained, that’s kind of implied in the act of punishment – it is an act of violence against the harm causer after the threat the harm causer poses has already been deactivated, otherwise it would just be an act of defense. It might be perceived as punishing by the harm causer, but it’s not for the sake of retribution, punishment.

So while it is perfectly justified for you to defend against the rapist whilst he is raping the child to prevent harm, it would be illogical to insist on punishing him after he has already been stopped and is already spending his whole day in a prison cell where he can no longer assault children anyway.

It was bad when he raped the child because it caused harm, plus he didn’t need to do that in order to defend himself against some kind of greater threat posed by the child, the child was not a threat, but for that exact same reason, it’s now arguably also bad if you shove a broomstick up his ass after he has already been stopped from raping the child, it’s the exact same negative qualia experienced by different subjects, and that negative qualia is not good.

Eye for an eye notions of retributivism are frequently based in human bigotry, cognitive biases, narcissism and delusion, they essentially believe it to be bad to harm feeling things for the wrong reason on a very instinctive, primitive, emotional level, which is why they then fail to acknowledge it as just as bad when abuse is happening to criminals in prison.

So for example, when your mother gets brutally murdered, you may have some kind of gut feeling telling you that this is only bad because it happened to your mother in particular, in which case, it’s not a problem if it happens to the murderer of your mother, because he isn’t your mother, so it wouldn’t be bad to harm him like it was bad when he harmed your mother.

But in reality of course, what happened to your mother was bad because she is a sentient, suffering-capable organism and it doesn’t get any more complicated than that, if it were only bad because it happened to your mother, then it wouldn’t be bad if it happened to literally anyone else who is not your mother, which is simply untrue, it would still cause negative sensation to have a knife in your throat, even someone didn’t give birth to you.

But, that’s of course also why it’d be bad if the murderer of your mother had a knife in his throat, because he’s also a sentient, suffering-capable organism.

Or when a pretty, cute girl gets brutally raped, you may have some kind of gut feeling telling you that this is only bad because she’s pretty and cute, in which case, it’s not a problem if it happens to her rapist, because he’s most likely not that pretty and cute, so it wouldn’t be bad to harm him like it was bad when he harmed the pretty girl.

But in reality of course, what happened to the girl was bad because she is a sentient, suffering-capable organism and it doesn’t get any more complicated than that, if it were only bad because it happened to someone pretty and cute, then it wouldn’t be bad if it happened to literally anyone else who is not pretty and cute, which is simply untrue, it would still cause negative sensation to get raped even if you’re ugly.

But, that’s of course also why it’d be bad if the rapist of that girl got raped, because he’s also a sentient, suffering-capable organism.

Obviously none of these factors that people ascribe some kind of superficial value to are ultimately important to them, the point here is that the harm itself is bad, it’s not bad based on your nepotistic delusions of it only being bad when it happens to your family, women and/or children that elicit some kind of primitive instinctive reaction in you.

If I put any sentient organism in an isolated cell where it cannot possibly pose a threat and torture it, it’s going to be unambiguously bad, no matter what, it will produce negative sensations, no way around it.

It’s usually done for the fleeting emotional pleasure that the victims or angry mobs derive from punishing someone, in which case they then grant the harm causer the right to justify his deeds based on the fleeting emotional pleasure he derived from causing harm.

  • ”But what if the rapist raped your sister? You’d want him dead too!”

But what if you were the rapist? You’d want to rape too!

If you would be the person that wants to do x, you would want to do x too, therefore, doing x is now justified, that seems to be the idea here.

If you want to put Ted Bundy on the electric chair for the purpose of jerking off to it, then so can he consistently keep justifying violently killing women for the purpose of jerking off to it, it’s the same exact justification, you’re both arguing it’s ok to inflict torture so you can jerk off to it.

In many cases, retributivists then justify this sort of behavior by arguing that it is necessary:

  • ”But he could still attack a prison guard!”

In which case, that problem could be solved by just sending more than one prison guard to his cell the next time, rape and murder remain unnecessary harms, because these harms are not required to detain the threat being posed – unless it legitimately happens in a moment of defense against the criminal.

  • ”But he could escape prison!”

Unlikely, but if it’s true, that problem could be solved by just building more steadfast prison walls, rape and murder remain unnecessary harms, because these harms are not required to detain the threat being posed by the criminal.

  • ”But that costs money!”

Which is the least harmful method of defending yourself against the threat. Some individuals cause a lot of harm, so we put these individuals into a home where they cannot cause a lot of harm anymore for the purpose of public safety. I think paying a certain amount of money generally produces less harm than being forced to wait to be executed.

Some may argue that life in prison is actually worse than being executed, but the point is that once a criminal is detained, there is no reason to not consult them on this matter first, I am not against the right to die, it’s just unnecessary to take the ability to decide their fate away from them, plus, again, prisons don’t have to be torture facilities that make someone suicidal in the first place.

If they wanted the death penalty, it wouldn’t be a penalty anymore, it would just be making use of the right to die, which we can have regardless of our criminal status.

  • The only good argument for punishment would be deterrence.

So let’s say we just took the concept again of taking any sentient organism, putting it in a cell and torturing it, but it had to be done just once to prevent an even more intense harm from befalling everyone, let’s say everyone going to hell and burning alive over and over again eternally. In that case, it would still be bad, but it would obviously be less bad than not doing it.

The problem here again though is that it’s usually far from being this clear cut when it comes to crime and punishment. And the distinction between guilty/criminal and innocent/non-criminal remains insignificant, if anyone had to killed to save 1000 others from torture, and there were nothing else we could do about that, it’d be the better option to kill one regardless of their criminal status.

  • Detainment is still deterrence.

No sentient organism wants to be restrained in any way, again, unless it releases another restraint they already experienced, like a masochist being more tense and frustrated if he doesn’t inflict pain onto himself, and you have no way of knowing the exact preferences of all potential criminals. A reduction of your freedom is still a deterring factor, to some it may be a greater one than death, to some it may not be.

  • You don’t necessarily always know if you’re going to prevent a greater harm.

Unlike in the aforementioned hypothetical scenarios I just pointed to, you don’t necessarily know if you’re going to prevent more harm than you cause, perhaps you stick a broomstick up someone’s ass but all the harm you prevented from happening was 5$ being stolen, that’d be bad.

Let’s say you know for sure you could prevent a lot of people from stealing a potato by cutting their hands off and burning them alive in the streets, just the infliction of that punishment would be worse than a potato being stolen once in a while.

  • Althroughout human history and to this day, draconian punishment has been inflicted and crimes have still been committed.

We’ve inflicted torturous draconian punishments on prisoners but their optimism bias was still strong enough for them to believe that they’re never going to get caught, then got caught, tortured to death, and people still committed crimes thinking they’re never going to get caught, optimism bias and overestimation of one’s own invincibility is strong in many humans in general, criminal or non-criminal, but especially when you’re committing a crime (exception of some calculated criminals of course), you might already be in a rather impulsive mental state.

  • You don’t know what exact effect the punishment will have on each potential future criminal. Perhaps it demotivates them to commit crime, perhaps it leaves them neutral about their crimes, perhaps it motivates them to commit even more crimes.

In fact, countries like Norway where prisons look like hotel rooms seem to have the lowest crime rates, whereas a lot of countries that punish rather severely seem to have much higher crime rates.

What if you threaten a potential serial rapist and killer whose goal it is to bring all whores to justice with death, then he rapes and kills even more whores out of spite, then shoots himself, whereas if he were only to be threatened with a debate about whether or not raping whores is good or bad in a 5 star hotel, he would turn himself in to tell us all about it? You threaten the enraged school shooter with death and then he wants to shoot everyone even more for what he thinks is doing the right thing.

We stick a broomstick up the rapist’s asshole.

  • Rapist 1 one stops raping because he wouldn’t like to experience that.
  • Rapist 2 with poor impulse control just jizzes on her belly instead of her pussy next time and runs away in disorientation.
  • Rapist 3 is pissed off for first being denied the pussy he wanted and now wants to take revenge against society for threatening him with torture for intruding vaginas that he considers his private property.
  • Rapist 4 is in addition to being a sadistic rapist also a masochist who wouldn’t necessarily mind having a broomstick shoved up his ass.
  • Rapist 5 gets an adrenaline rush from the fact that we now stick broomsticks up people’s asses for raping, that makes the whole rape game and trying not to get caught even more exciting.

Retributivists often have an irrational belief that criminals are ”just evil” with no explanation for it and all you got to do is just threaten them with death, they can’t be suicidal because that would mean that these monsters have feelings, when in reality, they’re of course ”just evil” out of nowhere.

They devalue criminals, so chances are they’re not even deeply contemplating the emotions and what could possibly motivate them. In that mindset, if they feel that alienated from them, of course they’re going to think it’s as simple as carry some garlic around and the evil vampires won’t attack you.

Punishment for the sake of punishment is bad anyway because all harm itself, the state of being harmed is bad, doesn’t matter if it’s a cute little girl or some fat ugly serial rapist, so pure retributivism is a failure, it’s an irrational concept.

If it’s done to prevent a greater harm, it’d be better to have the information on whether or not said punishment is actually efficient at preventing future harm, which in practice seems almost impossible to tell beforehand.

Therefore, for all intents and purposes, in practice, it still seems more sensible for the default position to simply be not to inflict harm on someone once you’ve stopped them from causing harm, unless you can demonstrate in that specific scenario that it will prevent a greater future harm, if it’s clear cut, i.e cut one hand off to stop a thousand hands from being cut off, nothing else you can do, then you cut one hand off, but in real life it usually simply isn’t that clear cut.

Antinatalism and the question of a hypothetical utopia.

An occasional objection to antinatalism/the idea that it is better never to be brought into existence is the idea of transhumanism and a future utopia in which things are perfect or just better than they are now.

  • ”What if we just made the world a perfect place for everyone, and then there’d be no more suffering?”

The first flaw to detect in that question is obviously that the pleasure is still a relief of suffering, they exist in direct relation to each other. For example, more pleasure of satiation, less suffering of hunger, more suffering of hunger, less pleasure of satiation. If you feel better, you feel less bad. If you feel worse, you feel less good.

So by creating a world of no suffering, you must create a world with no sentient life in it, thus no pleasure either.

To use a metaphor, it’d be like saying what if we just alleviated the pain of the stabwound by putting a bandaid on it, but the stabwound didn’t actually exist?

That makes no sense, you don’t have pleasure, relief of suffering, without suffering, just like you don’t have extinguished burning house without burning house, or cured infection without infection. If the infection is cured, that indicates that the infection must have existed beforehand. If fulfilled desire exists, that indicates that unfulfilled desire must have existed beforehand to some degree.

  • Where would that pleasure come from if there’s no pain to relieve? A utopia in the strictest sense of perfection involding ”no suffering at all” seems impossible.

So still, life involves suffering that must be fixed, you’re still creating the problem and then perfectly alleviating it instead of not creating it to begin with.

It’s not that I dismiss the utopia hypothetical because it is unrealistic, dismissing hypotheticals based on being unrealistic is irrational, I dismiss it based on it being contradictory, if you fulfill a desire then it had to be unfulfilled beforehand, just like if you told me you extinguished a forest fire, the unextinguished fire also had to exist beforehand, I wouldn’t believe someone that they extinguished a fire they just told me doesn’t exist.

  • Let’s assume that utopia instead simply means we could alleviate every need, every pre-existing condition of suffering in due time before it gets too out of hand.

Right now, sentient organisms have needs that are not being fulfilled – they have to go to work, they may get lonely, they rot and expire, they get addicted to substances and suffer the negative side effects.

In the utopia, this wouldn’t be the case.

Let’s say in the utopia, they could fulfill all their needs in time without too much suffering involved, the desire mechanism is never left to fester and rot like it is right now in our current world, e.g. you could be an alcoholic forever and you never suffer any great side effects like there are right now, like liver cirrhosis or throat cancer.

  • Would it be worth it to create conscious life then?

I still don’t think the perfect problem solving means obligate us to create more problems.

The endless orgasm utopia is an important priority if there is someone that is sexually frustrated, requiring to be endlessly jerked off, if you just don’t create the organism with a need for the endless orgasm utopia, the endless orgasm utopia loses its extrinsic value to solving that problem of someone being frustrated sexually.

  • So the same fundamental question remains, why does suffering need to exist at all?

Why do we need to instill sexual frustration, deprivation, tension into an organism so that it can be endlessly jerked off afterwards? Why do you need to create the problem that made you become an alcoholic in the first place? It’s still a deficit/harm, you’re in need…you just always manage to resolve it in time before it gets too bad.

