Wednesday, 29 February 2012

Painful achieving

As I said in the previous post, it's better than some people focus more on achieving goals if they want to become happy, while some should focus more on entertaining themselves. I also mentioned how those who are anhedonic particularly are an exception to this unknown quality, as nothing brings them pleasure. I'm not wrong about the pleasure thing, that's the definition of anhedonia, no, I'm wrong about all anhedonics necessarily having to be goal-oriented. How did I discover this, you ask? By personal experience in the last couple of days. Focussing entirely on my goals leads me to become deathly tired - at least if it's not my new medication, that is - and hence even though neither brings me any real pleasure and completing goals would help me out in the future, it is actually physically impossible for me to do so without putting myself to sleep. I can to some extent remedy this, though. Not everything is a goal, not everything is entertainment. For example, it is my goal to read depressing literature, including autobiographies and blogs. This basically qualifies as entertainment as well, and hence doesn't make me fall over into a shallow useless and even MORE tiring sleep. Check back with me, however, as my data isn't all that reliable just yet - my only real evidence is that as soon as I stopped doing maths and started playing Osu!, I suddenly stopped collapsing this way and that.

So I am basically destined to achieve the minimal amount I possibly can. That's alright, that's okay. I don't want this stinking universe anyway. But if it's any help to any of you constantly berating yourself for not achieving any goals you may have: it doesn't matter at all. You were thrown into a universe of ceaseless evils, and eventually you will die. Nothing really matters at all except our morality, simply because it is the collective aligned goal of every single human. It will last long after you are dead. Very little of what you achieve here will last even while you live. You can convince yourself that something matters to you, but you can just as easily convince yourself that it isn't. It isn't evolutionarily hardwired into you, and though your flawed perception at the moment may tell you that this long period of suffering is worth it in the end, it isn't, simply because what you are striving for is either unattainable or will not net you the happiness you seek.

If you seriously suffer from unattained goals and you are absolutely sure they will net you more suffering than pleasure, nip them in the bud and stop the madness. "But," you say, "happiness isn't what I strive for?". No matter what anyone strives for proximately, ultimately they always strive for happiness. That goal being achieved, what do you get from it? Happiness. That's what it feels like to you when you imagine achieving it. If it didn't, you most likely wouldn't do it. If it doesn't and you still MUST do it, then do it if you must, but make sure that first that that isn't a lie (and it probably is, you are not a robot), and second that you are not concerned that you are increasing the suffering in the world by making yourself suffer.

Monday, 27 February 2012

Should we be achieving things in life?

As humans we strive like woodlice crawling away from light to get away from unpleasantness and towards happiness. So in short, for most of us, the simple answer to 'Should you be achieving things?' is 'Yes, if it raises your utility'. And it just might*, since working towards a goal fools our minds into thinking we are doing something potentially evolutionarily valuable (I think, at least), and hence our bastard brains cut us a bit of slack, as they say.We're not trying to fool you, genes' interests, honest! So potentially, even, if you are not quite badly depressed, I wager that goals COULD be an easy way to attain infinite good mood (though not, I might add, infinite pleasure). I don't know though, being one of those depressives who can't feel any pleasure at all, but we'll come to that later.

What if the effort is too much? What if you prefer escapism? The problem is, unless you are someone who does not care whatsoever about completing any such goals**, you will be negatively affected by NOT completing them in the future. And that's not all, folks. Completing goals isn't all exciting gene-hugging. Some people even say a lot of following their goals has been blood, sweat and tears. The key is effort. If you are adverse to putting the effort in, you better start learning to not give a crap quick, because otherwise you are going to die with a lot of regrets, and it's possible that while you live every couple of weeks you'll get a painful reminder of how you aren't 'doing' anything in life, whatever that means. The balance is between effort, goal-punishment, goal-achievement and escapism.

Goal-accomplishing is slow-release positive utility that remains more or less constant - like an IV bag. Escapism, however, is quicker, and doesn't really provide any lasting effects, sort of like recreational drugs. Now, luckily for you there is an almost limitless supply of escapism in the world - limitless as far as you're concerned, at least, so there's no issue of begging for escapism or stealing the neighbours' television for some album-money. It's also not fair to say that escapism doesn't provide ANY lasting benefits, because you can talk to other people about what you've watched, reminisce over it, etc. But I think that achieving goals would probably have far larger lasting effects as long as the goal you pick is one that helps you develop useful skills.

But is it really one or the other? Probably not. This is because too much of one tends to make us a little sick - sick of working ourselves to the bone, or sick of wasting away like some two-bit junkie.But what about the balance? That really, as I've said, all depends on how much you get out of things: how much effort you need, what the effort feels like, how punished will you feel for not accomplishing your goals, how happy will you feel for accomplishing them, how will you feel when you perform escapism, etc.

But what if you are so messed up that you can't actually feel any pleasure at all? Well for anhedonia, the only thing you really can do is achieve things. Both methods of dealing with the world are rendered equally useless, BUT, if you do get better, you will have a much easier time in the world if you have spent all that time in exile studying than sleeping. This, I am trying to convince myself to do. It is not really working all that well.

On another note, I notice how I keep getting hits from people wondering about why they 'can't follow through with anything'***. This, if think, is probably because you are in the wrong sort of mood to do so. As I've said earlier, you may be adverse to effort (in which case either get used to not following through with anything or seek therapy), but in the case that you are in the wrong mindset, then you have a couple of options that have been shown to work: 1. See a therapist or psychiatrist and acquire medication or 2. If you don't have the money, find natural antidpressants or nootropics (check out forums on the internet for this) or 3. Meditate like crazy. I sincerely doubt that anything else will work, though I could be wrong. Hopefully whoever searches for this term and finds my blog shall be disappointed no longer! But probably not.

*Unless you are more inclined to find escapism more enjoyable, in which case DON'T achieve your goals unless not achieving them will make lower you utility in the future. Urgh! It's a conundrum.
**And trust me, even I, a person who does not value his life particularly much - almost negligible as an amount in fact - would lose utility if I ended up dead without completing my goals, sort of.
*** Just so google bots detect it: WHY CAN'T I FOLLOW THROUGH WITH ANYTHING? Caps lock doesn't help, but it's better someone sees it on the page before they think it's all some horrible cheap scam.

Sunday, 26 February 2012

Drug Legalisation

The general argument against legalising psychotropic drugs is simply that it will cause everyone to become a junkie. This is akin to saying that legalising homosexuality will cause everyone to have gay sex. Drugs appeal to very specific segments of the population - segments which would probably get drugs anyway, but if drugs are not legalised would both pay more for those drugs, and would pay for diluted harmful versions of those drugs. In Shameless, Frank Gallagher says something like "Make poverty history, cheaper drugs now!". Would junkies really get sent to jail for robbery if they simply had enough money to pay for their fix? Well, they probably would attempt robbery anyway, simply because the money is just going to run out slower if drugs are cheaper. But still, the rehab clinics that actually provide heroin could take care of that. Some people simply can't maintain a job and a drug habit at the same time.

