Ah, see, that's one of our differences--whereas while I care about other species in a live and let live sort of way, don't care about them enough to wish to see humanity sacrifice gone for them. That's a fair enough difference, I think.
-
-
Replying to @schanoes @iridienne and
My antinatalism is the philosophical kind (like Benatar and Ligotti's), not the ecological kind Which is in some sense more narrowly focused - the great harm human beings do is not to other animals or "the planet" but to themselves
2 replies 1 retweet 10 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @iridienne and
Themselves as in "I harm myself" or themselves as in "man's inhumanity to man"?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @schanoes @arthur_affect and
I guess, having been blessed with consciousness and existence, I’m not going to aim for annihilation. I’m going to try my best, every day, Good Place style, to make things and myself a little better.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Child free or child full, it’s possible to consider oneself part of a larger whole (I’m autistic, this doesn’t come naturally to me) and to act with the humility of one’s tiny-ness, AND the responsibility of free will. I choose trying.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Sure! So do i, honestly, every fucking day! I love the world and i love people. But i would never, ever, sentence another CONSCIOUS HUMAN BEING to doing that without a fucking choice, which is what you do when you have children.
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @iridienne @digiwonk and
Oh, that's interesting. For me, since there was no conscious human being there until I actually made him, the hypothetical person's interests were a lower priority than mine, because I really existed and he did not. Now that he's here, of course, the balance changes.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Well, sure, there wasn't a conscious being there until you made him. I'm sorry if my phrasing was unclear on that. But you MADE A WHOLE CONSCIOUSNESS WITHOUT HIS CONSENT. (Because he couldn't consent, because he didn't exist.)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @iridienne @digiwonk and
Exactly. That's why it doesn't seem to me to be a violation of consent--he didn't exist.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @schanoes @iridienne and
It's weirdly the flip side of pro-life thinking: a not-yet-person has rights we trample with our decisions? Like the not-conceived are harmed if we conceive and bear them? And the conceived but not born are harmed if a pregnancy is terminated? It's philosophy, not ethics.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
This is well trodden ground, and the issue is that the reverse point of view leads to a conclusion so intuitively repugnant that it's just called "the repugnant conclusion"
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @digiwonk and
I.e. if existing is always preferable to not existing, then you can't get mad at someone who makes hundreds of babies and then abandons them to struggle and starve In fact, not only is this permissible, from some points of view it's *required*
2 replies 1 retweet 10 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @digiwonk and
But...people don't generally do that, so it doesn't seem like a big worry to me.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.