You may say because the procreators also suffer a desire to create more children, but even then, just going extinct once would solve all suffering, whereas by putting things in the utopia, you still didn’t solve the problem, you just created the best possible bandaid for the wounds of desire and deprivation, which is better but not optimal, and it will take a while until any such thing will exist if it will ever exist at all, which will mean a lot more less benign suffering until then.

The procreators also experience deprivation, but what would truly solve the problem of deprivation is stopping the creation of more pain machines, not creating more and more and trying to manufacture more perfect bandaids.

They have an irrational perception that necessity – need, want, desire must exist, when the only thing that in reality needs anything is us, there would be nothing horrible about us simply no longer existing. They assume conscious life must be, so that then we can solve problems (need, want, desire) that the creation of that life caused in the first place.

Just because the cure for AIDS exists, I would not necessarily intentionally try to give myself AIDS in order to get rid of it again afterwards, so why would you insist on creating unfulfilled desires, instilling deprivation into a perfectly non-conscious, non-bothered organism, just because the perfect means to fulfill those desires, alleviate that suffering exist?

You can use many metaphors to demonstrate the absurdity of creating desire for the good of fulfilling it, creating damage for the good of fixing it again afterwards, for example:

  • Setting a house on fire for the good of extinguishing it again.
  • Throwing the child into the ocean for the good of saving it from drowning.
  • Infecting someone with AIDS for the good of giving them AIDS treatment.
  • Breaking someone’s leg for the good of giving them painkillers.
  • Stabbing someone in the chest for the good of pulling the knife out again.
  • Shitting on someone’s floor for the good of cleaning it off again.

In the utopian scenario, we just solve the problem perfectly after creating it, but there’s still a problem of being in need.

So:

perfectly alleviated suffering in endless orgasm utopia > unalleviated suffering left to fester and rot in our current world.

But:

zero suffering > perfectly alleviated suffering in utopia.

The perfect solution to a problem is still to not create it to begin with.

So to use the same metaphors again, we could say:

  • No burning house > perfectly extinguished house > unextinguished house.
  • No drowning child > perfectly rescued child > drowned child.
  • No AIDS > perfectly cured AIDS > uncured AIDS.
  • No broken leg > perfectly numbed broken leg > no painkiller.
  • No stabwound > perfect bandaid > untreated stabwound.
  • No shit on floor > perfectly wiped off shit > shit on floor.

It is good to solve a problem perfectly, but it doesn’t get any less bad than to not have any problem in the first place.

Another problem to point out, despite also other practical factors like humans using future technology to do bad things rather than good things, is also that even if we accept that such a utopia where everyone’s needs can be satisfied in time before they mutate into too much suffering will definitely exist in the future, is that right now, it does not exist, so the future utopia still doesn’t justify causing suffering by reproduction right now where you have no means to alleviate it.

That’s like someone setting your house on fire before the waterhose was invented, just because in the future the waterhose might be invented, or injecting someone with AIDS blood before the cure for AIDS exists, just because in the future the cure for AIDS might exist, how is it a good idea to cause a problem now just because in the future there might be a solution to it? It’s not.

It doesn’t help the victims of reproduction right now, and there’s simply no necessity for a utopia in the future if you don’t produce more victims that will desire to live in the utopia, if you don’t create the necessity for it.

So it’s kind of as if we could get kill the AIDS virus, get rid of it forever right now by pressing a button (sentient life going extinct), but you insist on creating more AIDS (desires) so that then we can find the perfect pill to cure individual AIDS infections in the future (perfectly fulfilling desire instead of putting an end to desire), then we can always infect ourselves with AIDS and get rid of it immediately afterwards by taking the anti-AIDS pill, instead of just pressing the button to kill the AIDS virus forever right now.

It doesn’t matter if we drown a bunch of children here and there by throwing children into the ocean for the good of trying to save them from drowning afterwards, because in the future, we’re going to have perfect fishing nets that will be able to save every child we throw into the ocean from drowning – if we were to keep throwing children into the ocean for the sake of saving them from drowning, instead of just not insisting on throwing children into the ocean in the first place.

Solved problems don’t exist if they have not at some point been unsolved problems, a perfectly solved problem is good, it prevents an unsolved problem, but not as effectively as never creating that problem to begin with.

Promortalism and the ”just kill yourself” argument.

When you exist, you need to constantly chase relief in order to avoid suffering, you need/want/desire. Eat or hunger, drink or thirst, defecate or constipate, masturbation or sexual frustration, breathing or suffocation.

You obtain relief, or you are forced to keep suffering, that is the fundamental mechanism. When you never come into existence, you don’t obtain any relief from your suffering, but I would say that that’s not a problem, because you never exist, so you won’t feel bad about it.

By not reproducing any conscious lifeforms, we prevent all harm/suffering, all relief/pleasure as well, but again, also all harm/suffering, so there would be no one to feel bad about not eating favorite dish anymore when they don’t exist.

What comes up in these discussions is sometimes the question of promortalism. If this reasoning is used to justify not giving birth, doesn’t it also justify killing someone to put them out of their misery?

  • ”If life is so bad, aren’t we all just better off dead then, doesn’t this justify killing everyone?”

The answer is in principle – yes, in practice – no.

  • In principle:

As long as a sentient organism lives, it experiences suffering, that is bad.

If you never exist, you don’t feel pleasure, but you also don’t suffer, so it’s no problem. If you die now, you won’t feel pleasure once you’re dead, but you also won’t suffer, so it’s no problem, unless you felt suffering in the process of dying.

By obtaining any given pleasure, you’re always minimizing a greater loss/negative, no neutral point in between. If you don’t eat, you’ll suffer hunger, if you don’t drink, you’ll suffer thirst. No pleasure, then suffering. But just like never being born in the first place would solve this problem perfectly, dying as soon as possible would solve this problem of needing constant gratification for you as well.

So as long as the dying process is entirely suffering-free, let’s say in your deepest sleep, I simply painlessly lethally inject you with a substance that of course also causes no distress in any way, then I would say there’s no intrinsic harm – you didn’t see it coming and you didn’t feel it when it happened.

Your departure was painless, I prevented all future suffering, you are not going to wake up later on as a ghost in non-existence and lament that you still needed to do x (just like you didn’t before coming into existence), but now you are being deprived of life because you are dead.

Even if you say you can rationally recognize that this isn’t the case, you’re not going to be a ghost afterwards, you can still feel threatened by something even if you know it’s not going to harm you later on, just like I could feel scared by a spider even if I know it’s not going to attack me. As as long as you’re sentient, the alternative to not obtaining pleasure, the relief of suffering, is suffering, you might still have a stupid intuition that you’re going to suffer from not obtaining pleasure once you’re dead – could be. I think people often don’t think of death as the end, they think of it as some kind of second life where they feel tormented over missing out on their life.

Dying may be bad, but death, non-existence is the absence of all badness, the absence of all needs that even demand to be fulfilled, the thing we call wellbeing is no longer needed once you’re dead, so you can’t conclude rationally that death is a problem because it lacks wellbeing any more than to conclude that never being born in the first place is bad because it lacks wellbeing. The underlying philosophical idea here is antifrustrationism, and from that follows both global antinatalism and promortalism in principle, not fulfilling a need isn’t a problem if the need doesn’t even exist. Feed the hungry, but don’t make the hungry to feed them.

  • In practice:

There are some factors that complicate just killing yourself or someone else, it isn’t too easy to just kill someone entirely painlessly without them noticing it.

  • By killing yourself, you may cause more suffering to yourself or others than you would experience from staying alive.
  • By killing someone else painlessly in their sleep, you may cause more suffering to others than you would prevent by ending their existence.

I would not be too sure that it does always cause more suffering to end life though, right now, even terminally ill individuals are denied the right to die to maintain the delusion of religious idiots that life is always good even when you’re being tortured 24/7, because it’s life, so it must be good.

Equally, many do nothing but cause harm to others, you’d likely save a million farmed animals from being tortured by euthanizing some people painlessly, so I don’t particularly always trust their evaluations of how horrible it would be to end a life.

Arguably, the strongest argument against just ending life is that once a sentient organism exists, there is the potential for them to reduce and most importantly prevent suffering for other sentient organisms. So whilst being alive is worse than not being alive, it is currently instrumental to achieving the reduction or prevention of suffering, we have extrinsic value to that goal.

The cessation of anyone’s, of any suffering, negative sensation whatsoever is obviously a good idea, but in our current world, being alive is instrumental to convincing others of the fact that life is fundamentally flawed, so you can try to prevent more suffering than by just preventing your suffering by killing yourself, it would be even better than just ending your suffering.

So see it like this – if you’re in a senseless war, you don’t end the war by just killing yourself, there is more utility to staying alive and stopping the radicalization of more soldiers, so that as many as possible other soldiers stop thinking there’s some kind of greater good to all this suffering, and as such minimize harm/cruelty caused in the war by other soldiers, perhaps the soldier can even go back home at some point and start writing books about why exactly they disagree with the cause of those that initiated said war and try to convince people that it’s a bad idea, dedicate life to becoming an anti-war activist.

Whilst you are alive, you can convince others of the idea that sentient life should be brought to an end on a global, not just individual scale, and prevent other harms from befalling the other organisms around you, chances are there’s always a problem to solve. But you only need to do that because they exist in the first place, so this is not an argument for making new life, only for staying here whilst you’re already here.

If we were already all convinced that life is a failure, we’ve already managed to sterilize or painlessly euthanize the other animals, then indeed it would be questionable why we should stay alive, at that point I’d simply say it depends, will committing suicide cause you more suffering in a single instant than you will experience from staying alive and needing, desiring, wanting until dead?

You being dead certainly wouldn’t be a problem anymore, if everything is fixed, there needs to be no problem fixer anymore, because there is no problem left, except you.

So if I could painlessly evaporate all life by snapping fingers on my left hand and my life by snapping fingers on my right hand, there’d be no reason not to snap the fingers on my right hand after I’ve snapped fingers on my left hand.

In conclusion, as stated before, I think life can be worth living in practice, but not in principle.

Now let’s also address what the pro-natalist asking this question ”why not just kill yourself?” could mean as an argument against antinatalism and demonstrate how those arguments fail.

  • ”Because everyone has the option to commit suicide, it is totally fair to bring a child into existence, they can just kill themselves if they want to! You can always opt out! It’s a perfectly fair deal, take it or leave it!”

Giving someone the chance to commit suicide doesn’t diminish the harm you caused them, if they want to kill themselves, it’s already too late, you already fucked them over.

The underlying logical structure of this argument is essentially:

  • ”If the subject has the ability to free themselves from x harmful circumstance, it is justifiable to impose x harm circumstance onto the subject.”

By this standard, if a rapist locked a girl into his basement and raped her every day, he should walk free just as long as he gave her a rope to hang herself with, the judge would have to say:

  • ”Well, you could have committed suicide, so therefore, as long as your rapist gave you a rope, it’s all your fault pretty much anyway. Free the offender, forcing girls to suck your dick at gunpoint is fine because they can just choose to die if they don’t want to suck your dick, that seems sensible!”.

This is exactly the attitude the natalist is demonstrating in this scenario, it’s ok to cause potentially severe harm, because after all, your victim can still commit suicide if they don’t like it.

This can be applied to every single harm that anyone could take issue with. Don’t like being sexually harassed? Just kill yourself. Don’t like not having certain freedoms in life? Just kill yourself. Don’t like being hit by me drunk driving? Just kill yourself, I’m never going to stop!

Just like any other harm causer, natalists sometimes excuse the pain they cause by pretending that if the victim did not commit suicide yet, that proves that they actually secretly enjoyed getting raped repeatedly. If they really didn’t like it, they would have killed themselves by now.

Considering that life supporters frequently also oppose the right to die, the right for victims of their imposition to escape, we have to add even another factor in: she has to commit suicide at a time when the rapist isn’t in the house to monitor what she’s doing, otherwise he’ll lock her in a cage and take away her ability to free herself from the circumstance until she pretends to enjoy the rape.

  • ”You’re a hypocrite for not killing yourself immediately if life is so bad, therefore, antinatalism is wrong, only consistent antinatalist is a dead one!”

This again fails to take into account that life itself is correctly identified as the problem and cause of all harm, not just one life.

The underlying logical structure of this argument is essentially:

  • ”If you dislike/disagree with x circumstance, it follows that you therefore would immediately try to escape from x circumstance.”