Another argument is that drugs cause harm, and we should stop them. By violating our rights to do what we like with our bodies* and by putting people in jail who have committed victimless crimes - possibly whilst trying to help solve their own pain at how the world works? Another reason why this simply doesn't work as an argument is because reality gives the finger to it. People get drugs regardless of whether they are legal or not. If there is a demand, there is a supply. But IF you make it illegal, the drug quality decreases, causing EVEN MORE HARM than if you had never made them illegal in the first place.

A final argument is simply that people should live longer and more healthily. I disagree with that, as someone who vehemently hates his life, but still, if that were true, we'd do a lot more campaigning than simply making KFC illegal along with drugs. People will get what they want eventually. Put barriers in the way and you only delay things a bit.

What would drug legalisation bring that would benefit humanity, you ask? Well for one, a lot of research into drugs is blocked simply because they are illegal, so any good effect that might have is often cast aside. More drugs being legal would make alcohol less popular (maybe), and alcohol, as you should know, often is the cause of embarrassing things (along with violence, a lot of violence). Marijuana on the other hand, as a social drug, does not cause these things, though driving stoned is still going to kill people. Lastly, we could finally start work on David Pearce's dream. Making people far, far happier than they are by providing them with a limitless supply of opiates and other such drugs - tailor-suited to reduce tolerance and such things (if that's possible). Drugs, for the future (TM).

*Tried SO hard their not to imply that we 'own our bodies', Franc. The English language doesn't lend itself well to me for doing such a thing. See The Confusion of 'Self-Ownership'.

Saturday, 25 February 2012


Just had a revelation of sorts. Contrary to what my parents and psychiatrist think, and contrary to what I previously thought, my suicidal fantasies are no longer present not because I am 'getting better', or because I 'know better'. They are not present anymore, I've realised like literally a couple of minutes ago, because like with anything else, I cannot acquire pleasure from them. The thought of ending my life brings me no real lift in mood as it once did, not, again, because any antidepressant is 'blocking' negative thoughts, but because nothing provides an escape from this endless monotony but sleep.

In any case if you're wondering why I'm not posting about anything other than myself, it's simply because I'm unsure as to how I could do so. It's not that the well has dried up, it's simply that while the ideas are there, my brain  just doesn't respond when I ask it to do something. Possibly, when I look into things, it could be because I feel too 'fake' writing about such things...that I passionately believe in. The main reason I think however is simply experiencing another depressive episode. It's milder, what with the mood stabiliser and all, but it's pretty much making me unable to do anything but sleep the good sleep. That's the weird thing I'm finding. When I was full to the brim with agony, I still managed to get homework done and such, but now I am heavily tranquilised, as soon as a tiny bit of a detriment appears in my mood, I just can't do anything at all. Makes me think instead of being anhedonic without any significant depression, maybe I've got sort of a 'Masked Depression'

I always wonder if I'll really be able to work in the end. I've always been anxious enough that I got work done, even when in mucho grande pain, but again there's that element of 'School is important for the future! I must keep up or I'll get left behind! Don't want the stigma of a drop-out, that makes you mentally inferior. Don't want to be kept behind a year, think of how few friends you'll make'. With a job I really just don't know how much I'd be able to take before eventually just thinking about the easier way out - not THAT easier way out, but simply the benefit option. But then again, there is the freelance option, even if it socially wrecks me or I'm not really motivated enough for it. But it depends, really. If I remain without pleasure then it's pretty damn likely that there'll be little difference between home and work, in which case it won't really matter if I take advantage of my disability or not. If I get my pleasure back, I'm likely going to get a lot of pain back, especially social pain, in which case it probably would be a lot better for me to just quit and stay at home all day.

What if I get 'cured', you say? Well I'd respond to that that you can't cure autism and you probably can't inject 20ccs of personality into someone, but in the case that I can get so drugged up that I forget that social interactions will always be non-intuitive for me and that this makes everything such a bother, then I guess I probably could go on in said drugged-up manner, even if being social still seems so bloody fake. But I doubt it. I can't stomach-pump the red pill out of my body, and pretty much all my life when I wasn't spaced out, I was actively suffering.
I'm gunning for "Suffering so much at work I feel like I'll faint" getting me through this test. To be honest, the only reason I get through school anyway is because I'm interested in what I learn. Hours of similar boring crap with no real purpose and no added self-improvement? Count me out. Unless my job involves constant challenges (though something in computer science MIGHT), I don't think I could really stick it out.

But in reality I probably will force myself to get a job. I always end up forcing myself to do things that make me seem like a normal person, even if I never fool anyone.

Friday, 24 February 2012

No social skills, the ultimate thrill

A typical situation in my everyday life goes as follows. Someone, somewhere, assumes that I am just like them. This is a fine generalisation, but like all such generalisations, it is not always true. And in this particular case it is so very, very flawed. When someone attempts to start a conversation with me, instead of following any human instincts I SHOULD have programmed into me, I simply freeze. This is probably something to do with autism and severe, chronic depersonalisation, by the way. But in any case, while to the outside world I appear as if I have been cryogenically stored, my brain is shifting from thought to thought a mile a minute, thinking: "What should I say? Is this alright to say? What does a normal person say in such a situation? How do I do this without being boring?" Finally I think, "Oh I know, I should follow my emotions. That's what everyone does, right?". And I end up speaking such an atrocity of a faux-pas that I will not even attempt to emulate the sheer disgusting shame it makes me feel by recreating it on the internet. In the end if I don't follow my heart, my response is something of a quick, calculated conversation-assassination, with something like 'Okay', or 'Yeah', or 'Oh, cool'. I cannot make small-talk. I can't talk to strangers. Saying to me that "Social skills can be learned!" is like telling an amputee they can regrow their lost limb by thinking hard enough.

I've developed a lot of coping mechanisms over the years (essentially building an artificial limb over my bloody stump), to the extent actually where if I am in a conversation with someone I know, I can to some degree get on fluently, though rarely in a manner that is socially acceptable - though still, maybe I'm not giving myself enough credit here. I tailor-fit my personality to fit others' needs. I don't do this wildly accurately, but due to the fact that I have been doing this for so long, it has become even easier, as I now fundamentally lack a sense of self and personality possibly because of it.* This is, as you can imagine, a vicious cycle - I create a new personality for someone, and in doing so can less rely on my 'true' personality. On and on until there is nothing left of me but crude copies of TV characters. Everything you see here on this blog in terms of personality is a lie: I am making this up as I go along. While I am antinatalist and depressive in real life, my values are truthful, my overall method of talking is quite deceitful, in that, only my narcissism is actually true to what remains of my broken, battered self. I am not a flamboyant person. I do not generally alliterate and such when I write. This is all what I expect people of the antinatalist community might like, rather than what my personality is like. Don't tell me, "Be yourself, I'm sure everyone will like that", because I don't have a self. Everything is fake to draw an emotional reaction from either myself or others.  This is one of the highest ranked reasons, I am sure, for why I wish to die (despite not carrying it out for a few decades). Being an unthinking shallow automaton is not a good thing to be, and I value the fact that I at least retain enough of my humanity to think, "This is so, so wrong".

