This is an old revision of the document!
On Natalism & Progress
This is a review of the interview of the anti-natalist Benatar from the New Yorker. It is also a response to a anonymous parent of mine who inquired as to why Heather and I changed our original opinion on child bearing, since we were originally of this misguided school of thought. The response is a mess and I will be editing typos, revising arguments, adding pictures, etc., over the weeks ahead. I will also be purchasing Benatar’s book so I can expand this review on the article about him to be a review on his exact premises and statements. Here is the article that inspired the discussion:https://t.co/69EDwL93Ts
Misconception #1 in the essay is the first part ohttps:t.co/69EDwL93Tsf the statement “life is so bad, so painful, that humans should stop having children out of compassion.” This is a common belief that folks with limited mathematical and scientific backgrounds latch on too. It is a comforting false narrative that replaces the religion myth. It defies evidence of every type. It has been factually proven time and time again that people are freer now than ever before. Measures typically include the status of women and dissenting minority groups, and there are numerous studies by the CATO institute and others that monitor freedom and happiness yearly. It is Very easy to see this improvement when you compare the Iron Age with the present. Thus, there are two rejections to this point, namely, not only is it not true that life is painful and bad, it is also not true that we are getting worse. His thesis is predicated on a false trajectory and is also based on incorrect assessment of current facts. I can imagine, however, that growing up in contradiction ridden academic life in South Africa without any scientific background or appreciation of technological advancement would lend itself to this absurd myth. When one knows nothing about the beauty of understanding nature through science, they are assessing the worth of life through a deprecated philosophical lens. This brings me to another point. I’ll need to seek out his actual book and read it in detail to make any of the next points with certainty, however, based on actual quotes present in the article, he seems to be doing what many modern philosophers do and conflates happiness, pleasure, and the good together into some type of reified composite existential state of being, but unlike others, uses this to justify an opt-out of the entire experience. There is so much error in this approach. It is pleasing to see that the author of he piece and Benatar discuss alternatives to this, such as a life predicated on meaning, etc., however that also misses the point. Life is - that’s the only thing that can be known with absolute certainty. There is no mystery, no quest, nothing. Just life. For whatever reason, humans have a glimpse of the infinite universe while they are in existence. It is a gift of life (scientific definition in use here) given by developmental accident because that’s how being works, that’s how ousia is. Humans had little impact in the macro aspects of Big Bang. Humans did and do however have many micro causality aspects in the scheme, as they can leverage advantage over other life forms to improve our own and others existence. Humans can improve the yield of plants, harness fossil and other fuels and energy sources, working symbiotically with Gaia. Humans not only can do these things, but do them regularly to improve survival and continuance of the infinite glimpse. It is ironic he argues against suicide, and he must have hit a real contradictory pit on that one. I would strongly encourage this author to put his money where his mouth is and take himself out. He won’t, however, because his rationalization for continuing to live is predicated on an alternate thesis that amazingly escapes his thinking, I.e., if you choose to live over die, then you have, by your actions, declared existence and life to be superior to non existence. Thus, if you have the ability to bestow this on your own progeny, then ceasing to do so is to deprive others of the gift of the infinite glimpse and he beauty that derives from it. The fact that he can simultaneously argue “life is bad” and that “life is bad, but so is death” is a total trap. He is measuring everything around him in negatives, arguing that everything is a deprivation of certain levels of good, instead of portions of good that are not yet full. And don’t get me started on his trivial list of woes! How ridiculously trivial … a philosopher that finds waiting in lines, hunger, thirst. Etc., and other biological drives as indications of life’s grand pain? Again, he clearly needs to stop conflating the mind’s eye with the biology of the body that houses the mind. It is as if the whole field of pathology escaped his notice. And worse, he simply states chronic pleasure doesn’t exist. Well, I am overran with pity for him, that he doesn’t perceive the scientifically accidental conceit that created us and gifted to us the infinite glimpse, how terribly sad that he lives in such existential polarity and pain. He has taken all meaning away from the gift all humans were given by Being, and yet by arguing against suicide, has concocted and existentially inconsistent stew for him to boil in for his whole life. It’s quite ridiculous. Now, as for the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. It’s predicated on bad science. It’s simply not true that humans are a parasitical and anti-environmental disease. Rather, we are a particularly well suited symbiotic steward. Native and primordial populations were more harmful to climate than modern humans, take the Thames river and all practices with water prior to 1900, take the hunting and gathering practices of certain aboriginal groups that decimated local habitAts. Sure, with great power comes great responsibility and so we are still on the journey to create safer nuclear power and safer waste mechanisms, safer ways to harness energy. Solar and wind are also equally flawed and unsafe and still in their infancy. Again, if there was even a hint of science in these arguments, then they would point to freedom being relatively higher for all of this to even exist, after all have you ever looked into how many rare earth minerals are required to make solar cells and solar power plants work? Those minerals come from a relatively freer China, who now allows exporting and mining of minerals. Without this increase in life’s freedom, there would be no advancement in the symbiotic methods of humans. The harnessing of energy and the responsibility of harnessing in general, go hand in hand. First of all, life is not about anything, to state that it is, is only one’s story. There are narratives, however, and the most likely narrative is the one that makes the most sense, not the least. What makes more sense? That life exists to not exist? Or that life is and that we can address the responsibility of monitoring the power and insight given to us by whom or whatever bestowed it upon us (scientific bestowment, not a religion myth here). Environment is best now than ever - it is a myth that we are worse off. Even macrocosmic climate change which is real is better now during the last fifty years than during then 17th - 19th centuries because the rate at which humans are ignorantly exacerbating the condition has gone down. Nuclear power, climate summits, scientific advancements in waste technology, all aim to improve the symbiotic balance