Which is simply untrue. You can dislike the circumstance of drowning in a swamp, but still think it’s worth getting in there again to save two drowning children from it, you can be repulsed by life, and still think it’s worth staying in it to prevent more life from being created.

This does not in any way imply or mean you support life any more than thinking it’s good to jump into the swamp again to save the children means you think drowning in a swamp is a good thing, and we should throw more children into the swamp.

To go back to the basement rapist example, it would be like the rapist has three girls in his basement, and one managed to escape, then went back to the house to save the other two, and then the rapist concludes that this means she secretly thinks his basement is really cool and rape isn’t a big deal, because she returned to the basement, but that is only because the rapist is too selfish and myopic to understand that others can understand that not everything is about them.

This wondering about why someone wouldn’t just commit suicide likely follows from a myopic delusion that only one’s own suffering is bad and thus worth preventing, not understanding that it isn’t only about your suffering but suffering in general, it’s the same thing, it’s no better in someone else, so obviously you can do better by saving more than just yourself.

It’s also just an appeal to hypocrisy, similar to saying that a drug isn’t harmful because the person who points out that the drug is harmful is taking the drug as well.

  • Just replace ”life” with ”crack” for a moment.

Let’s say some crack addict is forcing children to smoke crack, another addict points out that crack addiction can be harmful. Is ”but you smoke crack yourself, if it’s so bad, then why don’t you just quit?” a good counterargument?

No, because that doesn’t diminish any of the negative effects of crack, you don’t have to quit crack yourself in order to know that your addiction has negative side effects, it’s perfectly fair to point out that forcing others to smoke crack is a bad idea.

Similarly, antinatalists are still correct for pointing out that life is harmful, even if they themselves are on some level addicted to it, the pro-natalist is simply trying to distract from their bad behavior of forcing life addiction onto other organisms.

Whether or not I quit life has nothing to do with whether or not it is a bad idea to start it, ”starting smoking is a bad idea” is a perfectly fair statement to make, even if you’re smoking cigarettes yourself.

Why exactly reproduction is a harmful act, explained step by step.

  • Suffering is bad.

Unpleasant sensation is not pleasant, sometimes in life we are forced to endure suffering to avoid even greater suffering, but that doesn’t mean that suffering itself is good which is a misconception many then seem to come up with to justify it, it just means that it is the lesser of two evils, i.e if you have to torture one person to prevent a million from being tortured just as intensely, it’s arguably the lesser of two evils, but it’s still going to feel bad regardless.

The vaccination is painful, but dying of the illness it grants you immunity to is more painful, or going to school might be painfully boring, but being homeless and without money in the future would cause you even more suffering, or standing in a traffic jam might be a suffering-inducing experience, but not arriving at the amusement park would cause you even more suffering.

So to prevent the greater pain, you take the stabbing sensation of the needle as the lesser of two evils, this doesn’t mean that the stabbing of the needle no longer produces negative sensation. If you could snap your fingers and grant yourself immunity to illness, you’d probably do that instead.

Even those that inflict pain onto themselves are still trying actively to avoid harm. If the masochist didn’t already experience sexual frustration leading to him feeling more tense and pressurized in the long run, he wouldn’t pour the hot sauce into his pisshole to alleviate that tension, if the bipolar person didn’t already experience emotional pain and depression, they wouldn’t slice their arms to alleviate that pain.

If I told you right now that I’m a magician and could by waving my magic wand make it so that you won’t be able to have an orgasm anymore unless you cut your eyeballs out, you likely wouldn’t want me to do that, maybe you’d even use violence to stop me, as you’d rather be able to ejaculate in a less harmful manner. And even if you’d want me to wave my magic wand, you’d just be a transmasochist who is suffering as a result of not being turned into a masochist similar to how a trans-person can suffer from not having a different set of genitals, so then by waving my magic wand I’d be alleviating your desire to turn into a masochist.

Suffering can at best be instrumentally required to avoiding an even greater suffering in the future sometimes, but suffering in and of itself is always a bad thing, the good thing about the painful injection is not the pain of the needle being stuck into your arm, but the avoidance of the illness.

Humans experience suffering and as a delusional mechanism to deal with it mistake the fact that they sometimes have to tolerate one suffering to avoid an even greater one to mean that bad now somehow is equivalent to good, wet is equivalent to dry, cold is equivalent to hot, so that they can rationalize all the suffering they experience or inflict on others as some sort of greater good. Good suffering is an oxymoron, similar to dried wetness, or cold hotness.

  • By creating (sentient) life, you cause suffering.

The deal of sentient life is always the same, suffering is created, if a state of deprivation is not alleviated, the suffering will intensify, if it is alleviated, two things could happen:

  • Option A: Another deprivation pops up, e.g. after hunger has already been alleviated, appetite, aching for taste satisfaction becomes more insatiable, now the subject has to eat just not to suffer an increase in boredom.

Built to chase satisfaction, not to be satisfied, imagine the desire as an irreparably broken pipe, when you fix one hole, another spot bursts open and it starts to leak out of that new hole.

  • Option B: The initial deprivation, hunger, will return in time and you will have to eat again to prevent greater suffering.

You experience unfulfilled desire, and if you fulfill it, another one pops up that will have to be fulfilled as well to avoid suffering, or the other one will simply go back to unfulfilled, then you’ll have to fulfill that initial desire again to avoid suffering.

We lock you into a factory where you receive a tank and you get whipped, you have to fill it up with water or you’ll get whipped more intensely. If you fill it up, you get another tank and get whipped less intensely. But if you don’t fill that new tank up in due time, the older tank will be emptied and you’ll get whipped more intensely again.

You can keep filling the tanks and the whipping will get less intense, but it never fully stops, at some point you just don’t receive a new tank and the last one you filled up will slowly be re-emptied. You can also stop filling the tanks, but then the whipping will get unbearably intense in a short period of time. Itch, then scratch itch, then new itch comes up or old itch comes back in time, rinse and repeat.

There are probably various suffering prevention measures you constantly take in your everyday life that you don’t even acknowledge as such anymore, like breathing air to avoid suffocation, eating food to avoid starving, drinking water to avoid dehydration, working a job for certain resources to avoid poverty, having house, bed and clothes to avoid freezing.

  • There is no pleasure disconnected from relieving/eliminating suffering.

You are constantly itched by different urges and compulsions, the pleasures in life consist of fixing said conditions of suffering again and again, so the idea that suffering is not necessarily guaranteed would be non-sensical, it is intrinsic to life that you constantly experience needs/wants/desire you have to fulfill.

  • If you don’t eat (good), you experience hunger (bad).
  • If you don’t drink (good), you experience thirst (bad).
  • If you don’t defecate (good), you experience constipation (bad).
  • If you don’t orgasm (good), you experience tension, pressure, stress (bad).
  • If you don’t socialize (good), you experience loneliness (bad).
  • If you don’t sleep (good), you experience fatigue (bad).
  • If you don’t breathe (good), you experience suffocation (bad).

There are just some examples, it doesn’t have to be just hunger that is relieved when you eat food, as some will say here that if eating is just good because it prevents the suffering of hunger, then they’d only eat old, hard bread or something rather tasteless to avoid hunger, I’m being too reductive in my description.

But, if we locked that person in a prison cell, gave them only old, hard bread for the rest of their lives, forced them to abstain from ever eating their favorite foods again, they would experience suffering as a result of that, appetite – when it actually goes unalleviated for a while and you can’t obtain a partial relief from fantasizing about grabbing another snack, because you know it’s unrealistic, you’re sitting in prison, easily it’d turn into non-trivial suffering.

And if we starved the subject long enough of course, then indeed just flour mixed with water would start to taste good, the more suffering we add, the better the subtraction is going to feel, water tastes best when you’re just about to die from dehydration, but once we’re back to 0% suffering which pretty much never happens in life, there will be no more pleasure to derive either.

A metaphor similar to the previous tank metaphor that I sometimes like to use for this would be you being on a treadmill with suffering always behind, whereas pleasure is in front of you. When you fulfill a need/want/desire/reach pleasure, the treadmill either extends further and now there is pleasure in front of you again while the pleasure you just reached will slowly turn to suffering, or the treadmill doesn’t extend and you’ll simply be pulled back into the suffering behind you if you don’t keep running.

  • So I would argue that it’s fair to say you’re harming someone by bringing them into existence.

You initiate a constant source of harm/suffering so to speak, the mechanism is simply that pleasure/relief will always have to be chased after, or else the victim will be subjected to more suffering than before.

More pleasure=less suffering, just like more bright=less dark, more wet=less dry.

So you create this suffering organism, make it addicted to pleasure/happiness and if it doesn’t obtain it it will suffer worse, it is similar to making someone addicted to a drug without guarantee that they’ll be able to obtain the drug, the object of their addiction, causing them severe suffering.

Yes, if you don’t create the organism, then the organism will not experience any pleasure/happiness, but the organism also won’t be addicted to pleasure/happiness in the first place, because it won’t exist.

So to bemoan that ”state” of non-existence would be like saying ”if we don’t make you addicted to heroin you won’t be able to enjoy the rush when you satisfy your addiction to heroin with a new injection” – though even worse arguably, because a person that already exists could at least already be depressed and thus benefit temporarily from taking drugs, they might already be dissatisfied and in need of some form of alleviation.

But when you don’t exist, you don’t need/want/desire any improvement whatsoever, not being born is experientially just like being a rock or being a chair, you won’t feel anything, neither pleasure nor suffering.

Similarly I would say that a rock or a chair not experiencing pleasure is not a big deal, but I would advise people against making a rock or a chair suffer if it were somehow possible, i.e if we had both hypothetical pleasure liquid and torture liquid that we could inject into inanimate objects in order to make them feel either intense pleasure or intense suffering, I would also say that injecting the torture liquid into things is a bad thing to do, but simply not injecting pleasure liquid into things is not a problem, if the object never becomes sentient it won’t be able to miss pleasure.

On suffering – part 2, antifrustrationism: positive vs. negative utilitarianism.

“Positive utilitarianism recommends the promotion or maximising of intrinsic value, negative utilitarianism recommends the reduction or minimising of intrinsic disvalue. At first sight, the negative kind may seem reasonable and more modest in what it recommends. But one way of ending human misery is by putting all human beings out of their misery. This course of action is usually considered unacceptable. This has led to a search for reformulations of negative utilitarianism, or to its rejection.”

https://www.utilitarianism.com/posutil.htm

A fatal flaw here is that most assume that the maximization of wellbeing and minimization of suffering are two different things, when in reality, pleasure is essentially just a relief sensation you get from resolving suffering, and if you take it away again, you suffer more.

Name a pleasure, most likely we will be able to name a form of suffering that it serves to alleviate. So very simple examples would be:

  • eating food (pleasure) – hunger (suffering)
  • drinking water (pleasure) – thirst (suffering)
  • defecation (pleasure) – constipation (suffering)
  • ejaculation (pleasure) – pressure (suffering)
  • sleep (pleasure) – fatigue (suffering)

and so and so forth. If you maximized wellbeing by eating food, you just reduced the suffering of hunger, no way around it. We put a weight on you, then we take it off again, this is what a good feeling is, the alleviation of a pressure that has been put on you. Put knife in, take knife out, not being harmed is what feels good, but once all harm is taken away, there’s no more pleasure.

You can get a small relief from resolving a small suffering, or a greater relief from resolving a greater suffering, workouts would be another example, it can be stressing and painful at times, but it ameliorates another pain, another form of tension in you, so that then in the end one is more relaxed than before, otherwise you’d never feel pushed to work out anymore.

Once every torturous urge that could have pushed you to eat it is extracted from you, be it hunger, appetite or boredom, the food no longer tastes good, the good feeling is what happens when we’re extracting the minus points, there are no plus points.

You can only get your head up to the surface of the hole, but you cannot crawl out of it, you’re just struggling to crawl up to the surface of the hole. You’re always sinking, and then you have to pull yourself up again, in this process, you feel pleasure, but once we’re at neutral, pleasure will stop and you’ll start sinking deeper into the hole again.

Positive utilitarianism makes this assumption that somehow our goods in life are somehow unconditionally required and important, that it could be a good action to throw someone into the hole for the good of them then crawling up to the surface again.

It’s important to fulfill desire in the sense that it prevents unfulfilled desire, but in and of itself, there is no point to creating unfulfilled desire in order to then fulfill it, e.g. if you for some reason already have an urge to stare at a red painted wall, then I may do you a favor by painting walls red for you to stare at, but I am not doing you a favor if I could hypothetically give you a pill that made you crave staring at a red painted wall, just to then paint it red (unless of course, you already had a desire to have that desire, in which case giving you the desire has instrumental value to achieving the absence of your desire to have that desire, but that desire to have that desire would still be a problem).