By the way, these blog posts are very crude. I am sorry for that. Originally I used to revise and edit and retype and compare different versions to check which would be the best to write, but now I simply can't be bothered. I believe that maybe, one time in the future, if I ever get round to writing a book, I might retool the posts a bit, and write a little better.

*Or chronic depersonalisation. Take your pick. Probably a combination of both in the end.

Thursday, 23 February 2012

Uh oh, Anhedonia just turned real

From reading back over a couple of journals, I have come to the conclusion that the anhedonia that I had assumed without a second thought was due to olanzapine, has actually, most likely, been an ongoing process over the past two years or so. Or maybe longer, considering how my ability to feel pleasure seems to have been constantly declining anyway, but my journals don't really extend back that far.

You see, before anhedonia I thought I could maybe live through life. Sure I thought of suicide a lot of the time, but that was just a temporary measure. If I could make it through these adolescent/young-adult wading-through-thick-viscous-faeces years, then I'd have an easy life. I'd just socially isolate myself, stock up on video games and the like, get a freelance job so no contemplating of the world necessary,  and traverse foreign escapist lands until I die, alone, but unaware. Dreams don't often come true, but this dream I thought was probably possible. I mean, freelance work is easy if you know how to programme. Or write essays, or translate, etc. Escapism is easy, given my great affinity for it. And social isolation is quite often easy because the reason I wanted to isolate myself in the first place was to do with how I have been constantly shut out or shat upon in this world - people naturally avoid me, so it's not hard to avoid them either.

But as with most of my fantasies, this has come crashing down in recent years. For one, I've learnt that rain is like urine: it never stops pouring down on you until you're dead and buried. It's not honest saying "A few more years, then things'll be fine, you'll see". It may have helped me get through life once upon a time, but it's not in any way true. I can't stop bad things happening, to me or to anyone else. This is horrifying, but this is life. Moreover, I've become addicted to social-ness. Or, if I'm being completely honest with myself, I guess I've always needed people, despite how they more often than not haven't been there. Sitting alone everyday, 'escaping' - I know what summer holidays are like. I have most psychotic breakdowns then, generally from the loneliness and the boredom. As for freelance working, it's possible, but I'm really not going to be able to motivate myself for any real length of time to do it. Better a tyrant flagellating you everyday than having to be that same tyrant, flagellating yourself.

But the final nail in the coffin of my humblest of dreams was simply my eventual loss of pleasure. I feel nothing now, but slight 'tingles' of comfort. I know this blog post would make me happy if I could feel something, but as it stands, I only really keep up with my posting schedule because my mind feels the phantom limb of emotion itching and the tingling suggests to me that I carry on. Besides that too, there's the fact that not doing anything leads me back to horrible depressive boredom, but that's beside the point.* I am barely a human being. I don't feel MUCH pain, I certainly feel a lot more pain than most people, but it's not all that much relatively compared to what I usually have. So while the future looks like a bleak, endless and gray expanse of meaningless nothingness, and while I fear a bit for the fact that this boring, annoying situation won't end for another couple of decades, I at least don't have a great big dollop of suffering added on top of this mess.

One thing I really do fear however is that because my new medication has been shown to relieve anhedonia, it'll just bring me back to the same old situation of pain, escape, pain, escape, until I die, as I described at the start of this post. Still, my old mood stabiliser made me into that kind of human unbreakable zombie, so I'm guessing this new one COULD potentially have the effects of simultaneous anhedonia relief and mood stabilisation. But I'm really not counting on it. I am generally a rational person. But bad luck tends to follow me around, and the pessimistic view rarely lets me down.

Why am I writing this? Well I think for anyone out there who, like me, is annoyed at how little there is about anhedonia on the internet, a fellow depressive ranting about how he has become a suffer-bot may help things out a bit. Also, I really like to talk about myself. This is a serious character flaw but it is really the least of my worries as far as I'm concerned.

*Painful boredom should have its own word, methinks. Not because it crops up so frequently in the human condition, but because it is so unbelievably distinctive that one just feels the need to describe it as something more unique than "painful boredom" or "chest pain boredom", or "stabbing knives in my belly boredom with added self-hate".

Wednesday, 22 February 2012

Mental Illness is imaginary in the same way that my tags are imaginary

As in, while both mental illness and my tags are categories created by human beings, they represent things that really, really exist, unless you are a total solipsist. 

I know why some people don't think mental illness exists. On one hand, mental illness, as I've said before, is something that cannot be imagined by most neurotypical people. On the other, people distrust psychiatrists. This is possibly justified, as there are a lot of bad psychiatrists compared to the amount of bad doctors of other specialities, but in no way does that mean you can draw the conclusion "a lot of X either don't actually solve problem Y or simply hand out drugs (that may solve problem Y), therefore, problem Y doesn't actually exist". Psychiatrists go through years of medical school. This is completely unnecessary, because psychiatry is a new profession, and is mainly based on techniques that could be learnt by a monkey anyway (I would probably respect psychiatrists more if they were combined psychiatrists AND psychologists). Regardless, though it may all seem like one big government conspiracy, and yes I agree, the governments of almost every country on Earth is run by idiotic sociopaths, but in no way does this mean that the problem, the PROBLEM THAT CREATED A NEED FOR PSYCHIATRISTS IN THE FIRST PLACE, does not actually exist. Do you know what grief is? Feel something like grief, feel it for little reason, or because of a crippling childhood event long in the past, and feel it for everyday for the rest of your life. This is a simple explanation of depression, and as such you should be able to tell from this: people who have such a problem are mentally unwell. They are in pain, and need to be cured - not told that what they are feeling is normal, and that the big bad government is trying to censor your normal perfectly healthy thoughts.

Yes psychiatry sometimes classifies harmless things as mental illnesses (like homosexuality, for example - though it's been removed from the DSM now). They have created new X that do not actually exist. You can't conclude from that statement, old X do not actually exist. That would be absurd, right? So the next time you find yourself thinking "Mental illness can't possibly have any basis in reality -  we're all happy, right guys? I don't see anyone with a mental illness here", read a book on mental illness, or better yet, read a real-time blog, like Pandora's. If you still cling to the idea that it's one grand conspiracy perpetrated by the reptilian overlords evil people in government, then well, don't let me try to convince you. I'm just another one of their millions of vassals, sent to this Earth to spread pain and abortion and pyramids.

