The pain and misery trying to find a spouse,job,housing etc as well as having to endure racism, xenophobia, Ill health, mental illness, disappointment is enough for someone to justify not furthering this miserable cycle by not having children
Agreed! Existence at this corner of the universe is just a poor attempt at survival, reproduction and death. All lifeforms should voluntarily reject our impulses and go extinct.
@helveticaneptune537, I agree and have been saying this for years from a very young age I just knew this isn’t a place to be or exist. Everyone laughed at me called me weird and a crazy cat lady for living alone and not having children
I agree with the professor. I'm 26 and people always ask me when I'm having children. I've never wanted to bring children into existence. I do, however, want to adopt someday. Since the child was already brought into existence, I might as well make his/her life as less miserable as possible.
I remember when I was 12 years old looking around me and seeing the brutal truth about the world we live in - needless to say I became a childless spinster and have never regretted it :-)
No one starts new life, but prolongs and (hopefully) refines the same genes via birth. No one is taking or making foreign life; this couldn't be further away from immoral!
@@spiritualopportunism4585 So let's say your family has genes that make them die in a horrible and painful way (this can be observed by your family's history). Now, you would argue that passing on this suffering is not immoral (simply because of no one "taking or making foreign life"), even though you know about this history? And now extend it a bit further, strip away the optimism bias and look at Benatar's presented asymmetry. You will, hopefully, come to similar conclusions. But it seems to me that you didn't really bother listening or, better, reading much of Benatar, did you?
@@Smitecrawler antinatalism philosophy thinks not reproducing will eradicate all potential human suffering... but we don't know how life or consciousness began in the first place, so what business does anyone have making such radical claims and enforcing them? It's stupid. I believe an is noble but unscientific. Therefore the only reason I don't subscribe.
@@spiritualopportunism4585 You are basically saying "we don't know enough" when you claim AN is "unscientific". You could apply that crappy logic to anything. Point to a more scientific theory than evolution and abiogenesis as the origin of life/consciousness. Point to a more logically and empathetically sound philosophy, regarding life, than AN. Until you can do that you have no arguement.
@@nevertethered6386 Yea, what you just posed as a counter argument was precisely my argument against AN... The burden of proof is on the one's that make extraordinary claims not otherwise.
I agree with the guy who came on and said that "life doesn't change." Great point. Not only is life suffering, but it's also the same old mundane traditions and pointless routines.
Exactly. And I find it especially cruel to birth a child when you’re part of an oppressed/impoverished group. You (the parent) have lived through the very oppression and specific type of suffering that you are now condemning this new life to endure as well. …and you’ve done nothing to change it!! Furthermore I find it especially grotesque when women want to have girl babies. Why? So they can menstruate, go through the struggle of womanhood & then endure the physical pains of pregnancy /labor??? It’s a vicious, unchanging cycle. At some point, human beings need to use their brains to critically evaluate their natalist hardwiring.
I surmise that most people that don’t agree live in developed countries, are fairly well off and live in their bubble. I know many of these people. The power of delusion and blinders engaged is amazing.
The amount of suffering in the world - experienced by every single living creature - far, far outweighs pleasure, happiness and contentment. Anything done in an attempt to readdress the balance between the vast negativity and the paltry positivity - decreasing the former and increasing the latter - is just a trivial act of damage limitation; an act akin to attempting to paint the entire surface of the moon using only a toothbrush and one small tin of paint. Futile efforts within a futile existence. Futile suffering is all there is, and all there will ever be.
A quote from Richard Dawkins isn't exactly evidence, especially given he doesn't provide any in the quote. Even so, it is consistent with the Dawkins quote that flourishing outweighs suffering. It's just that he is highlighting the suffering. One could say the same by emphasising that the total amount of rain that has fallen in a year is beyond contemplation, but that doesn't mean there are more rainy days than sunny days. There is also a distinction to be drawn here between suffering and pain. It's one thing to say there is a lot of pain in the animal kingdom, it's another to say there is a lot of suffering.
Your equating suffering with pain and they are not the same. An organism that lives out its life, in line with its natural inclination, but then dies as a result of being eaten alive does not have a life characterised by suffering. It has a painful death yes, but it doesn't suffer. Likewise it does not logically follow at all that just because 99% of the species that have existed no longer do, that their lives were predominantly characterised by pain, or suffering for that matter. Just a word of caution, if you want to engage in a rational back and forth, it doesn't help your position at all to claim that what you're arguing for is "self-evident". Whether or not the majority of life on earth is characterised by suffering is not something that someone could ascertain by reflecting on their own experiences. It is an empirical question that requires empirical support.