This realization is sometimes also referred to antifrustrationism:

Antifrustrationism is an axiological position proposed by German philosopher Christoph Fehige,[1] which states that “we don’t do any good by creating satisfied extra preferences. What matters about preferences is not that they have a satisfied existence, but that they don’t have a frustrated existence.”[2] According to Fehige, “maximizers of preference satisfaction should instead call themselves minimizers of preference frustration.”[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifrustrationism

If there is need, then it can be good to fulfill it, but there is no good in creating the need to begin with, just to then fulfill it, even if you fulfill it, it’s not better for the victim than never having happened at all, similar to if there is already a knife stuck in someone’s chest, then it can be good to pull it out, but there is no good to sticking the knife in someone’s chest to begin with, just to then pull it out again, even if you pull it again, it’s not better for the victim than never having happened at all.

Let’s say I have a car, I can make it into a sentient, suffering car that goes ”I NEED TO HAVE GASOLINE INSIDE ME, I WANT MORE MORE MORE, FUCK ME HARDER!” by snapping my fingers, can I improve this car by snapping my fingers?

I would argue no, because the only predictable good to come from that would be to afterwards make it content and unneeding of the gasoline by pouring gasoline into it again, to ameliorate its urge to have gasoline put into it, but it is already perfectly unneeding of the gasoline, so I can’t possibly make an improvement here by snapping my fingers and putting it into emotional distress over not having enough gasoline in it.

And the same reasoning consistently applies to a human or any other fetus, you cannot upgrade a non-conscious thing by turning it conscious, you can only degrade it by doing so, it’s a minus, not a plus. You create need/deficiency conditions, and then in the best case scenario you manage to erase all of them again, but chances are you’ll make more minuses than before.

A graphic demonstration that can be used to showcase this reality is also David Benatar’s axiological asymmetry from his book better never to have been:

If unfulfilled desire, suffering is the alternative, then fulfilled desire, pleasure, is important. But if there is no pain anymore, then there is no need for the pleasure anymore either, here one could use many different examples to demonstrate that point. This is another example from the book:

  • X exists: forest fire.

Forest fire=bad.

Fire extinguisher=good, because there’s a forest fire.

  • X doesn’t exist.

Preventing forest fire=continues to be good.

Preventing fire extinguisher=not bad, because there is no forest fire to extinguish.

  • X exists: cancer.

Cancer tumor=bad.

Chemotherapy=good, because you have cancer.

  • X doesn’t exist.

Preventing cancer tumor=continues to be good.

Preventing chemotherapy=not bad, because there is no cancer tumor to treat.

Preventing a harm is always good, but preventing a pleasure is only conditionally bad, i.e if someone is already in pain. There’s no problem with all chocolate being liquidated if no sentient organisms are left on planet earth, because no one who wants to eat it would suffer from its absence.

But by not creating the creatures that need the chocolate, we can still efficiently prevent their craving and addiction (suffering) for chocolate, just like if they were to actually exist and crave the chocolate, the chocolate would then be preventing their craving for chocolate. So the benefit of prevention is the same, you eliminated the craving for the chocolate either way.

If you prevent me from ejaculating, I’m suffering intensified pressure and tension as a result of that, but I’m not hurting my ejaculated sperm by flushing it down the toilet, refusing to turn it into a child that will one day be able to alleviate tension and pressure by ejaculating just like me, that can’t possibly be an issue for my sperm that I flushed down the toilet, and that’s the point.

When you bring a sentient being into existence, you just create suffering, a constant addiction to pleasure, which if not alleviated will result in intensified suffering, and even if you alleviate it, it’s still not better in the sense that it didn’t prevent suffering as efficiently as never creating it to begin with.

Saying the good in life justifies the bad is absurd because it’s just an alleviation of bad, it’s like saying it’s a good idea to stab people because then you can pull the knives out of them again and give them painkillers afterwards, some victims don’t get painkillers, but that’s justified because some of them do, the fulfilled desires justify the unfulfilled desires.

Supporters of positive utilitarianism think it can be good to create a new sentient organism, when in reality, it’s just the creation of a lifelong problem, a deficit bundle, a need and desire mechanism that constantly needs to be alleviated for it to not result in even more intense suffering than it started off with.

By gaining in pleasure you are relieving your suffering, it doesn’t get rid of suffering as efficiently as preventing it from existing in the first place though, a lifeless planet is the best (or least bad) planet by virtue of it containing zero suffering. It’s better for an already existing addict to get their next fix, but it’s even less bad if no suffering ever pushed them to chase the object of addiction in the first place.

This is a conclusion many find too repulsive to accept, so they point to supposed absurdities about the antifrustrationist view, which fall apart with the information that I just previously layed out and won’t seem quite as absurd, such as:

  • The painless genocide/benevolent world exploder button.

If preventing suffering is the only thing that matters and you had a button you could push to painlessly end all sentient life in an instant, it would be the best thing to do, you’d have to take that option, all suffering ended forever.

This is supposed to make you feel instinctively repulsed and then say ”oh no how horrible, this is like Adolf Hitler!!!”, failing to take into account that they didn’t actually establish any kind of coherent argument against pressing such a button.

Of course, if every good in life is just the relief of suffering, which it is, then it is the best possible thing you could ever do to press this button, whether you like to admit that or not, that doesn’t change the facts of the reality and its value relations we occupy.

If I press this button, I will end all suffering, I will also end all pleasure, but that is completely irrelevant, because the pleasure is just a relief of the suffering, if I have already extinguished all hunger and starvation from this universe, then there by default can’t be any problem with there being no more food to enjoy either, the need for it no longer exists, but no one who has no access to food is starving either.

I solved all suffering, the lack of pleasure isn’t a problem, that’s called a win win situation, no way around it.

If anything, it’s absurd to be opposed to pushing such a button based on the fact that it will deplete future wellbeing, it would be like saying that it’s bad to push a button that destroys both cancer and chemotherapy, because then all chemotherapy is gone.

The reason why you want to go through chemotherapy is to get rid of the cancer, so if the chance of cancer is destroyed, we’ve already achieved the goal efficiently. The reason why you chase satisfaction is because otherwise you would become dissatisfied, so if we push the big red button resulting in eradication of all dissatisfaction, we’ve already achieved the goal efficiently, you don’t need to have a relief from suffering if suffering doesn’t even exist.

  • Cancer tumor – unfulfilled desire.
  • Chemotherapy – fulfillment of desire.
  • Cancer tumor excision – painless death resulting in depletion of unfulfilled desire.
  • Knife in chest – unfulfilled desire.
  • Painkiller – fulfillment of desire.
  • Pull knife out of chest – painless death resulting in depletion of unfulfilled desire.

This of course equally applies to the question of euthanizing others painlessly. If I still want to do x, and you euthanize me in my deep sleep painlessly, then I’m not going to wake up in the thereafter non-existence and still be left wanting x, but now I can’t obtain x because you just painlessly euthanized me, taking away my wanting.

Death is not an intrinsic harm, it can only be an extrinsic harm, i.e family members and acquaintances might miss the painlessly killed person, if we legalized this act, it would scare others they might be next, perhaps you prevented someone who was interested in reducing suffering in other sentient organisms from doing so.

But there is nothing inherently harmful about you simply not being there anymore, this might be offensive, but is true nonetheless, no matter how repulsive you find that fact.

  • The pin prick of harm.

Let’s say there is a near utopian scenario where everyone’s needs are being perfectly satisfied. Perfect meals, perfect defecation, perfect sex, perfect sleep, etc, perfect eternal orgasm on morphine whilst eating chocolate cake or perfect whatever you want, but it satisfies everyone’s needs.

In order to get there though, we must give one person a tiny pin prick of harm, one needle prick in their little finger, if you don’t do this, everyone will be confined to a life of just eating old hard bread and potatoes with no seasoning, mediocre jerking off into a tissue at best, no morphine, no eternal chocolate cake.

If reducing suffering is the only thing that matters, then you shouldn’t be giving this one person a pin prick, right?

No, exactly wrong, because this misguided objection again completely fails to take into account that increasing wellbeing is directly entailed in reducing suffering in the organism, as pleasure is a relief of suffering, the increase in everyone’s pleasure is the same as a reduction in suffering. If you don’t give this person a pin prick, you will increase suffering of boredom, if you give this person a pin prick, you will greatly reduce boredom.

But this still doesn’t make life worth starting in the first place, and that’s the point this argument misses completely.

There is no unborn purgatory in which children that do not get to experience the pleasures of life are suffering from not experiencing the pleasures of life, so there’s still no life worth starting for future pleasure. Yes, if I am hungry for it, then I would take a pin prick for a 5 star gourmet dinner, but if I did not in any way need or desire it, then I would not take the pin prick for the 5 star gourmet dinner, and that’s the point.

Non-existence best describes the state of not needing the 5 star gourmet dinner, it is just nothingness, there can’t possibly any kind of problem with nothing, it’s nothing, there’s no nothingness chamber where a child is somehow tormented from not being a something.

The reduction of suffering is good, if you decrease suffering in the organism you increase wellbeing and if you decrease wellbeing in the organism you increase suffering, the only difference here is that positive utilitarians insist that pleasure must exist regardless of whether or not someone suffers from its absence, whereas I don’t see the absence of pleasure as tragic if no one is missing it, suffering from not having it.

Part 1: On suffering – part 1, value realism: utilitarianism vs. deontology.

Ingroup favoritism and the capacity to suffer.

What all forms of discrimination like racism or sexism, but also speciesism and nepotism have in common is that they are just different forms of irrational ingroup favoritism that deny that the reason as to why it’s bad to be discriminated against is the capacity to experience suffering itself, not membership of the particular group, it’s discrimination based on an irrelevant factor.

Adherents to more socially acceptable forms of ingroup favoritism, like speciesists like to claim that comparisons to the holocaust, racism and sexism are unfair when one is talking about what is done to non-human animals, because that’s unfair to humans that have been dehumanized by the racists and nazis, not understanding that this is just another irrational ingroup bias on their part, assuming that if something is not human, it is fine to harm it anyway without needing further explanation.

Speciesism is bad for the exact same reason that racism and sexism are bad.

A simple enough question to ask, what is the characteristic that makes it important for you to be put into the category of things that have rights (e.g. a right not to get randomly assraped with a chainsaw)?

  • Is it your skin color?
  • Is it your genitalia?
  • Is it your particular family origin?
  • Is it your country?
  • Is it your species?

The answer is no to all of these, the reason why you want to avoid getting anally raped with a chainsaw randomly is because you are sentient, that is the characteristic that makes it important to be put into the category of things that have rights, sentience, the capacity to feel things, not skin color, not gender, not species.

Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.[1] Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience). In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as “qualia“).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience
  • P1: Sentience is what makes it possible and bad to be harmed.
  • P2: Most non-human animals are sentient.
  • C: It is bad when said non-human animals experience harm.

If one is sentient, one can produce sensations, and sensations are of different qualities. They can be better/less bad, e.g. I’m in a blanket and this feels good because it protects me against the cold, or worse/less good, e.g. I poured gasoline all over myself and set myself on fire, this is a little too warm.

On the other hand, if you were a completely braindead human vegetable on the same level as literal vegetables like carrots or broccoli emotionally, you wouldn’t care if I set you on fire even though you would still contain human DNA and be alive, that’s because you wouldn’t be sentient, so it doesn’t feel bad anymore, it doesn’t feel like anything, so this proves that it’s not the possession of human DNA that makes the avoidance of harm an important priority.

A speciesist ignores this and downplays the suffering, just like a racist slave owner ignores the capacity to suffer of the black slaves. Like the other ingroup favoritists, they pretend that the characteristic that makes it a really important priority to avoid being harmed is membership of their ingroup, when obviously the characteristic that in reality makes it an important priority to avoid being harmed is simply the capacity to experience harm itself.

  • ”You can’t call it rape!”

That is something that speciesists sometimes insist when it comes to cows getting restrained and forcefully impregnated, because it’s a human concept supposedly.

How so, why exactly do they think that is a sensible definition? Rape at its core describes having your preference not to engage in a sexual activity or especially to be penetrated violated, particularly the unwanted penetration of your sexual organs, otherwise it can also be referred to as a molestation.