Tuesday, 21 February 2012

Blog Overview

Instead of launching into a furious rant about the dangers of believing that mental illness is a myth, as I will do soon enough, I thought I'd take some time to introduce any newer readers to the main constituents of my blog. This post I hope will not be static, and I'll change it when my blog has changed significantly in content.

My two main series of posts are on antinatalism and suicide/euthanasia (lumped together as 'the right to die').
-The mini-series, How Could You Possibly Counter Antinatalism?, is my pioneer foray into the world of blogging Pessimism. It's a little rough around the edges, but skimming over it a bit I can see that it has gone into some areas that I perhaps have skimped upon in later posts. Probably not very relevant unless you are really desperate to see my prototypical skeletons in the closet.
-A Frightful Fable is a landmark first, in that it was the very first time I started bullshitting with hyperbole and absurd situations in an attempt to explain antinatalist ideas. Short and not the best, otherwise. SUMMARY: Gambling on other people's lives in fundamentally wrong
-The Happy Ending was my first 'hypothetical future' post. SUMMARY: What about ending the suffering of animals, too?
-Canine Antinatalism - A very popular post, for reasons unknown to me. SUMMARY: Follows the ending the suffering of animals theme, talks about sterilising animals
-The Accidental Rape - My most popular post to date, despite its brevity. Its ultimate idea is simply a comparison that may seem rather interesting to antinatalists. SUMMARY: Your parents harmed you, but they will never know
-Involuntary Sterilisation - I am amazed by a particular insight commenters/chatbuddies share with me and change my outlook massively SUMMARY: Involuntary sterilisation is moral because breeding is wrong, and hence 'the right to breed' cannot truly be a right at all.
-A Call to Arms - I make a sad attempt at trying to spread antinatalism. Later on, I realise that it will never work. (The Shorterst Riot in History)
-The Nicest Hot Dog Vender in Town - Here, a commenter tells me that my reasoning for declaring Unbreakable's existence is immoral. My overall opinion does not change, however, as consent is not given.
-An Antinatalist FAQ - I make an attempt at providing people with answers to common questions about antinatalism. I am somewhat pleased with this.
-Will Things Work Out in the End? - Sad musings about the doomed state (short term) of the human race. SUMMARY: Antinatalist population will probably grow, but the future is definitely uncertain - and if history is anything to go by, the pessimist view will again be the correct one.
-Most People Are Already Halfway There - Antinatalism is simpler than you'd think. Not that it will help a lot with spreading it, though.
-Not Even Supervillains are Antinatalist - Antinatalism is unbelievably unheard of.
-Double Trouble - How intuitive is it to not have children?
-You Hold the Burden of Proof! - Antinatalists don't really have to prove anything. Having a child is an action, not having a child is not an action. So we don't have to justify not having children, YOU have to justify having one. I like this post.
-The Magical Marvelous Mirth-filled Prison - Tie-in between my right to die and antinatalism series. Also cites The Accidental Rape
-Why is consent necessary too? - I've been leading up to this post for quite a while, not sure myself why consent specifically matters. With this I was finally able to convince myself why exactly you can't just erase everyone on the planet.
-We are all victims - About a lot of things, but mainly about creating Unbreakable actually being morally okay because of the previous post on consent.

-Happy Antinatalism Day! - I replace Mother's Day and Father's Day instead with Antinatalism Day for laughs.
-Objective Morality - I talk about antinatalism's compatibility with nihilism.

-The Cheerful Clone - Strange little thought experiment about where antinatalism holds
-Antinatalist Burnout: Potential Causes - Why do commenters and bloggers seem to be disappearing?
-Should you forgive your parents? - Even if they bore you into a horrible life, you should forgive your parents since their actions were caused by something else. Or because it will only add suffering (your suffering) to the world.
-Transhumanism and Antinatalism: Siblings Separated at Birth? - Musings on how Transhumanism and Abolitionism may save us all yet
-Why Killing is Wrong and the Doomsday Button too - I finally come to a conclusion on the Doomsday Button thought experiment of Jim's
-Being Pessimistic is being Realistic - How much of Pessimism should you incorporate into your everyday life?
-The Making of an Antinatalist - What creates an antinatalist?
-Every Life Matters - The wrong act of having a child, even if it leads to ending world hunger is still a wrong act, and something you should not do.
-Reasons to be Antinatalist and Reasons Pets are Better - I give my main reasons for being antinatalist in the most concise form I have ever put them into.
-4 Reasons 'Free Disposal' Is Incorrect - A short rebuttal to Bryan Caplan
-The Immoral Wizard - Parents forcing their children to live THEIR dreams or forcing them to work for them or take care of them when they are old is wrong
-Song of Suffering - I wrote a song about antinatalism, haha.

-Mental Illness and the Right to Die - The beginning of my rant against the argument that those who are mentally ill should be denied access to euthanasia.
-Would you care? - Introduces the concept of delaying one's suicide due to loved ones.
-Further Explorations of the Ultimate - You can't break your moral compass just because you want to commit suicide because wanting to die and wanting to see your loved ones in better emotional states are emotional states that are on equal footing
-Off on a Tangent - If there were an off-switch to life, would more people die?
-The Bucket List - What do you risk your death on? Should you do anything before you die?
-Do we have an obligation to live? - Follow-up to Would you care?
-Suicidal Thoughts are Probably Bad - Even if you intend to commit suicide, don't have suicidal thoughts, because they increase your suffering. (Well, generally. A commenter stated that he was instead comforted by his suicidal thoughts everyday)
-The Magical Marvelous Mirth-filled Prison - Should you tell people you intend to commit suicide before you do to let them feel more reassured, or should you do it before they know so they don't hold themselves responsible?
-Suicidal Thoughts Aren't One-Size Fits All - More on mental illness and the right to die.
-Optimistic Biases and Suicide - Follow-up to Suicidal Thoughts Aren't One-Size Fits All

-Thanatos might pick you up a little earlier if you ask him nicely - Extremely important. I decide that everyone has a right to die.
-Suicidal thoughts are like psychotropic drugs - Be suicidal in moderation, folks
-Does Suicidality Cause Apathy - I wonder about whether this is the case.
-What do you do when someone is suicidal? - I have a policy of ALWAYS persuading people not to suicide.
-Update on my views on waiting periods - I talk about how would-be suicides should be stopped for a few months to see if they really wish to commit suicide.
-4 Reasons 'Free Disposal' Is Incorrect -A bit is mentioned about how suicide is incredibly hard to perform.
-The Romanticism of Suicide - I argue that suicide is a solution only to very large problems, insolvable problems, or problems involving large amounts of suffering. I also talk about a penpal who committed suicide.
-You Just Want the Pain to End - I argue against this phrase. This post is also a followup to The Romanticism of Suicide.