and the research and mental work put into those fields by stewards of the environment is better than any other epoch. Shoot, the concept is a modem creation! The whole thesis of caring for Gaia was drawn in historical sources, but is actually a earth based scientific manner in which to be symbiotically responsible. If life is so bad, then why are humans so chronically destined to improve their lot through new Discourse, new methodology, and better practice. The answer is obvious to all, namely, life is not bad. It is great and that’s why humans consistently choose to be here, daily defiance of every principle the Voluntarists hold so dear. On the concept that this epoch is more morally depraved than other epochs. I would love a time machine, for if I had one, I would send folks who espouse this Viking communities, dark age communities, and to Genghis Khan’s various territories and have them come back and reflect on the comparison to North Korea. Even North Korea is safer and more free than these examples. Sure, there are places of great destruction and evil around, and one can’t quantify killing intentions of governments with certainty, but the worst of today is better than before. Anyone who argues otherwise, has probably read very little history, or perhaps draws bad inferences. Take North Korea and compare it to Spanish kingdoms in 15th century. Even if the Inquisition of old was considered equivalent to deprivation of freedoms present in North Korea, there would still be running water, power, ample food (arguable), for more people per capita than in the 15th century vignette. Ironically, fossil fuels and industrialization has created these latent freedoms and it is a very large error of those On the progressive left to cite harnessing of Resources as either a scientific mistake or Worse, as evidence of some sort of moral or existential predicament. It is just a part of the journey that humans have been gifted and it’s chronically improving like everything else. The one correct argument of the far left is progress. The Progressive movement is predicated on an actual occurrence. However, most Progressives misidentify causes of the progress, and think that by mere convictions free societies can be created. On the idea that there being many bad people around is an indication of moral depravity. On the idea that these people are Increasing. On the idea of American exceptionalism. Firstly, consider Donald Trump as an example of the first idea. There are those that would argue he is an e ample of moral depravity increasing and an indication of that this epoch or indeed possibly human’s entire lot is riddled with evil and pain. Not true. He is just an idiot who rules other idiots. What he is in fact an indication of is the hypocrisy of the US, and should serve to help progressives see the evil of many of those in leadership positions in the US. The US is a colonial hegemonic society that crushed Native Americans and erected a ‘free’ society on top of its ashes. As we know, this free society was in name only, with minority groups of all sorts unable to participate in it, worse, explicitly relocated, murdered, written out by voting laws and legal precedents of all sorts. Have the US citizens forgotten that they only dismantled the last of those sixty three years ago? There are two points to consider here: 1) it takes time to improve 2) there will always be idiots. The existence of foolish people does not negate the upward motion and Discourse and scientific improvement of good people. If anything, it should only motivate good people to procreate more to help the eternal balance. Second idea from this paragraph header … Bad people are not increasing at present overall, they are increasing on the whole as I have mentioned elsewhere. What is happening, however, is that the US in particular is worsening. The evil of Trump is a reflection of the evil of all Of the elected rulers (consider Obama deportation rates and drone strike policy). The country is flawed and has been for a long time with a representative democracy that gives too much power to uneducated masses and to uneducAted financiers. Parliamentary systems are better equipped at achieving balance between freedom for everyone and providing freedom to no one by letting the social compact degenerate into a den of thieves. The jury is still out on how to create the best society, and the US is but a part in that chronically improving Discourse as well. What people are noticing and incorrectly identifying is that the US is undergoing a Jude the Apostate like regression with Trump before it undergoes another relative improvement. I would predict, however, that the relative improvement of society post Trump will eventually be met by a splintering and destruction of US society. This is because nothing lasts forever for one, and secondly the benefits of the US have run their course, it’s size has exceeded its governance model, and its people have splintered in Discourse and no longer share the same desire for a common social compact. None of this means that evil is increasing or that there is some type of special moral depravity to this day and age. Quite the opposite - this very discussion which is taking place on Facebook and which utilized unprecedented technological advances and harnessed relatively good freedoms present within the US is evidence that macrocosmically speaking our lot is continuing to improve. Third idea from paragraph header … most of the depraved days arguments are coming from naive progressives who over-allocated confidence and import to the US way of life and upon having their vision crushed by Donald, are reeling in internal contradictions because the very freedoms they thought they were protecting elected their ouster from power and importance. The only reason one would be so livid however is because they fail to see two points - 1) the Democrat leadership and indeed every formal form of authority in this country is and was riddled with the same evil 2) the US is not exceptional and it should be no surprise that we elected an idiot as we have been doing this since our founding (Andrew Jackson is a great example) … moreover, as an augment to point 2, most progressives took American exceptionalism for granted … sure, if one has latently or explicitly believed “The US is special” their whole life then Donald certainly exposed to those ones (yes, correct grammar) how flawed that conception was … It’s an amazing time because of educated people who make it that way by eternally balancing out the fools, discovering amazing aspects of nature, creating computers, harnessing energy, improving in treatment of others on the whole … etc. … but none of this comes without responsibility of helping it continue to be that … having your own children and instilling within them your values and the proper Discourse is one of the best gifts one can give the symbiotic balance the world will continue to have after the voluntary dying shaker revival movement dies … This man is a depressed mild psychotic who has been normalized by a depraved society in South Africa that has so many inherent contradictions that something inherently foolish can be seen as an actual academic thesis … conflating and mixing those ideas with some type of post Trump election misguided American exceptionalism is an even worse error … mixing those makes identifying evil and good, progress and setbacks, even harder to do than it already was in this review and response … – – – – – — oemb1905 2017/12/05 21:16