The genetic programming to be "optimistic" and "celebrate life" is a major flaw in the design and the number one reason why sentient beings continue to suffer. Calling Benatars argument irrelevant shows a serious lack of observation and understanding of this world. How much observation and intelligence does it take to see that this world was a failure from the very beginning and was _never_ meant to improve?
If she is experiencing pleasure and enjoying life completely, she is not looking at the suffering in the world. So her pleasure is unconscious. At the best, life is like eating a delicious pastry sitting in a fly ridden shit deep toilet.
eating a delicious pastry sitting in a fly ridden shit deep toilet.... hmmm that is funny but not real. How about sinking in the Mediterranean sea while (still) dreaming of getting to Europe?!
I would say it’s her suffering that is unconscious, but otherwise, this is spot on. It is not possible to not suffer, on some level, in a world full of suffering as a human being. We are way too empathic for that. And in fact, the more we resist the acknowledgment of suffering, the more we suffer.
David Benatar's book was given me as a birthday gift from a friend of mine at work, since he knows I am a lover of the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer who wrote about the inevitably of the pain of life out-weighing and being far more intense and overwhelming than any of the pleasure life affords. Every desire filled just leads to further need and desire. Also life is built on the foundation of devouring as the law of nature, itself; as the only way for anyone and any creature, from micro-organism to plants to creatures and human beings to live. Everything lives off other living things, whether they be plants or animals. Even tree roots compete for existence with other roots for nourishment of soil. Eating the living is how all living things must live.
@@paulheinrichdietrich9518 Yes and like I said his case is contingent upon the assumption that life isn't worth living. He would deny this and say it's not worth starting a life but that is the same value judgment in fact - both are *value* judgments about the quality of life. The overwhelming majority of people do not wish to commit suicide; something, in their minds, makes life worth living. To start a life that continues to desire to live cannot, therefore, be immoral, and thus, in most instances (the overwhelming majority) it cannot be immoral to start a life. There are other indirect arguments that bear on the question, such as whether or not it is wrong to eat meat, consume limited resources when there are other people on Earth with nothing, wrong to produce a child instead of adopting, and most importantly, whether or not we have the right to take the small but real risk that the being we produce will prefer to seek death rather than continue to live. Those questions are different than his core argument and to me are more fundamentally important to consider, but the idea that life itself is just not "worth" starting is just an assumption he's making about the quality of life. The real problem is not that life isn't mundane or boring or tortuous at times, but instead his philosophy does not serve humans and is instead an anti-human position. Philosophy is not merely the systematic discovery of truths and proofs and deductions but is also about deriving meaning in our lives. The mentality that life isn't worth living or starting is the antithesis of the idea or goal we should have that we can create value and meaning in life, so his philosophy is not just questionable and subjective but arguably a little bit destructive. It's not always a good thing to walk up to people and break them from whatever spell or trance they are in in the name of "truth", which may not be anything more than one's opinion anyway.
Ligotti discusses things that Satre, Camus and Schopenhauer never addressed themselves. He adds some new things to the table. It's an immensely underappreciated contribution in regards to the philosophies of both pessimism and antinatalism.
I don't agree that pleasure and pain are necessarily two sides of the same coin.Sometimes after experiencing severe pain , it's impossible to feel much pleasure after that.
It is very telling of humans how we have to try to appeal to our own suffering than the suffering we inevitably inflict as a reason to remain unborn. The later is a selfless reason, the former selfish of course.
"i love being alive" the same stupid shit everybody repeats just like "life is wonderful" just because that is what they hear everybody saying. and yet, they are always looking for a reason to live, they are always looking for a meaning, a purpose. if it was so wonderful being able to breath should be enough but, it isn't. There's nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it."
It’s crazy that everyone wants kids and then complain that their life sucks due to lack of money and personal time. Then they drink their life away and have a bad attitude. I asked a guy why he thought having kids was important and he said to keep the race alive. I expected this answer, but I’ll admit I hoped for him to not really know and think about it for the first time. I can’t help but think it’s selfish because despite whether a life is good or bad or both no one asked me to bring them here. I understand we’re split on the opinion of if we should have kids. But people could barely take care of themselves before they had kids and they say, “I guess I should add more ingredients into my shit soup of a life because that might make it better.”
These people are what I call R strategists. They are trying to play the gambling game of life, hoping that their child makes it and be able to rescue them. I feel sorry for their kids but then again, they came from their parents so they deserve such a rotten life thanks to their own parents.