Human DNA is not the enabling function of a preference, sentience is the enabling function of a preference, that is what creates preferences that can either be alleviated or frustrated.

Can I rape a braindead person that has absolutely no preference not to get raped? Is it not rape if I were to restrain a dog in a rack and stick my arm up its asshole? I’m sure if any of these speciesist bigots walked in on someone violently fistfucking their cat, they would be perfectly comfortable saying ”that guy raped my cat”.

You could dishonestly refer to what dairy farmers do as ”just artificial insemination”, but if they have to be restrained because they don’t want to be artificially inseminated, that entirely fails to capture the aspect of forcing yourself on someone else, it’s not as though the cow is consensually making a doctor’s appointment to be artificially inseminated.

These ingroup favoritists that proclaim to be against against racism and sexism but get offended when one discusses the non-human animal holocaust have learned nothing from past mistakes of humanity, they foolishly think racism and sexism were only bad because it harmed other humans, how horrible, as if that is somehow a relevant factor.

Smashing a braindead human with a sledgehammer is by itself not any worse than doing it to a car or a computer, it could only produce some amount of badness in the sense that it affects sentient organisms that care about said braindead human, if the family of said braindead human cared more about their plasma TV than the braindead human, it would be worse to smash that plasma TV with a sledgehammer.

That’s the only reason why it could ever possibly be bad to destroy a braindead human, if some other sentient organism, like their family were to be negatively affected by it in some way, human DNA in and of itself is absolutely worthless, just like skin color or genitalia.

In reality the reason why black slavery was bad was also only because blacks were sentient, not because they contained human DNA, if really all the blacks had been braindead it wouldn’t have mattered that whites enslaved them, and that’s why it’s also bad to enslave pigs, because they are generally not braindead.

In fact, it wouldn’t have even been slavery anymore of course, because again, in that instant, if there is no sentience, there exists no preference/desire not to be enslaved either, you cannot enslave a rock, this entire concept of raping or enslaving something that has no will is absurd.

It’s absurd how those humanist bigots that criticize racism and sexism are offended by the racist and sexist analogies because they feel that it downplays the suffering blacks and women go through, when in reality it’s the exact other way around if anything, comparing what they go through in the first world downplays the suffering of non-human animals.

The last time I checked black men aren’t getting castrated without anesthesia, immigrant children aren’t being thrown in a meatgrinder, women aren’t being kept in a cage and repeatedly forcefully impregnated, then have their offspring ripped away and slaughtered.

This doesn’t mean they can’t face any problems, but certain non-human animals have not and are not even considered as subjects under the law for the greatest part of history, blacks and/or women are generally not considered property under the law anymore, it’s fair to say their sensibilities are almost always considered less important, by default.

They make it out to be like someone getting called a fat cunt or receiving an unwanted sexual compliment whilst walking down the street is simply inherently worse than getting raped multiple times, then having your offspring ripped away and slaughtered, then having your throat slit open once you can’t produce any more milk, because one happens to a lifeform that contains human DNA and the other one doesn’t, as if that actually means anything to how much suffering is being produced any more than which skin color or set of genitalia you have.

Completely distorted priorities stemming from a psychology that is ironically no better than that of the racists and sexists they like to criticize, it’s the manifestation of their ingroup bias, they are acting no better than the nazis and fascists they take issue with.

Of course, some animals may have a lower capacity to suffer than humans, so if you were forced to throw either an animal of lower sentience or one of higher sentience in a meatgrinder, it would be more rational to throw the animal of lower sentience into it, but this is not an irrational discrimination based on species membership alone.

It’s not more important to protect a human than a cockroach because the human is part of the human species, it’s only more important in the sense that the human has a higher capacity to experience suffering upon being thrown into the meatgrinder, so you throw the cockroach instead of the human infant.

In fact, were the human entirely braindead, or were we talking about a human embryo that is likewise not sentient, some variation of human that is less sentient than cockroach, then at that point it would become the more sensible option to throw said human vegetable in a meatgrinder than the cockroach, it would generate less suffering, better squash a thousand human embryos than one cockroach, it would cause less negative sensation to be produced.

You don’t want to avoid suffering because you have human DNA, just like you don’t want to avoid suffering because you have white skin color, you want to avoid it because suffering is simply an inherently negative experience, that’s why you put on the seatbelt and get anesthesia during a surgery, that’s why both speciesism and racism are a failure, you fully know you wouldn’t want to be that thing you discriminate against when it’s experiencing harm.

Same principle applies to nepotism as well, another more socially acceptable form of bigotry, which is all it ultimately is as well – bigotry, this tendency already starts with your family, because I know that some bigots are so deep into their bigotry that they would answer the typical vegan question of:

  • ”Why pet the dog but eat pigs?”

with simply more narrow-minded bigoted rhetoric like:

  • ”But, I also treat my child better than every other child, nothing hypocritical about that at all.”

Is the fact that someone’s child is someone’s child really what makes it important for the child to avoid harm though? No.

It is not the fact that your child is your child that makes it bad for the child to suffer, it is bad simply because suffering itself is bad just like water is watery, even if it happens in a different vessel that is not your child, water in a different bucket is still just as wet and watery.

You don’t want whether or not you have a right not to be tortured based on whether or not others are positively biased towards you, so it’s still hypocritical to say that the dog’s value is dependent on you being positively biased towards it.

Or did you only care about avoiding harm as a child because you were of some use to some nepotistic bigot, is that what determined your value? No, of course not, even if your parents died when you were 5 years old, you would’ve still tried to avoid it if someone tried to set you on fire, you wouldn’t have volunteered to be burned alive, saying:

  • ”Well, I’m given no extrinsic value by my parents, so therefore, I’m but a worthless object, go ahead and set me on fire all you want!”

As if the whether or not an experience is bad is dependent on how someone else (in this case parents) feel about it, so if the parents think that the child feeling bad is good, then the negative sensation the child experiences is somehow simultaneously positive (a direct contradiction).

The experience generated by an orphan child about which no one cares being burned alive is bad regardless of whether or not some nepotistic bigot thinks it is bad, if someone tried to set you on fire when you were 5 years old, you would have still tried to run away, even if you didn’t have any parents that cared about you.

You should ideally care about your child only because it is a sentient organism capable of suffering, not because it crawled out of your vagina in particular – caring about it only because it crawled out of your vagina is bigotry just like speciesism, which is bigotry, just like racism.

And if you were faced with the meatgrinder scenario again, and your child or 50 other children would have to be thrown into it, then it would be more rational to throw your child into the meatgrinder, because harm to your child is bad because it is harm itself that is bad, not because it is your child, but if 50 were thrown in a meatgrinder instead, it would generate more harm, so if you throw your child in there, it’s less harm, less bad, it would be less bad in that scenario if one of the two things had to happen either way, no matter how offensive to common human intuition that is.

Ultimately any kind of narrow focus on the rights of a subset of sentient organisms is delusional – black, white, men, women, human, animal, etc rights, what makes it an important priority to have rights to be protected from suffering is never being part of those particular ingroups, it’s the capacity to experience suffering itself, once you make it about the group in particular, it becomes non-sensical.

All that matters is that you’re part of the sentient group so to speak, if you’re not, we can’t possibly even harm ”you” by treating ”you” a certain way, you wouldn’t want to face the discrimination farm animals face unless the trait sentience/consciousness/suffering-capacity would be absent in you, it’s not about being human or not human or how attached others are to you.

On suffering – part 1, value realism: utilitarianism vs. deontology.

Utilitarianism:

Utilitarianism is a family of consequentialist ethical theories that promotes actions that maximize happiness and well-being for the majority of a population.[1] Although different varieties of utilitarianism admit different characterizations, the basic idea behind all of them is to in some sense maximize utility, which is often defined in terms of well-being or related concepts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

Deontology:

In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, “obligation, duty”) is the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics

I would argue all deontology is ultimately a waste of time because if you keep questioning long enough, the motivation for the deontology/rights based position is always of an inherently consequentialist nature to begin with.

No deontologist can explain why they ultimately care about upholding any rule without having to appeal to the sensations guiding our behavior: suffering and pleasure.

  • Don’t murder, murder is bad!

Ok, why is murder bad?

  • Because it’s against the law!

Ok, and why is that bad?

  • Because it destabilizes our society!

Ok, and why is that bad?

At some point, you’ll have to admit:

  • because it simply results in suffering – negative sensation.

There is no other way to explain why something is bad. What is bad is simply bad sensation itself, there’s no great way to describe it any other way, if something is bad, then it’s better for it not to exist, unless it prevents an even more intense bad.

We value different things and ideas, but only because they are or we believe them to be conducive to the reduction of our suffering in some way. If you’re sentient, you try to avoid bad, if you don’t avoid bad anymore, you’re no longer sentient.

  • You value the chocolate cake you say. Fine, but why? Would you still value the chocolate cake if whenever you ate it, you would feel like someone just stuck a knife in your eye?

We make rules to avoid suffering, we don’t avoid suffering to avoid breaking rules.

If consequences didn’t exist, we wouldn’t make rules to mitigate against them, the reason why some rules are then good is simply because they have utility, if they are no longer useful, the rules become worthless, rules are a result of the existence of consequences. There are no real deontologists, just delusional consequentialists.

  • Suffering is always bad and the core motivator of all our actions, it’s universally the goal of every sentient organism to avoid suffering.

Sometimes, you may be forced to decide between a lesser suffering and a greater suffering, but that doesn’t make the experience desirable, e.g. the vaccination is painful, but dying of a disease is worse, so you get the injection even if the needle hurts. This doesn’t mean suffering can be good, just that it is the lesser of two sufferings, two evils in this case. If you could snap your fingers to grant yourself immunity to illness, you’d probably do that instead.

Even those that inflict pain onto themselves intentionally aren’t enjoying pain, they are just using the pain to eliminate a greater pain. A masochist is already sexually frustrated when inflicting pain on himself, a depressed person is already in emotional turmoil when cutting their arm, if suffering didn’t motivate them, they wouldn’t hurt themselves to blend it out with another suffering.

If I were a magician and could make it so that someone who has absolutely zero masochistic desires right now won’t be able to have an orgasm anymore unless they cut their eyeballs out, they wouldn’t want me to do that (unless they already had a desire to obtain such a desire they had to fulfill to avoid more suffering, of course), you’d rather be able to get an orgasm without having to inflict intense, excruciating pain onto yourself.

Badness really exists, it’s a sensation and not only up to one’s personal interpretation, if a gang rape is taking place in a forest and no one is around to hear it, it still generates badness in the rape victim, no one has to point their finger at it and deem it bad first for negative sensations to start being generated in the rape victim, likewise, the negative sensations do not become positive by you randomly walking by, deeming it a good event and starting to jerk off to it.

That is what badness is, it is produced in a brain, and that brain is real, and the sensation is really being generated by it, and that is not just in someone’s opinion. You may not be able to put the badness in a petri dish and analyze it in a laboratory, but it can be experienced.

It may be produced by different objects in different subjects, but the sensation is the same, i.e the almond itself isn’t good or bad, it generates negative or positive sensation in the subject, in someone with an almond allergy, it generates a negative reaction, but the sensation itself is of negative quality, and in someone else with a peanut allergy it’s caused by peanuts, but the experience is equally bad, and the peanut, just like the almond, is neither good or bad by itself.

With that knowledge, we can in theory basically determine what the best and worst outcome would be in all situations objectively. I cannot necessarily compel someone to stop doing something bad, but it remains a fact that what they are doing leads to the production of badness, and that is not just so in my opinion.

  • ”Anally raping an infant with a jackhammer results in badness” is an objectively correct statement to make.

It may also be a correct statement that stopping said rapist from engaging in this activity of anally raping infants with jackhammers will generate negative sensations in him too, sexual frustration, but if it’s a simple either or question, then chances are very likely that not raping is a better option than raping, being forced to not rape an infant with a jackhammer very likely causes less suffering than being raped.

Or, the infant rapist could demonstrate evidence to the contrary, let’s say hypothetically satan existed and said that if our infant rapist in question doesn’t rape this one infant with a jackhammer, then 10.000 other infants will get raped with a jackhammer in hell and there is absolutely no other way to prevent it, then in that case anally raping one infant with a jackhammer would lead to the better outcome indeed.

Humans have plethora of false beliefs about where badness is located and where badness is not located, that is what essentially makes up all deontology, but that is all it is, a false belief about where badness is manifested, because it’s obviously easier to just think one holy moral standard saves everything than to painfully evaluate the utility of each action in each situation, it requires more analytical thought processes.

