this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2022
22 points (76.2% liked)
Asklemmy
44864 readers
2158 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And why does society have to exist? Society and humanity have no inherent value. The value they have is the value we, as rational beings, give them. If we collectively determined that they should exist no more, they would cease to exist.
I don't mind it. That alarmism doesn't scare me. Remember I follow VHEMT, hence that is my end goal (at least, I'm doing my part towards that).
That is precisely what my question was targeting. You've measured (and you have every right to your measurement as the expression of an opinion), but who's to say you've measured accurately? What qualifications do you have to make such a statement of fact?
I would. That is how I try to act in my daily life: avoiding things that have caused me suffering in the past, as much as possible. That is how I try to achieve a comfortable and happy life, by avoiding what has broken that comfort and happiness in the past.
It may be from a pragmatic point of view, but abstractly/philosophically speaking, it isn't. When we make a moral choice, we have to think of the future consequences of that choice. From that point of view, we have to consider that the person being born will have no concept of the meaning behind their future suffering and will try to attribute such meaning to the ones who decided for them. People desire, naturally, to be in control and being born is the one action you have zero control over. That is also a reason why people seek religion: to justify and give meaning to their existence.
How can you make such a blanket statement when you don't know any of us personally?
If this is your opinion, then it is only reasonable for those of us who do find value in society and humanity to ignore your opinions on how those things should work. Your statement is, in essence, a resignation from those groups.
I spend about 10 hours a week at the gym pursuing activities that (best that I can tell what you mean by "suffering") cause me suffering. I am better for it.
Yes. And since the consequences of having children is good, at least net good, there's not much of a choice to make.
At most, I simply have to avoid the sorts of abuse that would cause them to turn out like yourself and believe absurdities such as "human extinction is a goal one should pursue".
Because these sorts of genetic issues are exceedingly rare, and the people who have them and know they have them would have a very different attitude which you do not present.
Moreso, I've spoken to such people as yourself in person before, and the "conditions" they specify would be jokeworthy except that they're typically friends or at least acquaintances I wouldn't want to be blunt with. "My grandparents have diabetes!" and such. WTF.
I live in an absurd world populated by absurd people hellbent on making certain it won't be populated at all anymore.
I agree.
Well, that is your choice. If you genuinely enjoy those activities and believe they improve your quality of life, then I can't say that they consist suffering for you. Suffering can only be broadly specified in general terms, but to be specified in more granular terms, it varies between people and one person's definition of suffering may be wildly different from the next. Some people actually enjoy being professional soldiers and getting involved in violent conflicts. Others practice violent and radical sports and enjoy it. For those people, those activities do not classify as suffering. For others, they would.
In your opinion. Since for me they aren't, my choice is different from yours.
Except, as a parent, you can't really prevent that 100%. Perhaps not even 50%. The world takes twisted turns and your child might end up suffering such abuse at the hands of events or people you have no control over.
The attitudes people have differ between people, because people's mindsets, experiences and personalities are all different. I don't think I'm making a radical statement here.
What one person sees as a joke, another might see as something quite serious. It all depends on their own viewpoints and past experiences.
For example, although I should not be giving personal examples and opening myself to comments on my own character, due to some trauma I have with having been medically abused by hospital staff as a child, I have paralyzing, crippling phobia of needles. Getting the COVID vaccine, for instance, was a major psychological ordeal for me and I only ended up getting it because of the duty to society and public health (if it was something that affected just myself, I wouldn't have). Having diabetes would mean getting regular, if not daily, insulin shots or blood sugar tests (depending on the type of diabetes), so that would quickly devolve into a miserable, fear-driven life. Fortunately it isn't something I have to deal with at the moment and I take as good care as I can to ensure it won't become an issue in the future, but there are worse things, which are unavoidable, that can happen.
I fail to see why that is absurd at all. It's as valid a viewpoint as ever in my opinion.