The radio host/interviewer's name is Redi Direko. She is probably the most intelligent and articulate interviewer I have listened to in quite some time.
simba tv My point is that people act as if they are separate entities from the human species, thus shielding themselves from their own criticism. Nature doesn't deserve humanity in my own opinion. Nature is cruel and unjust. Humans are the only creatures that are willing to go against the cruel cycle of nature by extending life, helping one another and etc.
Hunter W point taken but what about all the problems they create example 1. Pollution 2. Cruelty to animals 3. Destruction of wildlife or just plants (chopping trees) do my points apply yes or no? Thank you for your response
I think the only morally created child is one that has been asked if they wished to be born . That means that every child born is essentially the result of an immoral act - even where they were firtunate enough to be the product of love between two people. 🕊️
I really enjoyed this. Especially at a time in my life in which everybody is having kids. It is nice to see that there is some sense in world. I usually do not have much hope in humanity but listening to the callers makes me feel a bit more hopeful.
Yes it would have been better for the world, better for my family, and most of all me! It would have been better for me if I had never existed.Now I suffer with everyday, every breath, my only peaceI have is sleep. I am too much of a coward to take my life. If I could find a way that is totally painless I would do it.
@@greatgeneralrenpa1327 Do a Google image search for "666 in Greek." It's a hint. Not a coincidence. We are in heII. The generative act is how we get brought here.
"The Unborn Hero" Sept'27,2022 I do not know what i open myself to This view of i or my eye of you Do i see through the fog of mind The perception of anything divined Scrying via tears of torn orbs pierced Rays of dark light & prayers so fierce Brought to the fore are so many fears Eyes inturned to a thought so clear So simple, so dumb as a mind may be These orbs shattered the mind unseen Riddled by the obvious & obscured The remedies that remain un-uttered How vainly i scream in silent contempt For the tears i wish to remain unwept Remain they do, unseen they shall stay.. The knight long hid, The sons unduly praised
I have the same question all the time when I see someone post about life! Who the hell killed me in Beloit Wisconsin in 2017 and brought me back to this hell on earth!!!???...
I have to say that having watched several of your videos I admire you enormously. The ability to perceive the human condition in an intellectually honest manner free of boundless delusions is a mark of a mind in intellectual harmony with the evil and absurdity infused into the fabric of sentience itself.
''As for humanity, it may go on for 900.000.000.000.000 years, or it can end tomorrow; there is neither gain nor loss in either case.'' A rational and compassionate intelligence with the technological capability needed to do so would have no compunction about ending life on Earth in a heartbeat if he or she could. The difference between 900.000.000.000.000 more years of suffering and 24 remaining hours of suffering is staggering but you seem not to find one more objectionable than the other.
What I don't understand is how Benatar doesn't seem to recognize that Earth's annihilation is the only way that suffering will end. Not only is it impossible to convince every human to refrain from procreating, but there is also the suffering of other organisms to consider.
Curiosity to the original comment I think bentar does know that total annihilation is the answer he just can't say it, it is amazing he says as much as he does.
Curiosity I would like to see just half of the people suffering gone (which is really everybody and anybody that is honest and or has any intelligence) I include myself in the half that should go , I only stay for my husband and my cat and dog after they are gone I will be gone too, I just can't leave them now I really wish I could because my mom and dad are gone and if I had my wish I never would have been here but I was here with them and miss them so much that the pain of living with out them is unbarable. How anyone could even think of bring life into this hell? I can't comprehend even if you are lucky to have a good life how can you enjoy it with all the war, disease, pollution, crime, rape, animal abuse it just goes on and on people block it out or don't care or don't know it boggles my mind I can't wait to be done with this pointless hell!
Ive had very few pleasurable experiences in life. NONE of them outweight the pain. I would trade these pleasurable experiences for not being born any day. Suffering is a far greater emotion. NO pleasure is worth it. Ok if I won the lotto Id be happier for awhile. A good while. But ultimately I HATE being here and feel empty/depressed and scared. Id CURSE my parents for making me only I dont want them to suffer more in their life and I do believe in God but I think HE needs forgiveness. NOT US!
PumpFromAbove Evolution is an unproven theory backed up by sham 'science'. Besides, Earth is indeed a stationary, immovable, and leveled plane. Darwinism has been debunked by intelligent minds. The jig is up. We are on an encapsulated and hellish plane. And all in manifestation is surely not 'random'. There is evil/cruel intent behind this place.