And Me - My brief thoughts on certain topics. Includes Education (slave-training camp), The Eternal Recurrence (unlikely/stupid and nothing to be afraid of), and Escapism
Anhedonia Series - I mention my anhedonia. The most popular is Save me
Social Series - I talk about my social skills, or lack thereof.

Happiness Series - How does one become happy?
Reviews - Antinatalist relevant and not antinatalist relevant
Religion - I rant about what religion causes.

Monday, 20 February 2012

Why is consent necessary too?

My general argument against the creation of Unbreakable was simply that no consent is involved in the matter - consent is actually an impossible thing to give in this instance.* The problem with doing things against someone's consent but that harm them to no degree is that from simple intuition, it doesn't really compute (I think this is because NOTHING in the pre-society humans could really have been a non-consensual happiness injection - while now, this is quite possible, in those messed up mental hospitals in films, for example). Is it intuitively right to do no harm? Not really, some of us want revenge. Is it non-contradictory and somewhat intuitive, then? Yes, definitely. Is it intuitively right to respect consent? Yes - even when you do something out of the ordinary. Like force-feeding a birthday cake to someone who doesn't want one, despite having no digestive problems or palette problems with cake.

But the problem here is that though consent seems intuitive, perhaps even more intuitive that not causing suffering, it SEEMS to break down when we state that NO, you heard me, NO, suffering is to take place at all. And if someone does not want something and does not consent to it, then to some extent, I'd argue at least, this counts as suffering. The very thought of not wanting is a form of suffering, and hence consent in the case of the Lovely Birthday Cake Shoved Down Oesophagus, if this causes no suffering at all (AND MOREOVER ACTUALLY CAUSES POSITIVE UTLITY), is a shaky one. Causing positive utility is good (though remember that it is probably wrong to say we have a duty to cause it - you don't know how far is far enough (never-ending task) and suffering, which can do irreparable harm, is probably higher on your to-do list anyway), to some extent. Violating consent is a no-no. So how does it work out? If we still hold to holding consent as one of the building blocks of morality, we say that since one has no duty to cause pleasure (you have a duty, again, to stop harm that you are about to cause, but no similar duty to cause pleasure in others at any point in time), and consent is king, the Lovely Birthday Cake Shoved Down Oesophagus is most definitely wrong, despite tasting so, so good.

But I suppose the problem of "But where do you derive consent from?" is related to the key problem of morality, anyway. Morality is something human as a result of the evolution of reciprocal altruism. How do we do what most people want (humanity's best interests) without violating the wants of others? First we do not cause suffering as most people do not want more suffering, and despite people who want revenge or punishment, the older humanity as a species gets, the less we can get away from NOT putting ourselves in another person's shoes and feeling the pain of their punishment etc. Secondly do not break consent. Except this one, I think is a little bit contentious. You see the thing is, consent is ALWAYS bundled up with suffering. The Lovely Birthday Cake Shoved Down Oesophagus is a special case simply because it MUST by definition involve no suffering at all - and weirdly therefore is a paradox in that it cannot really involve proper breaking of consent, simply because the act of thinking "this is not what I want" is bound to involve some suffering, and if it doesn't, is an utterly meaningless thing to say. So consent IS important, but it has to be tied up with suffering in some way.

BUT THEN, you ask, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR EFILISM? If no one is hurt at all by a doomsday button, again, they must have had consented to the act. Because the act of saying "I don't want this" is suffering. Therefore unless this doomsday button also changes the minds of everyone before they die, they will suffer, and harm will be done. What if they don't know about it before they die? Well the thing is, you have still violated their rights. This is another pillar of human morality. They possessed multiple things, and possibly had positive utility. You deprived them of that. You monster.

But the Sterilisation Doomsday Button is absolutely fine, as I and others before me have said.

In summary: Non-consent without suffering is a paradoxical situation, and any non-consent in such a situation is essentially empty, like I robot saying 'I don't want this'. Consent is important to the human race because we all believe it is, just like non-suffering - and it doesn't cause contradictions like positive utilitarianism. Nuking the world is wrong, but sterilising it is fine.

As a further note, I don't know about Unbreakable. Is consent specifically broken? Unbreakable isn't asked whether she would like to be born or not, BUT, if she did not wish to be born then this would cause suffering in her life, contrary to the definition of Unbreakable. But the fact still remains that she was not consulted, even if she were consulted she would probably say yes. This still SEEMS wrong, but I don't think you'll hear the last from me about it. If you still read this blog, JasonSL, care to lend a hand and help me out here? Much appreciated for the previous insight you gave me, by the way.

*Well not really my original general argument, if I'm implying that. Originally I stated that if Unbreakable came to hate her life (the thought experiment takes her as female I think?) and wanted to die despite being so happy (which is possible since no amount of happiness can eradicate the effort associated with living - I think), one would come to think that the act was wrong. JasonSL responded: "[T]here are probably lots of humans whose opinion is that their life is worth continuing but are mistaken -- they actually are experiencing net negative utility. We don't consider their mistaken ex post ratification of their life to make it right to have created them, so why should we consider Unbreakable's mistaken ex post condemnation of her life to make it wrong to have created her?". I could not respond to this. Still, now, I think to some extent the 'mistaken' part might be a little misleading, as Unbreakable's hatred of life isn't necessarily mistaken - unless you count any dislike of life as suffering  and hence rule out this in the first place. She can't suffer, but by hating her life in all likelihood things are going to become a little more uncomfortable. So to be honest, I think JasonSL is right here, but the argument needs a little explaining (for me, at least).

Sunday, 19 February 2012

How to live through life knowing that it is an abomination

Karl mentioned on a comment on his blog a while back how wonderful it would be to have a self-help book written specifically for pessimists like us (paraphrase). If anyone actually wants instant sainthood in my eyes by creating such a book (a bible, if you will), I'll start the ball rolling and help you out a bit.

METHOD 1 See psychiatrist (legal drug-dealer), get some meds, become a good slave
Taking medication isn't the same thing as admitting you're wrong about life. It could just as easily be a way of saying "the world is so unbelievably bad I have to change my entire brain to deal with it". If you can't, for reasons such as living in a place with no national healthcare service, you can try a number of natural antidepressants and nootropics. But wait, what if it's just a placebo effect! Placebo effect, Shmacebo effect. I would eat goat testicles everyday if it tricked my bastard brain into thinking the world isn't such a festering pile of corpse chunks marinated with sweat, blood and tears. And it kept me non-deluded enough, of course, to remember that bringing a kid into this world is a big no-no. You see, I think getting through life un-suicidal is a fragile balance between knowing the truth, and hypnotising yourself into thinking you are a mindless chicken. You can't be so happy you'll do something you'll regret, and you can't be so depressed you'll do something you would regret if you wouldn't be dead and without emotions after it. This goes back, I think, to this.