All sentient organisms share the same goal, it is universal that they try to avoid badness. There is no difference of opinion, they simply all tend to have various false beliefs about where it is and where it is not. We are all enslaved, getting whipped, punished with suffering, it’s just that sometimes different tasks have to be done to avoid suffering, and then we often generalize and falsely to come to the conclusion that it’s only one specific moral standard, that’s the deontologist mindset.

We believe in things because they either help us to reduce our suffering, or we’re under the delusion that they do, as in, a religious person believes in following god because they believe we’ll go to heaven for it which liberates them from all suffering or be rewarded for it in some other way, libertarians want freedom because being locked in a cage causes suffering, authoritarians want the law to never be broken because they believe it’ll result in a chaotic society with more suffering.

A girl got raped by a man in a position of authority over her once, now she associates authority with suffering, and abolition of authority with abolition of suffering, even when she sees a consensual relationship between two people where one has more power than the other, she falsely assumes a brutal rape is taking place.

Her little brother saw the police arrest the rapist, so now he associates law with reduction of suffering, becomes a police officer and violently harasses people for minor crimes that don’t really harm anyone like smoking a joint and pissing against a tree in public because law=always good! Law saved my sister after all!

They all believe in their specific rules because they believe it is conducive to the goal of reducing suffering in some way, but if I told anyone that I’m just going to push their hand onto the stove top for an extended period of time for no financial or other benefit of their’s or anyone else’s, they wouldn’t want that, unless they’re the unfortunate ones in a 1000 that can only have an orgasm if they burn their hand on the stove top, in which case there’d be a benefit again, the orgasm.

The avoidance of the suffering is ultimately the only goal, it’s just that because it’s simple, sometimes humans make strict rules out of intellectual laziness to not have to evaluate the utility of every action in each situation, like ”don’t lie” and then wrongly believe they did something good when they told the nazis they’re hiding jews in their basement.

Even if in a situation where you’d have to lie to save us all from going to hell for all eternity, and you didn’t lie, you’d still be acting as a consequentialist. For some reason, lying makes you hugely uncomfortable, so by resorting to your ”never lie” deontology, you are preventing your discomfort of coming to terms with a utilitarian solution.

Deontology is an intuitive, rather than strictly analytical way of processing the situation. Take the typical trolley problem for instance, two individuals tied to the left track, one to the right, the trolley is rolling down the left track, you can pull a lever to switch to the right track and hit the one instead of the two.

Because generally you learned that taking away someone’s right to life will result in suffering, you may shudder at the thought and say it’s bad to pull the lever, but the only reason why taking someone’s right to life away could be bad is obviously because it could result in suffering, badness, otherwise it couldn’t possibly be it.

No one gives a shit about the absence of a right to life in a culture of bacteria because bacteria has no suffering-capacity, so unless you’re actually psychotic enough to think bacteria is sentient, you wouldn’t worry about a bacteria being eaten by another, having its life destroyed.

In this situation, not taking the person’s right to life away will result in more suffering though, so obviously it’s better to do it, less badness is better than more badness.

It doesn’t take as much cognitive effort as to evaluate in detail to adhere to a strict law based, dogmatic morality, that’s all, but with deontology you end up with wrong calculations about how to avoid the greatest amount of harm all the time.

Sometimes, you may be offended by the utilitarian calculation, but that does not prove it to be wrong. For example, it’s a fact that some rapes in theory do not cause harm, we could hypothetically make up a case where a rape is not bad.

Let’s say:

  • The person consented to being anesthethized and sedated before a surgery.
  • They are sufficiently unconscious.
  • The doctor performing the rape has a micropenis.
  • We are not talking about the act of legalizing this act of rape, just the act itself.
  • This doctor is not some psychopath who would rape anyone that could notice it.

Then in that case, that rape is pretty much harmless, it doesn’t produce any badness.

You might be offended by the fact that that rape is not harmful, but are you by being offended by the fact that that rape is harmless proving it to be harmful?

No, you are not, you are just proving yourself to be offended by the fact that that rape is not harmful. That is all, doesn’t mean that the calculation ”this rape does not generate harm in the raped person” is somehow incorrect, just that you are offended by this fact.

I would argue it cannot even be called rape anymore, just giving it the benefit of the doubt. This is because rape implies a violation of desire not to engage in the proposed sex act, if that desire is in that moment not even being generated by a consciousness by a brain, then it cannot be violated because it is not currently even being generated anymore. If rape is just defined as absence of consent rather than direct violation of consent, it would also be rape to fuck a sex doll.

So whenever the calculation makes you uncomfortable like that, you may feel the urge to resort to deontology again and say:

  • ”But it’s still bad to rape in that case because you shouldn’t exploit someone for your own selfish pleasure!”

But then inevitably, if I ask you again why it is bad to exploit someone for your pleasure, you will either be able to demonstrate that it generates bad sensations in the person or you will not be able to do so, and if you are not able to do so, then it is objectively incorrect to claim that it is inherently bad to rape them.

Rape, like anything, is bad because it causes suffering. If rape were something that did not cause suffering, then rape would not be a problem. Reality and its value facts exist regardless of your opinion on it, if something does not cause suffering, badness, is therefore not bad, and you say:

  • ”To me it’s still bad!”

that doesn’t change anything, it still doesn’t generate negative sensations where you located them (only in you, because your threat detection is working wrongly). And likewise if something does cause suffering, badness, is therefore bad, and you say:

  • ”To me personally it’s not bad!”

that doesn’t change anything, it still generates negative sensations in the victim of the act we are discussing.

  • ”But what if I think suffering is only bad if it happens to me but I don’t care about the suffering of others?”

Then you are being irrational, suffering is not only bad when it happens to you, if negative sensations were only negative because they happen to you, then it would also be bad if pleasure happened to you, by virtue of it happening to you.

You try to avoid it because it’s bad, that is what qualifies it as worth preventing, so if harm happens to someone else, you are logically inconsistent in not thinking of it as just as worth preventing, if you only thought it is worth preventing because harm is happening to you, you’d try to avoid the pleasant orgasm as well, because it’s in the same category – ”things that happen to you”.

Suffering in meat suit A is bad and so is suffering in meat suit b, just like trash in trashbin A is trashy and so is trash in trashbin B.

It’s like you’re a toilet cleaner and the argument is that when you see excrement in toilet A, you flush it down because it is so shitty, so you press the button. If that is the reason why it’s worthy of being flushed down the toilet though, why shit is being put into the category ”worthy of being flushed down”, then obviously it’s just as worthy of being flushed down when you see excrement in toilet B, because it is also shitty – same category.

If you see excrement in toilet B and suddenly say ”no, that isn’t real shit, or even if, somehow I shouldn’t flush it down like in toilet A, I should just let it sit there”, you’re irrational.

If you want to say that excrement in toilet A is only worthy of being flushed down because it sits in toilet A (the ”suffering only matters because it happens to me”– approach), then you would flush down your credit card, one billion dollar lottery ticket and jewelry if it fell into toilet A too, but you’re saying it’s worthy flushing shit down toilet A because it is shit, so if shit is in toilet B, it is just as worthy of being flushed down. It’s about the content of the toilet, not about in which toilet it’s sitting in.

”You” are just one of many qualia containing toilets, the product, which is suffering, is the same. If suffering is worthy of prevention when it happens because it feels bad, then it’s just as worthy of prevention when it happens to anyone else, because it feels the same way, i.e bad.

When suffering is in a different vessel, it is bad for the exact same reason why it is bad when it happens in the ”you” vessel, the sensation itself is negative, so it’s going to be negative regardless of where we put it in. To explain why exactly this bad sensation is created we’d have to go deeper into biology, but the quality of the sensation simply remains negative and you cannot change it, whether it happens in vessel A or vessel B is irrelevant to that fact.

Take an example you are more disconnected from to see the absurdity to see value in preventing only your suffering, not suffering in general.

Let’s say we have two bugs, bug A and bug B, one of the two has to be squashed in order to prevent the entirety of all other organisms on planet earth from going to hell and being tormented for all eternity, squash bug A or bug B, the harm experienced by either will be roughly the same, they have the same suffering capacity.

Which should you squash and what would be the rationale for favoring one bug over the other? You could say if we squash bug A it’s different because bug A will personally feel it, but if we squash bug B then bug B will personally feel it, but the feeling it the same, so what’s the difference? All you can really do is flip a coin here.

A negative sensation is negative no matter where it is manifested and the motivator of all our actions, we make rules because they help us to or we believe they’ll help us to reduce our suffering, and if we label the sensation as worth preventing when it happens to us because it’s bad, then it’s logically inconsistent to not see it as just as worth preventing when it happens to anyone else.

Part 2: On suffering – part 2, antifrustrationism: positive vs. negative utilitarianism.

Wildlife suffering.

The argument for antinatalism of course also applies to other animals, sentient organisms try to avoid suffering their enitre lives and the best way they can achieve that is by not being alive in the first place. Suffering is always bad, sometimes in life you might be forced to bear one suffering to avoid even greater suffering in the future, like a vaccination to avoid a more painful disease, or a boring school life to get a good job liberating you from poverty later on, but suffering itself is always a bad thing.

By creating sentient life, you create suffering of everyday needs and urges, such as hunger, thirst, constipation, sexual frustration, fatigue, all kinds of little irritations and proneness to much worse suffering in the future, e.g. car accidents, drug addiction, cancer, etc, the list goes on and on, for animals in the wild it might be being eaten alive or having parasites in your asshole.

Life also contains good experiences, but you would not have suffered from missing them if you simply never came into existence.

When you exist, you need to chase pleasure, or you are punished with suffering, but when you simply don’t exist, while you won’t experience pleasure, you will not experience any suffering as a result of it either.

  • Eat or get hungry (or experience appetite or boredom, also suffering, someone can suffer from being put in prison and no longer being able to eat their favorite dessert).
  • Drink or get thirsty.
  • Shit or constipate.
  • Cum or get tense.
  • Sleep or fatigue.
  • Socialize or get lonely.

So on and so forth.

Meeting your needs is good, but is it a problem if your needs simply never exist to begin with? No. You can perfectly stitch up a wound, that doesn’t mean you’re better off than never having been wounded in the first place, that’s the game you’re in once your instantiation of consciousness exists, always trying to heal a wound/preserve yourself.

You can fulfill your needs, you can avoid suffering temporarily, but never as efficiently as by just never becoming conscious in the first place. Creating unfulfilled need, want, desire for the good of fulfilling them, creating suffering for the good of alleviating it is about as absurd as to give someone an illness for the good of then treating that illness.

It’s true your victim avoided the pain of a stabwound going untreated, better a bandaid than no bandaid, it’s true that they obtained a sensation of great relief from getting a painkiller, but you could have still done better by just not sticking the knife into their chest in the first place.

Neither is speciesism in any way a more coherent viewpoint than racism, it’s bad to have certain things happen to you, like having a knife pushed in your throat, because you are sentient, you can feel things, it’s not your white skin color, gender, or even your species that makes having a knife pushed into your throat into a problem.

It’s bad to get stabbed, because it simply produces bad sensations, it’s not bad because you contain a certain skin color or human DNA, as you could be braindead and still contain said skin color or human DNA, but it would no longer produce badness if someone stabbed you, so both racism and speciesism fail, they’re just as irrelevant in determining whether or not it’s bad to get stabbed.

Sentience is the only important characteristic here, destroying non-sentient things cannot produce badness, unless it is of course in another sentient organism, i.e a family member might be offended that you destroy a braindead human with a sledgehammer, but it doesn’t produce any badness in the braindead human, but if the family members indeed care much more about their plasma tv, it’s arguably worse to smash that plasma tv in with a hammer.

So the conclusion is that creating sentient life is bad, and so is being a speciesist who only apply antinatalism to human animals.

Ideally, both humans and other animals would stop reproducing, and indeed, when we look at other animals, we can see that in a lot of ways they’re suffering a great deal as well, that’s because they are less intelligent and therefore not as able to work toward reducing suffering.

  • Many are dependent on the nutrients in the flesh of other animals.
  • Hyenas eat their prey alive.
  • Lions dominate other lion groups and often brutally kill off the lion cubs.
  • Many female spiders, some octopuses kill and eat the male after the mating ritual.
  • Ducks commit organized gang rape.
  • Chimps sometimes fight brutal wars where they rip each others body parts off.