Prom Etheus tell me where the sham is in the following examples of "intelligent" design: with the marsupial mole having eyes under its skin, the human retina 'designed' back to front, and the laryngeal nerve the in giraffe looping all the way around its long neck, or the human appendix which kills 7% of people unless they receive surgical intervention, but when they do get it taken out nearly all of them live fine after the fact (in other words, an organ that kill you 7% of the time when its there, and less than 0.001% of the time when its not). None of these things are hard to understand, and they are easy to see for yourself, without needing a scientist to hold your hand. While you're at it, also tell me where the sham is in that every single fossil that has been uncovered has been in the correct taxonomic order according to the evolutionary timeline. Or you can just make something up like this "encapsulation on a hellish plane" (whatever fairy tale bullshit that is), with absolutely nothing to back it up, and make false claims about an area of science that has been thoroughly studied and is well understood to be a FACT.
+PumpFromAbove Something can be sophisticatedly designed yet atrocious. It's like the intelligence of a serial killer. You're taking the word "intelligent" way too literally. This is clearly not random. Only an idiot would deduce such an idea. So you believe in DNA? Then DNA is your Creator/God that makes decisions based on natural selection. But regardless, Darwinian Evolution is backed by falsified archaeology and Scientism.
Obviously most people who left comments are intellectually poorly equipped to understand this issue, as any others, apparently! I guess, we're on RU-vid, uh?
On the one hand his debates are purely philosophical exercises. On the other hand he's totally right from an ethical point of view. If we were rational, we would give up having children and commit suicide. Life is suffering, mostly and happiness is exceptional, rare and utopian. As much as moronic common sense optmistic people scoff at these ideas and take him as a nutcase, no living person can ever win over him on a debate.
Let's assume people stop having children and humanity goes extinct -- but then intelligent life will likely evolve again from the life that still survives on earth. Those new beings will again have to go through immense suffering just like our ancestors have, only to reach the level of our current civilization (which has relatively much lower levels of suffering compared to the past). So there could actually be a moral imperative to better or preserve the current human condition to prevent this from happening, contrary to Benatar's position.
Shoot the hostage. It is no concern of ours as to what sentience may arise after our passing. Leave a headstone if you feel compelled to warn the future. It is a futile gesture. I am sure the Dodo would have been a better inheritor of our world than us vainly maintaining the status quo. Each day that we perpetuate our species has the chance of our morals & memory to be wiped away, falling again into the very situation you put forward.
You are totally wrong here. You assume that there was more suffering back then than there's now. What's the basis of this assumption? And today's suffering index, the number of suicide cases, the number of accidents, the rise of mental diseases, all go on to prove that human life was much more peaceful back in the years than what it is now.
The horrifying conclusion to it all... this realm is _literally_ heII. There's no escape. There's no savior. We're fvcked. Look up in a Google image search: "666 in Greek." Look familiar? That's how we get here, isn't it?
One note- males should undergo VASECTOMIES (which can be reversed) instead of advocating early abortions (which can be traumatic, ILLEGAL & COSTLY for women).
Very very interesting stuff, and his points are well thought out. I never would have predicted that I'd support this point of view. In all honesty I didn't even know this view existed in the world.
18:50 Benatar's ideas are not selfish but altruistic (as the caller immediately segues into his own experiences, -hopefully, any of the thousands different horrific afflictions will never affect him and he will die peacefully in his sleep, like the old lady in Titanic. Many don't. And even without some horrific ailment or debilitation suffering the _positive_ state in the human experience. People generally seem to react badly to Benatar because they think it is being said about them. It is being said about no one. He's comparing being with non-being. Why is the goal of most mystical practice to escape suffering, (That Life is suffering is Buddha's first Noble Truth) either the cycle of life, death and rebirth, or some glorious jeweled or utopian eternity in Heaven with your loved ones or a nice harem. It is bc even without the wars, tortures, mutilations, diseases that take years to kill, depression, parasites that blind, elephantiasis of the scrotum, life involves a lot of suffering for many and some for all. _I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it_. ~Mark Twain ...
''Stay tuned'' I most certainly will. Speculating about the future of our species (and indeed of all life on Earth) is something that I have spent literally hundreds of hours of research on. Mankind is sleep walking its way into extinction. First we worship some god or deity. Secondly, science paves the way for a debunking of such ideas even as it hints at the possibility of becoming god-like ourselves. Thirdly, science reveals our limitations and our folly whilst giving us tools 2 self-destruct
Yes, it is evil to have children, but people do evil things for gain. Even the plants you kill and eat, probably have some form of sentience. There is no way out of being intrinsically interconnected in the suffering of life. I would have kids if I felt I had anything to gain from them maybe if a rich relative was gonna give me a bunch of money or something. I’m not for doing anything nice for anyone on this stupid rock that I don’t have to do.
