Honestly that sounds selfish as fuck. We finally create a world that has minimized oppression and that's the point we decided to stop people from being born?
That's the only time a child could reasonably be born according to antinatalists. This is why antinatalism is just misanthropic and should be disregarded.
I understand the concept. I just think that it's dumb and leads nowhere. To those people I say there will most likely be assisted suicide in FALGSC so have at it.
said who asswipe? fuck off with that dumbass shit. some ppl prefer not to have kids. Some women are deathly afraid of getting pregnant. You have no right to judge.
lol are you a leftist rly? yeah I did fucking choose this path. You know sometimes ppl just dont want kids, it's not because they cant afford or against them they literally dont want them. Capitalism isn't to blame for everything you absolute moron. Plus I'm gay, but I guess that means I'm a loser. This is a weird fucking hill, I'd expect this from like my boomer parents but I guess I should learn to be less wide eyed
I can believe an advanced, falgsc human society would be capable of eradicating the possibility of life in the solar system, but I don't think that there is any version of human society that could substantially alter the course of the heat death of the universe, or that could prevent the potential for life across all of space.
Right, at a minimum, the difference between the universe and the 'observable universe' is going to put limits on human reach, but maybe there are enough similarly minded organisms in the universe to overcome that.
The problem with an automaton based approach is what characteristics they would need to get the job done. To match the scale of altering the entire reachable universe, they would have to be self reproducing. To be able to prevent life from existing, given all of the different environments in the universe that could lead to the rise of life, and all of the different forms that life could take, they would have to be able to adapt to the local environment, and have enough complexity of information processing to be able to identify previously unanticipated forms of life, and find the best way to disrupt it.
At this point, you've, at the very least, severely blurred the lines of what life is, and most likely created a new form of life that is much more prevalent than naturally occurring life ever was.
Yeah, that would destroy all life that currently exists, but it would also essentially re-roll the whole universe, and create new conditions for the development of life that didn't exist before. 'Destroy all life' is one thing, but 'prevent any possibility of the development of life' is a much harder job.
My first reaction was to argue why an advanced human society would come to a different conclusion, but thinking about it I'm more interested a different question. For anyone that agrees that this issues needs to be investigated by a higher form of civilization, what reason is there to put any weight in your own conclusion on the issue if you're limited by living in the lower form of society?
We need to reach communism, which means those of us who are otherwise willing and able should go ahead and produce more socialist.
We already got Harris and Buttigieg out of those socialist breeding programs. Isn't that enough?
It costs like $200000 on average to raise a kid in US. I'm sure if you put all that money and time into activism and organising you'd get more than one socialist/vegan/antinatalist/whatever out of it.
I feel like Catholics were onto something when they came up with the idea of prohibiting their most ardent believers from procreating. Can't argue with success.
Uhhh... So we should fight for a better world, and if we achieve our goal, we should just stop bringing new people into that world?
Then what is the point of fighting for a better world in the first place?
There going to be people that already alive who want the world to be better.
Honestly that sounds selfish as fuck. We finally create a world that has minimized oppression and that's the point we decided to stop people from being born?
That's the only time a child could reasonably be born according to antinatalists. This is why antinatalism is just misanthropic and should be disregarded.
The idea of antinatalism isn't that living sucks because of capitalism or scarcity or whatever. The idea is that living sucks inherently.
I understand the concept. I just think that it's dumb and leads nowhere. To those people I say there will most likely be assisted suicide in FALGSC so have at it.
Well that would be a more orthodox form of antinatalism than all those grand ideas about stopping everyone from procreating going on in this thread.
Removed by mod
said who asswipe? fuck off with that dumbass shit. some ppl prefer not to have kids. Some women are deathly afraid of getting pregnant. You have no right to judge.
Removed by mod
lol are you a leftist rly? yeah I did fucking choose this path. You know sometimes ppl just dont want kids, it's not because they cant afford or against them they literally dont want them. Capitalism isn't to blame for everything you absolute moron. Plus I'm gay, but I guess that means I'm a loser. This is a weird fucking hill, I'd expect this from like my boomer parents but I guess I should learn to be less wide eyed
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Yep. Procreation is the goal of all life. Thinking that it is any different for us humans is some misanthropic doomer bullshit.
And it is definitely incompatible with any sort of socialism.
sez who?
Anyone with a brain.
reddit moment
Yes indeed. Antinatalism is something that r*dditors love.
As long as it only applies to poor brown people, of course.
deleted by creator
Alright. Have a good one.
Removed by mod
Uhhh
Removed by mod
I don't think I will.
deleted by creator
I can believe an advanced, falgsc human society would be capable of eradicating the possibility of life in the solar system, but I don't think that there is any version of human society that could substantially alter the course of the heat death of the universe, or that could prevent the potential for life across all of space.
deleted by creator
Right, at a minimum, the difference between the universe and the 'observable universe' is going to put limits on human reach, but maybe there are enough similarly minded organisms in the universe to overcome that.
The problem with an automaton based approach is what characteristics they would need to get the job done. To match the scale of altering the entire reachable universe, they would have to be self reproducing. To be able to prevent life from existing, given all of the different environments in the universe that could lead to the rise of life, and all of the different forms that life could take, they would have to be able to adapt to the local environment, and have enough complexity of information processing to be able to identify previously unanticipated forms of life, and find the best way to disrupt it.
At this point, you've, at the very least, severely blurred the lines of what life is, and most likely created a new form of life that is much more prevalent than naturally occurring life ever was.
There's still a lot we don't know about the universe. Maybe we can trigger false vacuum decay or some such.
Yeah, that would destroy all life that currently exists, but it would also essentially re-roll the whole universe, and create new conditions for the development of life that didn't exist before. 'Destroy all life' is one thing, but 'prevent any possibility of the development of life' is a much harder job.
But even if we where unified, why would we want to?
deleted by creator
The majority of humanity is never going to believe this.
Give it a decade or two :this-is-fine:
My first reaction was to argue why an advanced human society would come to a different conclusion, but thinking about it I'm more interested a different question. For anyone that agrees that this issues needs to be investigated by a higher form of civilization, what reason is there to put any weight in your own conclusion on the issue if you're limited by living in the lower form of society?
deleted by creator
We already got Harris and Buttigieg out of those socialist breeding programs. Isn't that enough?
It costs like $200000 on average to raise a kid in US. I'm sure if you put all that money and time into activism and organising you'd get more than one socialist/vegan/antinatalist/whatever out of it.
I feel like Catholics were onto something when they came up with the idea of prohibiting their most ardent believers from procreating. Can't argue with success.