Here even many animal rights supporters are indeed complete hypocrites, they’re still suffering from a pro-nature and a pro-life bias, they don’t wish to interfere with nature to stop the suffering of wild animals or as much as with farmed animals, which already frequently becomes apparent when carnists ask them (though in that case most likely with dishonest intent) why it is ok for the lion to kill a zebra for flesh, but not for us to kill a pig for its flesh.

There is actually no great answer to this, the common rebuttal is that:

  • The lion doesn’t have the cognitive capacity to acknowledge it is harming others, humans are harming others intentionally, other animals don’t.

If that is the issue, then there would be no point in stopping a mentally retarded person on the IQ level of a lion from brutally raping someone, to make it more similar, let’s say it’s his mentally retarded sister on the IQ level of a zebra. But the intelligence level of the harm causer doesn’t diminish the harm they cause, the outcome, suffering, is still bad nonetheless.

Why don’t these nature apologists offer themselves to be eaten by lions then, if the fact that lions don’t understand what they’re doing makes what they’re doing not bad?

Intent is ultimately irrelevant, if a rapist with severe mental retardation, schizophrenia or multiple personalities raped you, you’d still want it to stop. If you were the one eaten by the bear, you’d still want it to stop. If you were tortured by a virus or machine with no intent, you’d want it to stop.

  • The lion is a carnivore by nature, needs the flesh of others for survival.

Then again, why don’t these nature apologists offer themselves to be eaten by lions, the lion needs (nutrients in) flesh to survive, so they should have no problem with being eaten by one, the lion derives nutrients from human just like from gazelle flesh.

There should be no problem with a hypothetical, physically stronger (than human) carnivorous alien species hunting or farming us for our flesh, because they’re naturally carnivorous, so that somehow makes the suffering we experience no longer relevant, as long as the aggressor is deriving nutrients from it, it’s acceptable.

Pain is not any less bad by it being caused or experienced by those that aren’t able to grasp what they are caught up in or just because someone is deriving nutrients from their victim, it’s in fact irresponsible of us not to interfere with this completely unfair game, we’re the only ones that can really do anything about it.

It’s the pain in and of itself that is the problem, not the intent to cause it. The only reason why we care about bad intent is because it tends to lead to a bad outcome later on, e.g. a serial rapist and killer in solitary confinement may have bad intent to cause harm to others, but it’s not a problem anymore, because he’s unable to do it, a virus has no intent to cause harm but you’d still try to prevent it from infecting you.

To a wild boar it doesn’t matter whether it is torn apart by a wild predator or tortured by some sociopathic factory farm worker, the suffering is just as bad, if not worse in many cases, torture in the wild has been going on for much longer than in factory farms and there’s no harm mitigation whatsoever, no rules against eating someone alive.

When it comes to wildlife suffering, all the arguments that they refute when carnists make them suddenly come out of the woodwork.

  • It is what it is.
  • That’s just nature, therefore it’s good.
  • That’s how it always has been.

Often times in discussions about what is done to non-human animals by human animals, hypotheticals involving mentally handicapped humans are utilized, as one of the great differences between humans and other animals are their different levels of intelligence, but obviously being less intelligent doesn’t make being harmed no longer bad, so if it’s bad to torture humans that are no more intelligent than pigs, then it’s bad to torture pigs as well.

A good way to demonstrate the horrors of the dairy industry would for instance be to just imagine I’m doing what they are doing with a mentally handicapped human female.

Forcefully impregnate her, steal her kids that are due to their young age no more intelligent than cows anyway, tie them up so they can’t move for their flesh to stay tender, then slaughter them all. Yes, they are all less intelligent, but it’d obviously still be bad if I did that, it would generate negative sensations.

  • The thought experiment for nature and wildlife suffering would just be leaving the severely intellectually disabled in a forest to fend for themselves.

Imagine we isolate all the severely intellectually disabled into an asylum into an abandoned forest somewhere, cut off by a wall or some such object from our general public.

They desperately search for berries in the forest, try to cannibalize each other when food resources are scarce, they die of all sorts of accidents or infectious diseases in said forest they don’t know how to prevent, and once in a while they manage to get on top of another and produce more having the overall same legacy.

This would almost certainly be seen as a problem, the same thing essentially happens in the wild, which is by most not acknowledged as a problem at all, even as something to be preserved, frequently justified by simply pointing to the fact that this is mother nature, therefore it must go on as it is, which is no better than justifying the forest experiment by simply pointing out that it is indeed the abandoned retard forest, so therefore, it must be good because it exists.

That’s just an is-ought fallacy – it’s like you discovered the torture chamber of a serial killer and didn’t call the police because the torture chamber exists, so you figured that what’s taking place inside it must be good, otherwise the torture chamber wouldn’t exist, it exists so it must be fine.

This is a faulty conclusion, because just because something exists, that doesn’t mean that it generates good outcomes for sentient organisms.

It exists, therefore it should keep existing, that’s the assumption.

The blinding difference here is human DNA again, but the suffering endured in the wild is the same as suffering endured in the abandoned retard forest, human DNA alone doesn’t determine your capacity to suffer, human fetuses prior to reaching consciousness and braindead human vegetables being the greatest examples of this, so there’s no reason why we should interfere with the forest experiment for such an insignificant reason but not nature in general.

Both contain tremendous amounts of suffering in the same way and no one is harmed by not being brought into existence, so we should interfere with both the abandoned retard forest and the jungle.

If any of these nature apologists had parasites in their assholes, they would insist on removing them. If we dumped them into the location they are defending, the wild, and they would still have parasites in their assholes, they would still insist on removing them, so in what exact location suffering is happening is rather irrelevant, it’s the suffering part itself that is the problem, regardless of its location.

If the big, strong, 6’5 tall, tiger IQ human sexually assaulted everyone the nature defenders would see it as a problem, even if he doesn’t know any better than to sexually assault everyone, even if he only assaults mentally handicapped girls that aren’t much more intelligent than zebras, you wouldn’t insist on creating more individuals like that because you understand the negative consequences of doing so.

When they a see a tiger causing harm, they get a big boner because it looks so majestic and has pretty tiger stripes too, so that’s different when the tiger is torturing a zebra to death, so we shouldn’t stop this from happening.

Conservation efforts focused on keeping these animals breeding forever are simply misguided (when we’re talking about something directly related to the welfare of already existent animals it’s a different story of course), wild animals will go through much more suffering if we try to preserve them at all costs, first off because they’ll be born which always results in suffering, need, want, desire, just as with humans, the global antinatalist argument based on antifrustrationism applies to both, secondly because of the particularly faulty and destructive manners they are wired to act.

Extinction is benign and should be seen as the end goal, there is no tiger or elephant right now in the unborn (non-human) animal purgatory lamenting the absence of more tigers and elephants roaming planet earth, you wouldn’t be doing these animals a favor by breeding more of them.

These animals first and foremost want to avoid suffering, just like humans by the way, it’s just that they don’t have any of the emotional complications and delusions going on that humans developed as a way to deal with suffering.

A wildebeast with its entrails ripped out of its asshole by a hyena isn’t laying around in the grass, hoping that no one comes to euthanize it because that would violate its religious belief that getting your entrails ripped out of your asshole by a hyena is god’s test and you must endure it to go to wildebeast heaven one day, these are idiotic coping mechanisms and rationalizations only humans come up with to justify all the suffering that surrounds them in life.

How one should go on about preventing all the other animals from reproducing as peacefully as possible for everyone involved is of course a different and more complicated question, but the first step certainly is to at least recognize that negative sensations aren’t suddenly less negative just because they’re being produced in a different location in the wild.

That seems frequently to be the attitude of both carnists and some number of vegans that seem to think non-human animal suffering is somehow only bad if it’s happening at the hands of humans, or worse, anthropocentric antinatalists, vhemt (voluntary human extinction movement) types that think somehow the other animals would be better off if just humans went extinct, which is about as idiotically irresponsible as thinking it’s a good idea to leave a severely mentally retarded person in a forest somewhere and move to a different country forever.

Antinatalism, family obligations and parental delusions.

An idea frequently instinctively held by society is that children ought to be grateful to their parents for having created and taken care of them, perhaps are even in debt to them in some way for that.

When you take into account the certain basic facts of life, primarily that:

  • all the goods in life, like food and water, are only needed once a need, a condition of suffering, like hunger and thirst via the creation of the child is created
  • that the child really didn’t exist before it actually existed, somehow worse off in an unborn purgatory, writhing in agony over not being alive
  • what the parents in reality did by creating said child is creating a desire machine that needs constant satisfaction, a deficit, not doing some poor child from the unborn purgatory a favor by finally forcing it into earth-bound existence

this whole viewpoint that children ought to be grateful for being given certain goods by their parents that are entirely at fault for having created the child’s need, want, desire to obtain those goods starts to seem rather absurd to anyone who is halfway rational.

  • A good analogy to use here is the fireman starting a fire to put it out again in order to play the hero.

You wouldn’t be grateful to a fireman for saving you from a burning house if he’s at fault for having caused the fire in the first place, of course, extinguishing the problem again after deliberately having created it is the very least he can do, virtuous would only be if he extinguished a fire that came about by accident or was set by someone else.

And breeders do a similar crime, they create a problem, a deficit by creating an organism with needs, wants, desires that it is at least at this young stage more or less incapable of fulfilling itself, then fulfill some of its needs, wants, desires and expect gratitude in return for it from their victim despite having caused that very problem of the child experiencing conditions of need, want, desire in the first place because they didn’t abort it before it had the chance to become conscious.

  • ”But I fed them and put a roof over their head, so they should be grateful!”

But I saved the child from drowning in the sea after I deliberately threw it into the sea, so they should be grateful! But I pulled the knife out of that person’s chest after I deliberately stuck the knife into the chest, so they should be grateful!

Yes, after having created their need to ingest food and not freeze to death on the street, in a disabled state where they are incapable of even fulfilling those needs themselves, you fulfilled some of their needs that you yourself created.

So you essentially put someone into a degraded condition, then took care of the problem you intentionally caused, you defecated all over the floor and expect a medal for at best halfway wiping it off again (never fully because the children will experience needs, wants, desires with no failsafe guarantee of fulfillment until they are dead).

Your parents wiping the shit off of your ass after having created you in a disabled state of deprivation where you’re unable to do it yourself was the very least they could do, to let the shit rot on your asshole until you get some kind of disease would have just been worse than it already was to create someone in said state of disability and deprivation.

It would be like the fireman instead just letting the house he deliberately set on fire burn into the ground, so what do these narcissistic breeders expect, the nobel prize for altruism for not having committed an extra horrific violation like first creating a hungry child and then letting it starve to death on the streets afterwards?

  • ”Some children don’t have parents that care for them so be more grateful!”

Some firefighters that set people’s houses on fire in order to play the hero by coming to the rescue and extinguishing it again afterwards, don’t actually even extinguish the fires that they deliberately set again, and just let the whole thing burn into the ground instead. I could have done that as well, ingrate, you should be thanking me that after I set your house on fire deliberately, I saved you from burning to death in it, I’m a true hero and wish to be acknowledged as such.

Children aren’t in debt to their parents, it’s the exact other way around, they have created the child in need of care, it didn’t create itself in that state and then offered the parents to sign a contract promising it will later on compensate them for taking care of the problem, so to brag about having taken care of it is essentially just like the fireman bragging about having extinguished the fire he deliberately created.

Parental arguments to instill obedience into their children in general are often times completely non-sensical, kind of highlighting the mentality of many procreators in fact and how they justify themselves, by might makes right, I can so I will, I’ll impose life and you have to take it in the ass.

  • ”You live with me and I take care of you, so you have to do what I say, as long as you live in my house you have to abide by my rules!”

The parents again are at fault for the child living in their house due to age related inability to move out, which they are at fault for because they have created it with the knowledge that this stage of life will exist, and because they and the rest of parents probably also made a law that says the child can’t move out until a certain age, so what the parents/slave owners making this argument are essentially saying is that because they forced someone to be dependent on them, the slave should now do as they say.

By this argument, if I abduct you and lock you into my basement, you should be obligated to suck my cock, because you live in my basement that I have forced you to live in, from which you have little to no chance of escaping successfully and I’m taking care of you.

  • ”If you don’t like my rules, 5 year old, then why don’t you move out? Oh, too bad, you can’t, so you have to do what I say!”

What kind of sadistic fascist gets off on playing this type of game, what kind of reasonably sensible and intellectually honest individual would think this is a good game to play?

The all known, apathetic towards the child’s suffering:

  • ‘Life is not fair”

Also a great insight. Life is not fair, I created life, so basically all I’m saying is that I am unfair, I create unfair circumstances.