METHOD 2 Emotions don't have to be an accurate representation of reality
Stephen King, pssh. H.P Lovecraft? No. Ligotti? Getting warmer but still far off the mark. The greatest horror writer in this universe is actually the universe itself. And if you know that, you can help yourself a bit by not having kids, being nice to other people bla bla bla, but ultimately, going around, paralysed with fear is just going to make your loved ones worry (if you are unlucky enough to have them and are therefore unable to commit suicide). Realise that though happiness is impossible to obtain without, again, decades of meditation or years of medication, you don't have to hurt yourself even more by subtly changing your emotions to fit your circumstances. Life sucks. Though it may help to keep saying that in the short term, in the long term you are causing your brain to slowly wither away into a fortress of pain. If you find yourself despising being trapped inside the worst prison imaginable, simply mentally scream 'La la la I'm not listening', and pretend you live inside clouds, or your mind is a haven from the outside universe, or even that the future will be a brilliant place. (Note: I doubt these will work. If they do work, you also run into the danger of losing a sense of the truth of the matter. Catch-22 situation)

METHOD 3 Become a hedonist and let loose
I don't know how this works. I see people partying and taking drugs and things, and they seem to be having a good time.

METHOD 4 Meditate until you are basically dead, then wait for death
Losing your sense of self, concentrating on the present, stopping all thought. These things, to me, seem like a way to die before you actually die. But science says meditation works, so it must work*. Also for those of us who just can't get enough of death, I'm supposing that despite how losing your desire seems a little boring, being a zombie who can't get enough of mindfulness might really stop a lot of those annoying 'WORLD SUCKS SO BAD' thoughts. And the real up-side of Buddhism is, it is still pessimistic, to an extent.

METHOD 5 Focus on some goals. Complete them. Make more.
Self-explanatory. Can help more for those who are anhedonic, in my experience, though it is still bloody annoying (an understatement).

METHOD 6 Escapism
For those of us who can still feel interest and other such positive emotions, rather than simply the absence of pain, then I suggest you live in fantasy worlds instead of this horrible one. With the vast amount of media out there, this really, really isn't hard.

So there you have it, a bare bones guide to living life despite understanding life. Please, for the sake of all us denizens who lurk among these plains, enhance it and do me proud.

*XTC's 'Making Plans for Nigel' played here. I don't know why.

Saturday, 18 February 2012

Worry, Be Happy

It is certainly a good thing to be happy (when that happiness isn't making you harvest human intestines for food, for example). This goes back to the standard antinatalist "no one wants suffering, so let's reduce suffering, okay?". It's not going to do a WHOLE lot for the human race, reducing your own suffering that is, but it's still a good thing, just as preventing a stranger being mauled in the fingers by a piece of paper is a good thing, though paper-cuts are not a major cause of suicide.*

But happiness isn't all ice cream and orgies. Well, it is, but there's more to it than that. If you really want to reduce suffering in the world, you can't just go around throwing new humans into existence, despite how they may indeed be the 'ultimate expression of love', and how it may make you happy for the rest of your life (though it probably won't). You can't go around pillaging villages and killing monks either, because despite how you will be making both you and a whole lot of Vikings happy, you are causing suffering, and you are violating consent. Happiness is like a psychotropic drug. Well, actually, it pretty much is from the chemical perspective of one's brain. But as far as the analogy goes, happiness is great fun, and you can share it with your friends, and you can space out and start writing about things you won't understand when you aren't happy. But also like a psychotropic drug, it can make you do things you are seriously going to regret if you don't stay lucid, worry as much as possible, and remember to hold on to your most firmly-held beliefs as much as possible before you experience the 'trip'.

Like Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder, you can experience unwanted mutations to your brain upon 'abuse' of psychotropic drugs (well, some of them). Happiness, on the other hand, results in, oftentimes, Happiness Persisting Perception Disorder, or as it is commonly called 'Always Looking on the Bright Side of Life'. What characterises this disorder? You begin to suffer from constant delusions - you believe that suffering is necessary for life, despite how you suffer increasingly less and less. You begin to feel that everyone is just as happy as you are, because you have forgotten what it means to feel horrifyingly normal. You believe that the future will fix everything - which could be true, but you do not consider the alternative situation that ending things right here, right now, would spare more suffering. Finally, in the late stages, you may believe that depression is completely fine, because there are a lot of tall buildings in the world. 

Optimism is only really fixed by constant exposure to antitoxins - to real statistics and photos and books showing the constant state of suffering that the vast majority of the human race are in. Only then can you stop yourself making incredibly stupid choices. Only then will you finally have control over your reproductive organs.

Antinatalism is the radical notion that more suffering is wrong.

*I am not stating here that it is possible to become happy. If you don't medicate yourself, or meditate for an inordinate amount of time, the likely thing is, you will stay at the same happiness level you have always been at throughout your life (for example: lottery winners return to the same happiness level within a month or two of winning the lottery). Happiness is a Stochastic Phenomenon (thanks again, Sister Y).

Thursday, 16 February 2012

Optimistic biases and suicide

I promised in my previous post that I'd address how people can somehow believe that suicide is always the product of a diseased and somewhat inhuman mind. I don't have the self-discipline to fully address these concerns, and I do not have the desire to gain that self-discipline either, and therefore, I shall do my usual haphazard diatribe.

The main reason I'll address why people do not think suicide is the answer for anyone, regardless of situation, is simply because of our old arch-nemesis here at this blog: Optimism. While some simply think suicide is a sin, due to religion, or those that could be left behind (despite how pain of life could be > pain of grief), the major cause of opposition among those who we often meet around these parts, the 'rationalists' at Less Wrong and Overcoming Bias, is due to Optimism and the sum of its many component biases. Not only, as I stated in the previous post, am I quite certain that they do not understand the breadth of suffering another person could go through, but they also believe that life is full of lots of exciting opportunities, despite the non-existence of free will that they accept, and the resulting loss of such opportunities in those who are terminally ill, or terminally MENTALLY ill. I was going to say, it's because they have a fetish for life ("let's cryogenically freeze ourselves until humans have become the master race reached the technological singularity, then we can live forever and ever and ever, fap fap fap/shlick shlick shlick"), or because they are secretly (who knows?) afraid of death - but those are harsh, and maybe not entirely true. But the optimistic rejection of suicide as a right, is essentially the same as the other rejections - irrational. You should see by now how ignorant it really is - the argument basically goes, A Things are good for me now B Therefore things must be good for other people! C Why would anyone commit suicide then? or alternatively A Things in my life have been generally good B I've had some grief, but I got over it C Hey, I got over it, so why can't you? Don't you know that life is generally good? Wait for the future. The future is magical [insert onomatopoeia for fervent (emotional) masturbation]. It has robots and flying cars and jedi and genetic engineering and a master AI, don't forget that. You'll feel better once you invest in THE FUTURE (TM)!

