How do you spend your spare time?

[BenitoChavez]

I'm posting from the future, does that count? You all just need to believe that everything I post here is true....

I believe you. You could be posting from a mountain top, thus be experiencing less gravity, and therefore time moves faster to you relative to the rest of us at a lower elevation.

Spoiler :

Was that too nerdy? I feel like it may have been.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

That does not place him in the future at all, but his wristwatch will be sssssssssslightly advanced when he get off of the mountain.

 

[civvver]

yeah, technology, now that'll save the environment, as it always has

sadly my gripes are not only with overpopulation, actually that is one of the aspects I dread least. there's a million good reasons to not have children. the biggest one for me is whether this world we currently have is even a world I would want to be born into (impossible question to ask in a vacuum, but sadly you cannot ask your kids after you've had them, since that'd be too late. I guess they can always decide for themselves, so the possibility of suicide is actually one reason why I think having kids would be okay)

also, why do you assume my children would be either healthy or taxpayers? I have some (possibly heritable? idk) diseases, and I smoke to boot! also, producing taxpayers is a net positive for capitalism, for the economy, but not for me, nor for them, and those aforementioned causes aren't really developments I would like to further, in fact I would like to see them in shambles.

this is venturing into pretty dark territory and I'm afraid I'll get another short time ban if I comment further

still I very much appreciate your post and agree with a great deal of what you said. thanks!
[/mod]

Are you really so miserable that you wouldn't want anyone else to have your life? I know you enjoy cooking a lot, surely that and many, many other things bring you joy. You live in Germany right? Your kids would likely have a high standard of living, magnitudes higher than most of the history of mankind. Sure your kids might have chronic diseases like cystic fibrosis or something terrible, but odds are they would be fine. Producing tax payers is a net positive for any society, because they consume, produce things and even in a state run economy they provide funds to the state can provide services. So if you depend on any services from the government it's a good thing. So unless you expect your kids to be degenerate heroin addicts or something who never produce a thing of value in their life then they'd be a positive for society.

There's only like two good reasons I can think of to not have kids. You like your life as is/don't want the responsibility of having kids which is 100% understandable because kids are a huge time drain and lifestyle change and stress producer. But since you said earlier you would really want some I think you're ok with this. The other is cost cus raising kids is expensive. That kind of ties into lifestyle changes but is pretty stand alone. I guess a third would be if you know you have some diseases that would surely be passed on like a bad gene they'll get. All the other stuff you mentioned, the doom and gloom, seems like noise to me.

 

[Lexicus]

How can bringing something into existence without its consent be morally permissible?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

How can bringing something into existence without its consent be morally permissible?

Have morals that permit it.

 

[Synobun]

How can bringing something into existence without its consent be morally permissible?

While this is suitably edgy, it defeats its own premise by acknowledging that the "it" doesn't even exist, and consent is a concept reserved for sentient perception.

 

[Lexicus]

While this is suitably edgy, it defeats its own premise by acknowledging that the "it" doesn't even exist, and consent is a concept reserved for sentient perception.

...and therefore, no one can consent to being brought into existence. Not sure what premise you think was defeated here.

Premise: if something does not exist, it cannot consent
Conclusion: no one can consent to being brought into existence

 

[Synobun]

It's a self-defeating premise. Consent is irrelevant. You're postulating about the morality of robbing consent knowing full well that there is no consent to rob.

 

[Lexicus]

It's a self-defeating premise. Consent is irrelevant. You're postulating about the morality of robbing consent knowing full well that there is no consent to rob.

Do you remember that thread where people were talking about that surgeon who was etching his initials in patients' tissue while they were under anesthesia? If a person's "consent is irrelevant" in the case that that person lacks "sentient perception" then what is immoral about etching your initials into the tissue of someone under anesthesia? What is immoral about drawing a penis on your face while you're asleep? What is immoral about killing someone while they're unconscious?