Sorry that you don’t always get what you want, I intentionally forced you into this state of constant wanting and needing without guarantee of fulfillment because I am entirely unfair, just in case this might be helpful information to you at some point. It’s life, not me, although I created it.

It always tends to be said with this subliminal tone as if it should just be obvious to the child, as if the child supposedly has agreed to life’s unfairness in some way, so then it would be reasonable to remind the child that this is what they signed up for, as if they are repeating the guidelines of a game that the child consented to by signing a contract before being born, and now that child is being irresponsible by not following the contract, so the procreators have to remind the child of the rules, that’s the risk the child took, now they have to deal with life being unfair, should’ve thought about that before you came out of my vagina.

When in reality though, of course no one ever agrees to be made conscious, because they’re not conscious before they become conscious, so again, it’s the procreators deciding to awaken the dead into a world that they may not like, so saying ”well, that’s just life, deal with it” in that context is pretty much like randomly shoving dog shit into someone’s face and then arrogantly saying ”well, that’s just dog shit, deal with it”, as if your victim knew what was coming for them and signed up for this treatment in some way.

  • ”But kids have to learn that life is unfair and that they can’t always get what they want because life’s hard and they gotta deal with that when they grow up, little billy has to learn he can’t get the new toy so that then later on he won’t snap and rape a bitch when she refuses to let him stick his peepee in her pussy.”

So children have to learn to become desensitized to suffering, in order to avoid an even bigger amount of suffering that will face them later on, knowing how to deal with life’s suffering.

  • But why are they in a situation where they even have to try to avoid this bigger amount of suffering later on in the first place? A good question to ask.

Right, because you forced them into existence, you didn’t abort him before he became conscious.

  • And was forcing the child into existence necessary in order to help them avoid a worse form of suffering, like it is necessary once they exist and have to learn that life is unfair in order to avoid more frustration with this fundamental unfairness later on?

No, because as far as I know, we have absolutely zero evidence for the existence of an unborn purgatory in which children that are not brought into earthly bound existence are writhing in agony over not being brought into earthly bound existence, the suffering caused by procreation is not instrumental to preventing a worse harm from befalling the child.

It is only instrumental to solving some suffering in the parents, erasing one of their deficits, i.e their desire to have the child, so in the process of getting rid of that one deficit, they create a whole lifetime of deficits in an effort to fix one of their deficits, so it’s necessary for the child to learn to deal with the fact that life is unfair in the same way it’s necessary for you to learn how to deal with poverty because I just can’t give up gambling with your money, woe is me.

On life and reproduction.

(Sentient) life is a problem state demanding of constant fixing. What you do when you create life is essentially to throw something into a state of deprivation, struggling to constantly tame/fulfill their needs/wants/desires, accumulation of urges and compulsions you have imposed on it by having created it.

Imagine it as being trapped in a hole, the further you sink, the more you suffer, the closer you get to the surface, the more you feel relieved of it again, but you cannot climb out of the hole, you’ll always sink down again and have to keep struggling to remain as close to the surface of the hole as possible until you are dead.

Now that the organism has been created, it is constantly suffering, experiencing desire, deprivation. Hunger, thirst, constipation, sexual frustration, fatigue every single day to differing degrees, and proneness to worse future suffering, e.g. all sorts of accidents, drug addiction, loneliness, cancer, paralysis, the list goes on and on.

You fulfill a desire, then either a new desire pops up (e.g. appetite after hunger) or the old desire comes back in time and you’ll have to fulfill that initial desire again to avoid more suffering.

You must eat or you suffer hunger, you must drink or you suffer thirst, you must defecate or you constipate, you must breathe or you suffer suffocation, you must masturbate/have sex or you are sexually frustrated and tense, you must sleep or you fatigue, you must socialize or you feel lonely, etc.

We can use pretty much whatever example we want, we must obtain pleasure or we suffer, that’s the deal of sentient life.

Of course getting higher to the surface of the deprivation hole feels good, but would it really be an important priority to climb to the surface of the hole if you were never thrown into it in the first place? I don’t think so, I may enjoy a fresh breath of air, but I know that before I existed, there was no suffocating version of me trapped in an unborn purgatory, waiting to be brought to earth so that I can finally breathe clearly.

  • Creating a problem because mitigating and/or solving it is good.

Considering there was no kind of desire problem prior to the existence of an individual that demanded for some kind of happy moment to distract the individual, justifying reproduction on grounds of some kind of good in life is akin to justifying setting someone’s house on fire because extinguishing the fire again is good, giving someone AIDS because AIDS treatment is good, breaking someone’s leg because painkillers are good, throwing someone into the ocean because saving them from drowning is good, breaking the vase because halfway repairing it again is good, shitting on someone’s carpet because cleaning it off afterwards is good.

It’s an irrational idea, creating a (light to severe) torture mechanism just for the sake of sometimes stopping the suffering for the victim to appreciate what it’s like to not be burdened, for which they had absolutely no use prior to being burdened with it anyway, all the suffering could be prevented by abstaining from creating sentient life in the first place and no unborn child would miss out on anything, there is no child right now being tormented in the unborn purgatory waiting to be released, suffering from a need to be suffering from needs, procreators create all need.

It might be good to clean shit off of the carpet when there is already shit on it, but you wouldn’t think I’d be doing you a favor if I defecated onto your carpet for the good of cleaning it off again, most likely incompletely. It might be good to repair the vase when it is already broken, but you wouldn’t think I’d be doing you a favor if I broke it for the good of trying to repair it again, most likely incompletely.

  • To create sentient life in and of itself is to harm, you cannot reproduce without breaking the do-no-harm principle.

Let’s say I could bestow desire by snapping my fingers, or there were desire serum, so I could inject different desires into lifeforms, inject you with a substance in your sleep that makes it so that unless you stare at a red painted wall at least once a day and ejaculate into a purple cupboard, you won’t be able to fall asleep anymore.

The reason why everyone would most likely look at me as an asshole for doing that, but not their parents for giving all them all sorts of burning needs for:

  • food
  • taste satisfaction
  • shelter
  • resources you’ll have to do possibly dissatisfying work for
  • constant entertainment
  • acceptance, reassurance
  • affection
  • sex

with this need mechanism perhaps even leading to needs that are hard or nearly impossible to fulfill, which a good chunk of individuals are suffering from, like for example the need to:

  • stay healthy and simultaneously be an alcoholic or eat greasy, salty, sugary foods
  • copulate with more females than you have opportunity to copulate with
  • go back into the past you may feel more attached to than the present
  • not decompose and die, although you inevitably will anyway
  • be someone else that you are not

or perhaps even needs of which the fulfillment will directly necessitate the frustration of someone else’s needs, like for example the need to:

  • rape others for your sexual relief
  • make yourself feel superior to others by subjugating them

is because every sentient being in existence has been harmed in this way, with the evidence being that they currently exist, so you most likely assume it must be this way and take it for granted without ever questioning it, as opposed to me injecting someone with desire serum. It is simply impossible to create a sentient lifeform with the main function to suffer for constant need fulfillment without causing suffering, to create a sentient life is by itself to create suffering, it’s directly entailed.

It’s the creation of preferences that demand constant satisfaction, needing is a problem, you are in need of something, it is a deficit that if not alleviated in time will only intensify. And this is the act breeders engage in, they put you in need, similar to injecting you with heroin, except they bestow not one little deprivation by snapping fingers or using hypothetical desire serum, they create numerous desire wounds without lifelong, failsafe guarantee of bandaid supply.

In that sense, the more frustration is experienced by the victim, or the more frustration would be experienced by others if they were satisfied, the crueler the act of reproducing them – and you don’t know what the victim will win in the suffering lottery beforehand, someone is going to pull the brain tumor ticket, someone is going to pull the ”you can only orgasm if you set little kittens on fire” ticket.

You create an addiction, for example, a dependency on sex. Now perhaps the organism will always be able to find a hole to stick their penis in just in time, before the suffering gets out of hand, perhaps you’ll create an ugly elephant man experiencing lifelong loneliness though. You create an addiction, for example, a dependency on air. Now perhaps the organism will always be able to breathe in and out clearly just fine, perhaps you’ll create a child with cystic fibrosis or lung cancer though.

Every sentient organism experiences needs, wants, desires, every sentient organism is being harmed. Some victims are lucky enough to always get a painkiller just in time, others are not.

I would say that considering that if you were never put into this situation in the first place, you would not be suffering from not having your needs/wants/desires fulfilled (because you wouldn’t exist in the first place), the suffering of the ones unlucky enough to not receive painkillers is not justified.

The ugly elephant man’s unfulfilled sexual need to cum inside a hot pussy is not justified by someone else cumming inside hot pussy for him, because that happy individual would not be trapped in an unborn purgatory missing hot pussy if no one ever took the risk of creating either of these two individuals.

The dissatisfied child with leukemia isn’t justified by the happy child without leukemia, because that happy child would not be trapped in an unborn purgatory missing their life if no one ever took the risk of creating either of these two individuals.

You’re creating a problem, i.e the sentient organism needs to be pumped full of pleasure or else perhaps tragic suffering will ensue, and you created the sentient organism…with no guarantee that they can even be pumped full of sufficient pleasure at all times.

  • Our conditions of suffering may not only be impossible to alleviate sometimes, they also demand one to make others suffer in the process of alleviating your suffering, so perhaps your desire machine will also harm others.

Sometimes in this game, the relief of pain will depend on the pain of another organism. Perhaps you’ll create some organism that can only get off if they brutally rape and subjugate someone else, perhaps the organism will be an animal abuser their entire life, then in the metaphor, you basically created a fire that can only be extinguished by setting someone else on fire, you can only give the one organism the painkiller if you stab the other organism and let them bleed out on the road.

Childhood bullying is an almost instinctive, natural occurence, it’s a good example of sentient organisms being naturally in such a shitty insecure condition that they’re always aching to get a relief, even by making others suffer, in this case alleviating the suffering to be in control and feel powerful, this bad instinct comes naturally, civilized behavior on the other hand may take hard work.

It’s arguably a harm, you are creating states of deprivation, bestowing the itch that then demands to constantly be scratched, with no 100% guarantee that the itch can even be successfully scratched all of the time, possibly creating itches that can’t be scratched adequately or itches that can only be scratched by giving someone else the itch.

  • But let’s even assume we established some sort of as close to utopian scenario as possible where every suffering/need could be immediately alleviated, all itches scratched in due time.

At that point I’d be less concerned about procreation but I still wouldn’t say that it’s obligatory, because likewise, you still wouldn’t be able to miss being here if no one ever brings you into existence, so it doesn’t seem like a big deal.

It’s completely solving a problem (no life at all) vs. alleviating it as greatly as possible (utopia). If we exist in the utopia, we still have needs/wants/desires that if left unattended would lead to greater and greater suffering, but it’s just always being alleviated just in time.

Good without suffering seems impossible because pleasure and suffering exist in comparison to each other similar to bright and dark or wet and dry, when you take away suffering aou have pleasure and when you take away pleasure you have more suffering again, I don’t see any kind of neutral point in between where it’s clearly divided and then we just cut off suffering and have solved the suffering problem once and for all.

If you have more pleasure, you have less pain. If you have less pain, you have more pleasure, so I think the closest we’d get to a utopia would be perfectly alleviating the problem, always putting a bandaid on the problem just in time.

So we might create pain still, but then we always perfectly alleviate it. We have AIDS, but we also have the perfect cure for AIDS on hand. We create fires, but we also have the perfect fire extinguishing technology in place.

But if there’s no problem to fix anymore because life wouldn’t exist anymore, then I don’t think that having no utopia would be a problem either of course.

The endless orgasm utopia would be a great tool to have in place in a case someone is brought into existence and feels frustrated, but it certainly wouldn’t be a reason to create it in the first place, just like I would say that the existence of the cure for AIDS wouldn’t be a reason to infect someone with it in the first place just to then perfectly cure them of it afterwards.

The perfect problem solving means don’t obligate us to create a new problem, there is no need for desire fulfillment before desire is created, it doesn’t follow that the suffering of desire must be created merely because the perfect means to alleviate it would exist.

  • Perfectly alleviated suffering > suffering left to fester and intensify in our current world where desire fires are set with no guarantee of extinguishing

but

  • zero suffering > perfectly alleviated suffering.

And of course, on a more practical level, it simply also isn’t an argument for causing suffering by reproduction right now, just because of the possibility of a utopia in the distant future, that’d be like setting the forest on fire before the water hose was even invented.