Why do people reject the existence of Suicidal Resolution? I think this is because they really can't imagine it. It is also because they view, for the reasons described earlier, that suicide is always an irrational thought. You can't give informed consent to kill yourself, because, as this people believe, you will regret it later (in hell), or WOULD regret it had you not been dead at the time. I think also, that the reason I can't discern immediately why they reject its existence, is possibly because of the great barrier I feel. I'm serious about this. I don't mean anything 'magick', I mean I really feel that when mental health professionals talk about suicide, they are almost believing that it is a disease and a curse, and as if it is their religion to do so. No rational reason required. It suits their tastes to believe that you can't be justified in killing yourself, so they doubt that anyone can feel as if they have thought things through and come to a conclusion that does not fit in with the rest of society.

Bringing a human life into this world is a childish idea. Bye for now.

Wednesday, 15 February 2012

Suicidal thoughts aren't one-size fits all

There are two main types of suicidal thought as far as I understand things. One type, that is generally thought to be the only type, is a simple urge, or fantasy, often plaguing, of death. The second type is not so much a thought, as a resolution. From my perspective it is a lot colder than the sometimes painful, sometimes relieving standard suicidal thought, and comes, not directly as a consequence of depression as we are told to believe, but from years of subconsciously and consciously assessing one's situation, and finding that one, valuing happiness and not valuing suffering (and HOPEFULLY following my advice and weighing up our own suffering with our parents' suffering - for more detail though, click on 'the right to die' tag).

The only people that believe that this 'Suicidal Resolution' (as I've named it for now) is actually possible are those who are in support of Euthanasia - and even then, rarely do THEY believe that someone who is mentally ill can come to such a conclusion (that death would be a better situation to be in than life). But they can, easily, as though their brains may be to some degree disordered, this in no way prevents them being treated as full human beings. Though maybe that is a bit harsh. The current opinions going round our collective memesphere are not indeed so horrible, but you cannot get past the fact that they at least advocate the decreasing of the age of the mentally ill, permanently. What I mean by this, is that in the Mental Health game, people treat the mentally ill like Peter Pan - eternal children. Or is this not what is implied by the fact that they are not trusted with the most fundamental decision of all: whether to live or die?

I'm not saying, again, that people shouldn't be made to wait years before they are allowed access to Euthanasia. But here's the thing: that should apply to anyone. ANYONE could have the urge to kill themself, and anyone could ask for euthanasia. Enough pain, whether mental or physical will have anyone looking for an escape. What should be done in any case is simply barring the use of Euthanasia until a time period has passed (maybe shorter with severe pain, longer with depression due to the need to assess one's life more thoroughly). Outright rejecting euthanasia for the mentally ill, as some people suggest (but thankfully Dignitas does not enforce) is humiliating to those involved and completely trivialises the very real pain (in some cases greater than physical pain) that those who are mentally ill suffer.

 People have a really hard time mentally parsing how much pain is actually involved, I think. When I tell people, for example, that I don't remember having a good day since I was around 7 years old, I don't remember having an OK day (that wasn't due to hypomania) since I was 11 years old, people either laugh or simply say 'Really?'. Though I hang around with a lot of rather empathy-lacking people, the fact that they draw a mental block when imagining this is something which I expect contributes to a lot of the slurs against the mentally ill (AND YES EQUATING THEM TO CHILDREN MENTALLY IS AN INSULT), since people who are normal ("Neurotypical") don't suffer enough generally to understand what it is like to feel bad every single day. They know what maybe breaking a leg is like, and can imagine pain for a significant period of time (even then I doubt most Relief Deniers who are against Euthanasia can envisage even this), but cannot imagine something like sadness for any period of time, simply because they haven't ever been to the point of wanting to commit suicide from it (I THINK, again).

If I feel like it, I might go into WHY exactly people who state that the second kind of suicidal thought does not exist, or why people in general do not think suicide is an act that can be carried out rationally in my next post or in a later post. Don't count on my depressed broken brain, though. Remember, I have the responsibility level of a child.

Tuesday, 14 February 2012

Chiselling away at Anhedonia...with a spoon

Most of my time I spend either working towards some rudimentary goals I have, which are really just there for show, because I derive little to no pleasure from them, or spending my time actively thinking up new ways to break the anhedonia barrier. Here is a method I'm about to implement that is particularly noteworthy with regards to this community.

My first contact, I'm pretty sure, with a work infused with great suffering was the 1999 film, Girl Interrupted. I'm quite pleased that I did, simply because this momentous event happened at a time in my life when the blissful (semi-psychotic) days of childhood were waning, and I was becoming ever more depressed. I've had suicidal thoughts since I was around 8 or so, but they were always handy happy-ish thoughts, like 'hey you know what would be great? Death' or 'ha this world sucks so hard, I wish I would die'. They were part due to social rejection and the coming depression, and part due to my relative lack of social norms (I'm probably autistic, says psychiatrist #2. The fact that one completely ruled it out and another is almost entirely sure I have some kind of Asperger's worries me about how regulated a service Psychiatry is). But at around the time I started watching this film, they were becoming less 'you know what would be cool' and more 'do it now or you'll regret living later'* (I also found the idea of dying at 13 or so before I was even an adult pretty beautiful, too). And to an EXTREME degree, I felt this lingering feeling of understanding, though I definitely didn't take from the film what I 'should' have, which is that 'it gets better'**. This deep sense of connection to the fact that here were some real people (well, actors based on real people), suffering horribly, and suffering in a way I could relate to. They say that misery loves company.

My mind at the time however, being childish as it was, forgot all about that film. It didn't draw the connection 'I relate to people like me', and it wasn't until later, when I read Elizabeth Wurtzel's Prozac Nation, that I felt those same feelings of an almost spiritual closeness. For someone who has been chronically (low-level) depersonalised such as myself, feeling close to people is a mammoth task. I simply don't find most of the time that I can be close to anyone, since my sense of self is almost non-existent. The only thing that seems to really link me with others is the fact that I suffer. Even when someone has very similar interests to me, every single movement, posture and expression is a farce. I never show my true face or my true voice to people simple because my true voice is a low-pitch monotone and my true face is a blank canvas.

