Wednesday, 9 November 2011

A few thought experiments for natalists and an announcement

It's pretty well-known, whether scientifically or not, that time passes by a lot quicker when we're having fun than when we, well, aren't - it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, as contributing more time and thought on risky or dangerous situations, or searching more actively for things to do when we aren't doing much could possess certain survival advantages. But that's not what I'm focussing on here. Couldn't any anti-euthanasia, pro-life natalist etc. etc. hold true to the notion that more suffering is better, because a longer (subjective) life is surely a better one? If someone cannot accept this, then they must instead accept that some forms of life are bad, and that a shorter lifespan is actually favourable to a longer one in certain cases (of course, the life=a gift from God belief probably overrides this for theists). This, to me, seems to be something of a step in the right direction. If non-suffering is preferable to (extra) life in at least this one case, then, although it may be a stretch to infer this, then maybe antinatalism isn't such a kooky idea after all. And that's not all, folks. If you can ask someone to imagine that their life, their precious little life, were replaced instead with a fiendish monstrosity in which they could feel neither joy nor love, then you might, again, get someone on the long and twisting road to antinatalism. And after that, just ask them, when they say they would not live such a life (and they really can't bite a bullet that big), whether they would allow their child to have such a life. At least, if nothing else, they might come away from things with the knowledge that there are certain situations where no life is in fact a better position than life. Not that that will necessarily lead to any kind of enlightened new persona in that individual, but you could sow the seeds of doubt. These are just thoughts I've been having, to be honest. No vendetta or bloodlust against pronatalists this time.

As for this blog: you may have noticed that I have not been posting for quite a while. This is because not only do I have nothing much left to say, but venlafaxine makes me, at least in the background and while not at school, happier, and thus less inclined to right about, unfortunately, depressing topics. But it's not dead yet! I'm planning on writing reviews of media I have currently watched here. It probably won't be entertaining, as while my interests are not quite obscure, they are not for everyone. But regardless, I'll carry on.


  1. Even before I was an antinatalist, I never liked society's assumption that longevity should always be a person's top value. Eventually we all die anyway, so if someone really enjoys something that is not hurting anyone else, and if that thing happens to put them at risk for shortening the length of time that they live, I think that is fine. Many people don't have very good lives anyway, why would we disapprove of them doing something enjoyable just because they might live a shorter life?

    Also, what risks are reasonable for someone to take vary greatly based on what a person's life is like. If someone is extremely miserable and in very bad circumstances, it can be perfectly rational to take huge risks. For someone whose life is much better, it most likely wouldn't make as much sense to take those kinds of risks.

    I am really glad to hear that you are feeling better because of your medicine. Hopefully it will continue to be helpful in the future as well.

  2. My commentary has disappeared yet again? o.o

  3. Sorry Shadow, I don't have a clue why this keeps happening. I'd suggest backing up your comments in a text file or something, if it's not too much trouble. I used to have to do that when some blogs didn't load properly, and subsequently didn't receive my comments.