Great example on why the radio is dying. Great topic, great interviewer, great guest, and you put so much focus on calls from normal people. I wanted to hear an actual discussion with the prof! How often do you get that?
I am no masochist, sir and I do have a sense of empathy. If anything, it is the only human faculty which makes it possible to even have the word "friend" in the dictionary. I was merely aluding to the fact that, since we all die, our individual suffering always ends and there is no one in any post-mortem state to remember it. But, ofcourse, all suffering is futile and there would be nothing wrong with the whole of it ending tomorow--quite the contrary.
''there would be nothing wrong with the whole of it ending tomorrow--quite the contrary.'' This is much clearer but when you make comments like 'there is neither gain nor loss in either case' it can easily be construed as a comment coming from a moral nihilist perspective. Although I am a moral nihilist myself, when energy/matter configures itself in such a manner as to manifest a rational and compassionate mind then life can only be construed as a massive waste engine of superfluous suffering
(cont.) I agree with Nietzsche that suffering can be mastered and turned into a source of strength, but I do not think we should have it merely for the sake of having it. In other words, we should neither fear suffering, nor pursue it out of some distorted sense of drama. Look at suffering for what it is, that is all. As for humanity, it may go on for 900.000.000.000.000 years, or it can end tomorrow; there is neither gain nor loss in either case.
We need fewer people on the planet, but more of the good one's, those who respect others and life. Less criminals and egotisticals. Then life slowly will become worth living.
Whoever created us is selfish I don't blame people for having kids blame the creator who started this mess. Man is weak don't blame man blame the creator
Because it isn't that simple. It's not that an antinatalist hates children, rather the point is that, from this point of view, consideration FOR children and people in general leads to not having kids because, that way, they will be spared plenty of needless pain. Such is the argument.
Good sir, I didn't mean to sound condescending. I merely had the impression that your opinion was that Mr.B is advocating antinatalism simply because he hates children; I was wrong :). I do agree that we shouldn't be too gloomy about human suffering and overemphasize it, but too often we ignore it and think "Tomorrow will be better", forgetting that existence is mostly repetitive. (cont.)
'there is neither gain nor loss in either case' means precisely what it says. On account of futility and death, there can be no talk of such vagueries as gaining something or loosing something by either existing or not existing, though it is also the case that, to repeat, I have absolutely no objection at all against the definitive ending of sufferinng. Now that, along with the above, should make my stance clear enough.... :) A video will be upcoming. Stay tuned.
I absolutely agree with David, since the beginning of my consciousness. What I want to add is that I think there is no point in stop bringing new human beings into existence, regarding the amount of pain in the history of the universe. Once all sentient life had come to an end, one year or thousands of years in the future, there will be no difference because it will be no one out there remembering or thinking about all that suffering. If our lives are miserable, that is important only while these lives last. Once a person dies and all of the people who remember him/her also die, it's like that person had never existed
I wonder if the author is familiar with the Marvel comic book character Knull? It is an entity, of course portrayed as masculine, who desires desires not just the destruction the destruction of sentient life but to accelerate the universe towards its heat death and eventual Entropic demise to A state that lacks any variation in energy states and therefore has no possibility of change. Perhaps he may want to start a appreciation group for Knull, they can meet on Sundays ,and ,and oh never mind it's been done.
Sounds like a role model i'd champion. Thanos was a b***h. First ot was half, then a memory wipe redo. What a punk. Ofc, if he were to have gone that route, i could only presume that the One Above All would ex-machina that Snap *rolls eyes*
I agree with this, but although it saddens me I also find beauty in this suffering. My child will go through a tremendous amount, I can only hope as a father some of the worse things that can happen will not, but I am well aware of this possibility. This suffering though demands no belief in it being either a curse or a gift, those are both traps for people to fall into in order to maintain a belief. While I often fall into the former category, that is partially my programming, my upbringing, and my choices. Others see existence purely as a gift, which is delusional just as well.
That means...far more to me then if you'd simply agreed with me; as I told Mr. Crawford, I am not in this business for the sake of winning arguments or seeking to appear interesting so as to get atention--though I do desire SOME atention so as not to talk in a vacuum. Again, thank you, sir. Your compliment will be cherished. Take care.
