Antinatalism DEBUNKED?! | Elias' Ideas VS Lawrence Anton 

👋

No it can’t be debunked

Nothing ambiguous,suffering is a suffering those debaters r anal

@@phantom_mserafiAntinatalists debunk themselves when they keep relying on the existence of other humans.

@@TheFettuck Not true I relay on myself I live alone.

Ya that's Basically what he's says

lmfao. as a cosmic nihilist i agree with you.

@@user-bg3hu5sd1q so you agree with elias? or agree with the accuracy of the summary of elias's argument?

Elías is sexy. That's it😂

@@sneakycactus8815 i agree with OP comment against elias. i am antinatalist lmfao

Convenience is the primary reason to continue procreation. It is convenient to rely on the existence of other humans. You must do everything yourself when no other people are born.

Yes, agree that convenience is the main reason for all of their talking points. They need someone new at the bottom, someone to fix their problems, someone to make them have a purpose and someone to worship them. I believe they understand it is wrong to bring new life but it is more convenient with their prerogative.

@@TheFettucki can't seem reply to your comment the way I want to, since my replies keep getting hidden. i had this problem with my original comment and i had to trim and water it down to just a bullet point comment. but i agree with your observation. you are pointing out just one aspect of why the existence of life is quite clearly a scheme that requires more and more individuals to be created to keep it going. without new conscripts, it fails. there's a name for this, but i suspect calling it by its exact name is the reason why my comments keep getting flagged. the scheme name starts with a "P". but people aren't created with genuine consideration for their interests, but for the convenience of others as you pointed out. i really hope this comment goes through, or else i'm just going to give up and leave it at that.

@@mindreader308 Convenience also shows why most antinatalists are hypocrites. Most antinatalists do still live within a human society because they don't want to do everything by themselves. Antinatalists should live alone in the wild and grow all of their own crops (subsistence agriculture) when they don't want to be hypocrites.

@@sneakycactus8815 Thank you for your comments, buddy. It's nice to still see rational people in a chaotic world. Is the p word ponzi?

Life itself is causing suffering and creating all problems.

@@FactsCountdown ☹️☹️😞😞

Interesting that he decided to do a paper on it, either he knew for a fact that most people wouldn't bat an eye if stuff that was factually incorrect or placed the blame on another thing completely unrelated or he thought he knew the most of the topic without realising his own biases

agreed. the telos argument is unconvincing because its a fallacy - see "Appeal to Ignorance fallacy". not only is it fallacious, but it completely minimizes and ignores ethical considerations behind procreation and existence.

What do we currently know though?

@@danpaz9485 Current as in 2024?

@@LouisGedo Yes, not trying to bash you or anything, just curious about if theres stuff about conscious that we know that you know about

@danpaz9485 Just what I'd read about from an expert a number of years ago.......that it is NOT this spooky complete mystery that some people think it is. It's a brain state brought about when specific parts of the brain are communicating with each other in a specific way. The details I forget, but I believe beyond any shadow of a doubt that cutting edge science has a good understanding of consciousness at this time.

Yes

It will get worse.

and purpose is just a conjured up delusion with perceived utility. it is subjective and wildly contradictory among any randomly picked group of individuals. his argument that people will just create a purpose or meaning for suffering does not justify creating more people.

@@sneakycactus8815Facts thinking procreation is justified because of the fact people will find meaning in suffering is like a woman saying she can find meaning in her boyfriend beating her.Its just a bad case of stockholm syndrome

King Solomon (who might have been the person who wrote Ecclesiastes) said that he was tired and disgusted by life. Marcus Aurelius, the most powerful man on the planet at that time (or one of the two) said the same. The whole Habsburg family was pretty miserable. Even most US presidents and dollar billionaires don't seem too happy, although they are the mightiest persons who ever lived. This Elias guy is simply talking BS.

Who among these two are you talking about?

@@renegadelaw9303🤣🤣🤣

Thanks for reaching out and making your video!

