/lit/ - Literature

>>20148826
Im not an anti-natalist, but from that standpoint, I dont think thats really an existential concern. The stance is that life is a net negative. wether it continues to be outside of our control isn't really a failure, thats just potential causality. There is nothing too prevent it from happening since anti-natalsim is a statement of epicurean sensability, rather than fundemental universal law.

I guess that a civilization commited to it could try to make some mechanism or ai system intent on snuffing life out after the extinction event.

>>20148876
Doesn't it render the anti-natalist project somewhat futile, though? Why are you not an anti-natalist if I may ask? How do you reject it?

This is a good opportunity for realizing that most people loudly into extreme philosophical stances are actually so philosophically shallow that they haven't thought their position through, past the aesthetics of adhering to it.

Anarchists who have no idea what will actually happen after states are supposedly destroyed, "accelerationists" who don't even know how to do their own dayjobs properly but claim to understand humanity as a cybernetic superorganism, "antinatalists" who vaguely blend a few pessimistic authors together and are the philosophical equivalent of a mall goth.

>>20148900
If you're a pacifist and strive for peace does it make your endeavor futile because violence will occur somewhere down the line? Should you yourself become violent then?

>>20148826
not my problem
i'm not god

>>20148905
you take a sensible perspective, anon

Just like anything that's seen as bad by any group or culture (violence, killing, deviancy of various kinds), there's a motivation to avoid contributing to that behavior personally, even though it will probably continue in some form anyway. It's kind of ego driven, like, "at least I'm not contributing to the suffering of consciousness, so I'm not a part of the problem personally"

>>20148826
Nice painting

>>20148826
My antinatalism is strictly about myself. Because of what you said, I think this is out of my control. Creating "ought to"s for others to follow is a recipe for unhappiness, because nobody will follow your idea unless your idea caters to people's basest instincts. This is why things can only get worse. I am antinatalist because I believe that right now, it is impossible to truly have offspring that is your own. Because of how society works, your child's upbringing is at least partially outsourced to the State, and the State will make your kid loyal to itself and teach him things that benefit the State (which is really more like "the establishment" given that we live in crony capitalism). As a parent your role is now that of providing for the kid materially, by working to pay for his indoctrination, his medical expenses, etc. you are basically only given the duty to creating and maintaining the pawn.
>move out in the country
this is a ridiculous idea because the country is dying, there are no jobs, etc. it's just not realistic to think that you can move in the country and start a family there. in any case, unless you live in a fucking jungle your kid will have to go to school and socialize with other kids, and this means that he'll be introduced to the establishment and turned into a pawn. Preventing your kid from being exposed to cancerous consumer culture at this point is straight up abuse, it's impossible to do unless you want to lock your child in his room and never let him see the world. In any case he will grow up estranged and unhappy. It's better not to have kids.

>>20148826
>If we achieve the objective of voluntary extinction what's to prevent abiogenesis from occuring again given that it happened once?
Even if abiogenesis happens again, it could be billions of years before it happens again. And even when it does happen, it will take another billion years for it to generate a biosphere as complex as this one. At the end of the day, you're still preventing billions of years of life and pointless suffering from existing.

>>20148876
>I guess that a civilization commited to it could try to make some mechanism or ai system intent on snuffing life out after the extinction event.
Thomas Metzinger has a thought experiment called BAAN (Benevolent Artificial Anti-Natalism) that is basically this exact idea. The idea is to create a superintelligent AI with an antinatalist utility function.

https://www.edge.org/conversation/thomas_metzinger-benevolent-artificial-anti-natalism-baan
https://longtermrisk.org/reply-thomas-metzingers-baan-thought-experiment/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30OlsIZb31Y

>>20148826
Magnus Vinding thinks that pushing for extinction is a bad idea from a negative utilitarian perspective. His basic argument is that suffering may exist elsewhere in the multiverse, and humanity may eventually get advanced enough to intervene in other universes and end suffering there.

>>20149687
>humanity may eventually get advanced enough to intervene in other universes and end suffering there.
Yeah that's going to go really well I'm sure

>>20149687
>humanity may eventually get advanced enough to intervene in other universes and end suffering there.
Dear God, leave the poor sods alone you neocon

>>20149687
yeah that worked out so well in the new world