Professor David benatar's right you could have thrown me into the woods as a toddler and I would have built a mansion without any of these creatures with the creatures with the animals I would have fared better than to have to coexist with these voracious animals that claim to be human
At the most basic level wanting to live and to procreate are instincts, programs in the brain developed by evolution. Evolution means everything is randomly tried and what fits goes on to reproduce, there's no God helping us survive as a species, it's just mindless logic. That's why it's hard to kill ourselves and to resist procreating. We, as our mind, would have to battle against the brain as a machine to do these things. 'Morals' is just part of that mechanical program, it's not proof of some great spirit within us. Some heroes say they're thankful for terrible suffering because it made them better people. That's nice but they're outnumbered by weaker people (like me), so David Benatar wins on a vote, sorry to the heroes.
Absolutely fascinating! I wonder where you have amazing radio shows like that?? Also all the callers have really interesting points, I absolutely enjoyed listening (even though I still tend to disagree with Benatar.. it seems to me that his view is a little too hedonistic, soley focused on the experience/"non-experience" of an individual, leaving out conceptions like a collective consciousness)
I find it very interesting this debate but it shows the limits of Western philosophic thought. Eastern philosophies are much more elaborate on the topic of suffering and pain, which in the case of Benatar he seems to equate both concepts. I find more interesting the Buddhist philosophic approach: "pain is inevitable, suffering is optional".
Daniel Abreu That's really irrelevant for the point he is making. The fact is that suffering is an intrinsic part of the human condition and therefore renders existence completely undesirable against its opposite.
Tibetan Buddhism sees suffering as an opportunity to act on and create karma (in its true sense) and therefore one makes progress towards better rebirths. Obviously this only has relevance if one believes in reincarnation of mindstream as opposed to reincarnation of ego self.
Peterson is a puppet of the control system, so of course he is going to toe the line and promote people bringing more tax-slaves into this matrix for the benefit of the shining ones.
There's a sharp logic to this that I can't entirely disagree with. For instance I feel like it should be almost a duty not to have any children at this time, at least for a while. But only because overpopulation is accelerating at uncontrolled speeds and is a real danger for life on earth as a whole. I have not entirely given up on our world though. Pleasure throughout evolution has always been short lived because long lasting bliss was not conducive to our survival on this planet. The sensation of an orgasm, or the taste of sweetness only last just enough so that we continue to strive towards them but not be impeded by them (in an evolutionary sense). Suffering has no natural biological turn off switch akin to how pleasure does, hence the disparity, I think. Psychologically, isn't suffering more focused on too? It seems to me that the "inner critic" is a psychological mechanism to quickly apprehend what is wrong in order to fix it and that takes precedence over the good feelings. We seem to be conditioned to always be on the lookout for bad feelings. But human evolution is partial awareness. We grew to see only what we need to see. In a real sense we are living in a sort of hallucination or a fractured and thus distorted reality. Maybe we have the potential to transcend these old evolutionary ways that seem to bog us down. There must be an ultimate reality and this seemingly illusory existence can't be it. Why not strive for a higher meaning rather than throwing in the towel? Break free from our programming. Existence is not over. Our story is not finished. Perhaps this is just where we're at. We've evolved in a darwinian sense but now is the time for a spiritual evolution. Suffering is not all bad, it's how we grow. Sure it can be overwhelming but there would be no pleasure without it. There's no one without the other. If the world is so awful and not worth living why do you continue to live your life? Fear of the transition of death and the ripple effect of suicide? I mean, as far as we know we only get one chance and then back to the safety of non existence. Isn't it worth the shot?
+Sean "Suffering is not all bad, it's how we grow. Sure it can be overwhelming but there would be no pleasure without it. There's no one without the other." SUFFERING IS BAD, PLEASURE IS GOOD. Where did you find that bullshit about suffering not being bad. What kind of life is it where you have to suffer to feel good later? Bad life, you actually said yourself that life is always suffering. That's why we shouldn't procreate, sadly because of optimists like you there will be more suffering.
the book is amazing, even if we do or don't agree. A whole new pathway from pessimism, Thomas Ligotti and A. Schopenhauer school of thought - However if David Benatar did not exist, this conversation would not happen. Is that good? Or for a nihilist, it does not matter perhaps. Both ways it's irrational, once he wrote the book, he could have ended his own ? The species happened, is still here, and it won't be in the distant future. End of Story,
The interviewer is the typical optimist, unpleasant to listen to such voice qwhen u got as guest one that opposes your happy ideas and he should have been let to talk more....