Elias, you said: “There is something fundamental to the human spirit where we actually want to struggle real battles.” While I understand the argument that we humans have an inherent desire to face challenges and struggles, it's important to note that this isn't a universal truth for all individuals nor to all circumstances. While some people may thrive on overcoming obstacles, others may find stress and hardship to be detrimental to their well-being. This may be due to many, many factors. Furthermore, it's worth noting that there are different kinds of struggles, and not all of them may be inherently desirable or beneficial. For example, some struggles can be damaging to one's physical or emotional health, while others can lead to personal growth and development. Your statement simply doesn’t acknowledge the diversity of human preferences and the variety of challenged that people might face or choose to face. Finding meaning and a sense of fulfillment in struggles is a coping mechanism, and a good and positive one. But it is only necessary because we are in the predicament of needing it in the first place. It's also worth considering that humans also have an innate desire for comfort and safety, as evidenced by our basic need for food, shelter, and security. One’s existence in a cosmos devoid of purpose, could be seen as a lifelong effort towards meeting needs. Moreover, it's possible that the desire to face challenges and struggles stems from evolutionary biology or cultural influences rather than being some inherent aspect of the human spirit. For example, individuals who were able to adapt and overcome obstacles in their environment were more likely to survive and pass on their genes to future generations. This could have resulted in a genetic predisposition for humans to seek out challenges and struggles. Our modern cultural context plays a significant role in shaping the way we approach challenges. For example, some cultures value perseverance and grit, while others prioritize comfort and ease. These cultural values can influence how individuals interpret and respond to challenges. Individual experiences and personal factors can also shape the desire to struggle. For instance, someone who has faced significant adversity in their life might be more likely to seek out challenges as a way of building resilience and gaining control over their circumstances. On the other hand, someone with a sensitive temperament or a history of trauma might be less inclined to seek out struggles. Finding meaning helps. Meaning making is good and happens to be an effective coping mechanism. It’s worth having. Agreed. But ultimately, finding meaning in struggles and hardships is just one way to generate meaning in an otherwise meaningless cosmos. The whole enterprise is unnecessary but since it is imposed upon individuals, they have no choice but to face it and deal with it the best they can, given their unique circumstances.

​@@SchopenhauerVsCamus I agree with most of what you say; however, I cannot agree that people seek out challenges and that suffering builds character. If people really wanted to struggle and overcome challenges, they could go to prison or infect themselves with AIDS and wait until the last stages of the disease before taking medicine. Only then would they have the right to say that they want challenges. When a group of rich people decides to go mountain hiking, it is not a struggle; it is no different from a drug addict who wants a double dose to see if they can handle it. It is not a chosen struggle, but an indulgence. If you truly want to struggle, give up everything you own and take a plane to North Korea. A real struggle is being sick, while jogging and lifting weights are ways of avoiding sickness, not a chosen struggle. If people really wanted to struggle, they would be crippling themselves. The fact that they are not choosing to harm themselves is proof that no one wants to struggle, and those who claim that they do are lying. The only thing you learn from suffering is that there is suffering in this world. Unfortunately, many people don't seem to learn this at all, no matter how much they suffer. They will still choose to perpetuate suffering. I am saying this because you cannot learn the truth and still choose a lie. You either accept the truth and live by it, or you cannot get it. The truth is that life is not worth starting.

Yes, I always planned to post it here, I just had other videos scheduled first

@@LawrenceAnton oh ok

How is any of that nonsense intelligent?

Perhaps there is some foreshadowing there, because there may be a meet-up announced soon... and whilst I don't drink alcohol, fancy wines could be arranged 😂

Anton 😅 it would be amazing to get drunk with you ​@@LawrenceAnton

Yo! I had this discussion a while ago so can't remember what I said exactly, but what it seems like you're responding to is if I said that the Axiological Asymmetry is not sufficient to generate an antinatalist conclusion. To generate that conclusion, Benatar says, he couples it with the Quality of Life argument. I believe this is something he's said multiple times in interviews and in his book - although I would have to go back and check it again to see exactly how he words it.

@@LawrenceAnton Yeah I suppose I will have to go back and check the book also for context, because even "Couples it with" to me means "supplements" or "further provides support". According to the axiological argument, if suffering is bad, pleasure is good, absence of suffering is good, and absence of pleasure is not bad. All one further has to accept to make it an argument is that 1) a being brought into existence will experience some nonzero amount of suffering (does not need to be significant amount of suffering, QoL being much worse than people realize, etc), and 2) we should not do that which is bad when we could instead do something (not bring into existence) that which is merely 'not bad'. The QoL argument from my understanding of hearing him speak and way back when I read the book was focused on pushing back on people not taking seriously how bad their lives actually were, their failed intuitions about existence, evaluations of past and future moments, etc. But this is not necessary for the axiological argument to commit one to AN, it's just an additional argument for those who think pleasure and pain outweigh each other. This is why Benatar says that one shouldn't bring into existence a person who suffers even the mildest pin prick and then enjoys a life of pure bliss. If he thought QoL had to have all the significant bads mentioned here, then I don't think he would commit to that. But it has been a while since I read it!

💯💯💯

That’s what a few people are trying to do, will only happen if we as individuals actually make it happen!