 

[Synobun]

Do you remember that thread where people were talking about that surgeon who was etching his initials in patients' tissue while they were under anesthesia? If a person's "consent is irrelevant" in the case that that person lacks "sentient perception" then what is immoral about etching your initials into the tissue of someone under anesthesia? What is immoral about drawing a penis on your face while you're asleep? What is immoral about killing someone while they're unconscious?

I didn't know you were religious. What do you think comes before birth if you consider it equivalent to being asleep?

 

[rah]

consent is relevant if the person exists. If the person doesn't exist yet then there no consent is possible. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

 

[Lexicus]

I didn't know you were religious. What do you think comes before birth if you consider it equivalent to being asleep?

I don't consider it equivalent to being asleep; you were the one who specified lack of sentient perception as the condition in which consent becomes irrelevant.

consent is relevant if the person exists. If the person doesn't exist yet then there no consent is possible. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

And it seems to follow pretty straightforwardly that if we are using consent as our demarcation line between ethical and unethical action, we need to posit some kind of exception to the rule in order to conclude that reproducing (bringing something into existence without its consent) is a form of ethical action.

 

[rah]

Gobbledy goop. It doesn't need an exception. Consent is a action only for those that exist.

 

[Synobun]

I don't consider it equivalent to being asleep; you were the one who specified lack of sentient perception as the condition in which consent becomes irrelevant.

Your premise established that the "it" doesn't exist, in this case a baby. If something doesn't exist, it can't perceive or consent.

And it seems to follow pretty straightforwardly that if we are using consent as our demarcation line between ethical and unethical action, we need to posit some kind of exception to the rule in order to conclude that reproducing (bringing something into existence without its consent) is a form of ethical action.

Why does it have to be either? It just is. Not everything needs to be moral or immoral, ethical or unethical. You can certainly make arguments for why bringing new life into the world is good or bad, but packaging it as a moral ruling for the benefit of the would-be new life seems flawed. You don't want to bring up a baby in this world? Okay, cool, great. But that's on you, and not at all on the hypothetical baby. You're not doing it for their consent or lack thereof, you're doing it for yourself.

 

[Lexicus]

Gobbledy goop. It doesn't need an exception. Consent is a action only for those that exist.

If you accept that it is impossible to consent to being brought into existence, and you accept that it is immoral to act on something without its consent, how can you possibly come to any other conclusion but that it is always immoral to bring something into existence?

edit: also fyi it's "gobbledygook"

Your premise established that the "it" doesn't exist, in this case a baby. If something doesn't exist, it can't perceive or consent.

And if something is asleep, it also cannot perceive or consent. My point there is simply that you cannot get around this problem the way you have tried to do.

You can certainly make arguments for why bringing new life into the world is good or bad, but packaging it as a moral ruling for the benefit of the would-be new life seems flawed. You don't want to bring up a baby in this world? Okay, cool, great. But that's on you, and not at all on the hypothetical baby. You're not doing it for their consent or lack thereof, you're doing it for yourself.

I mean, this is trivially true insofar as the moral reasoning is all going on inside my head. But it doesn't seem like a real argument against that reasoning.

 

[Phrossack]

We should probably have our own antinatalist/pro-natalist thread. It's something I've been thinking about a lot lately.

 

[rah]

If you accept that it is impossible to consent to being brought into existence, and you accept that it is immoral to act on something without its consent, how can you possibly come to any other conclusion but that it is always immoral to bring something into existence?

More gobbledy goop.

how can you possibly come to any other conclusion

easy, since I don't agree with your premise.

 

[Lexicus]

More gobbledy goop.

You're not actually showing that it is, just saying it doesn't make it so. Also gobbledygook.

easy, since I don't agree with your premise.

What premise do you disagree with? On what grounds?

 

[rah]

You say consent is impossible, I say it doesn't exist. That's a game changer.
And you sir are a spelling nazi.

 

[Synobun]

And if something is asleep, it also cannot perceive or consent. My point there is simply that you cannot get around this problem the way you have tried to do.

There is no problem to get around. Somebody being asleep is still a somebody and very much exists.