I still, however, did not make that connection between emotional closeness, emotional realness and reading the works of those who have at one stage or another felt suicidal, or have experienced the suffering of living with a mental illness. Just now, I think, after having had an entire post to think, I believe the connection is quite genuine. The only thing that's uncertain now is whether it will provide me some relief from this incessant anhedonic mood. So I'm going to read Sylvia Plath's The Bell Jar, and if that works out, I'll start into Girl, Interrupted (the book), or possibly À rebours (I didn't forget, Karl! Better late than never - I just hope that was what you recommended to me once upon a time).

In any case, depressing works are great fun - sort of. For me, but maybe not for you. I'm also trying (TRYING) to get through Mitchell Heisman's suicide note, though I don't know when I'll start to know if I should continue reading or not. I originally rejected reading it because my mind originally flagged it 'Pseudoscience - stay clear', but due to the recommendation of an anonymous commenter, I think it might be of some value, especially with regards to society's prejudice against death as opposed to life. It'd also be interesting to figure out why he took his own life too - I can't get rid of the morbid 'Why'd he do it?' feeling people generally get when they read about a suicide in a newspaper.

Don't be kidding yourself, don't have a kid.

*I don't regret living now, but I definitely would had I been an orphan. At that time my morality was paper-thin, really. It got better into adolescence.
**When people say it gets better they often forget to add "too late". I can fix my social ineptitude? Super! Anyone have a time machine handy so I can fix the years of torment and pain and missed opportunities? Not to mention the bullying. No? Well, at least I'm better. When it doesn't matter one fucking iota if I am or not.

Monday, 13 February 2012

Most depression isn't actually like this

What I mean by that is, just as you don't necessarily have to be depressed to be antinatalist, and a lot of us aren't, depression isn't a religious experience. You might see the depths of hell, maybe, but in all likelihood you aren't going to take anything from the experience. As most "it got better" stories go, and as seems to be the case on most depression forums I have visited, depressive realism is bollocks. I know the truth. I am depressed. No way can you say that's causation, not without proof, and in no way can you even say it's a correlation, due to the low sample size. But if you take the great big sample size of everyone who has ever been depressed, you begin to see that depressive realism as far as antinatalism is concerned is pretty much wrong.

When depressed people are depressed, sure some of them are pessimistic. It comes free with the territory. (THOUGH in fact, quite a lot and maybe more than those that are pessimistic, simply aren't, and cling to cultural norms all the more). But when people come out of depression, I hesitate to believe that everyone in that state continues to see the world in monochrome, even if as we here say, that's how it actually is. What I tend to see (again, forums), is people saying 'oh, the old me would have said this', or 'you can't think that way! I used to think that way but I changed'. People discard pessimism like used clothes. But then again, it could be a different kind of pessimism we're talking about here. I have said before that you don't turn back once you get bitten by the pessimism bug. I meant that more as in, Pessimism, not pessimism. Our philosophy as a whole. Though, then again, maybe I WAS wrong about that after all. I've seen people go on about how messed up the world is, only to close down their website, saying they've changed. What's changed? Them. Not the world, yet they now ignore the shit-filled bloodbath like everyone else here, as if their sudden change in mood ended world hunger. But that's okay, we'll get round to fixing that. Meanwhile we should be happy and enjoy our lives! While others suffer.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be happy - the opposite, really. But being happy while shoving all the world's problems under the carpet is morally reprehensible. Trying to help the world is all well and good if you know what the world is actually composed of - misery to the left, suffering to the right. But once you've taken off your Pessimism hat and you start thinking with your Rainbow-and-Sparkles hat, you are deluding yourself. And in the process you could be causing more harm than good, i.e. by producing children. What were you thinking of when you were depressed? "I would never bring a child into this horrible world". Now that you've changed however, that makes everything unicorn birthday cake and marshmallows. The world is no longer a big bad scary place, it's a nice place filled with people who can sometimes be naughty, but we love them anyway.

So to summarise: most depression doesn't result in spiritual awakening, unlike how I had previously associated my depression and my pessimism. Most people who are depressed and get better 'realise' that things aren't so bad after all, if they were prone to looking a things in a pessimistic manner. WHICH THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN PRONE TO ANYWAY SINCE A LOT (I don't know if most at this moment) PEOPLE WITH DEPRESSION BLAME THEMSELVES, NOT THE WORLD.
Antinatalism is not one big depression support group. Only a small proportion of the mentally ill become antinatalists. Only a small proportion of the general population become antinatalists.

What's bad?
  • Pessimism might be something people can convert away from.
  • Not many depression sufferers are going to become antinatalist if the current figures tell us anything.
What's good?
  • You don't need to be depressed to be an antinatalist
 More bad than good! Pessimism prevails once again!

Thursday, 9 February 2012

The Magical Marvelous Mirth-filled Prison

 This is a follow-up to The Accidental Rape

You trap a person in a room filled with oodles of of exciting adventures! And a lot of spikes and whirring saws and high voltage (unlabelled) generators, but as anybody who's trapped inside a cage knows, focussing on these things leads to naughty thoughts. Initially the person inside is quite frisky, let's say, and goes in kicking and screaming. How lively! you think. She'll make a fine daughter one day.

But after a few years of fun-filled frolicking and of becoming a much better person (she knows which foods contain razor blades! She wouldn't be able to do that if she had never been imprisoned, right?) your 'daughter', who you were quite sure had forgotten all about the existence of an outside world, starts banging on the walls. She pleads with you and begs of you, asking if you were so thoughtless as to put her in a death-trap (i.e. The Funnest Trap in All the Multiverse), then to make a start on scraping the sin from your body, you should at least let her out. You say, "We're all in a trap, my dear. Why your grandmother and grandfather trapped me when I was around your age, and I never regretted it for a second. Can't you just be a good little girl? Don't you understand that everyone's inside a cell within an enclosure within a pen, and what's more, everyone in the whole wide world knows that being trapped is a GOOD(TM) thing? This is just a phase, you'll be over it in no time! And then you can go make something of your life. It took me 20 years to get good at Thing-a-ma-bob, and now I'm the champion of rooping floops in the whole of my prison! Shouldn't you stay in there so you can get good at something too? So you can show everyone how deserving of your cage you are? Silly girl, go to bed. Here, I'll turn the lights off for you."

But that's a bit unrealistic. No one would ever really tell a parent that their miraculous or lack thereof creation of another human being was an outright evil, despite how screwed up the word is (sit up straight, learn, work, play, work, relax, work, retire, die - replace all of these except die with work if you're not in the Western world). And no one would top off that sledgehammer to the face with the bazooka blast: "So why won't you let me die?". That's overkill. While parents have so much power over their children during the early years, the situation is somewhat reversed when we reach into adulthood. "I hate you I want to die" from a child is just random temper tantrum gibberish, apparently. But when your child who is a child no longer tells you at least the second part of that, you're shaken to the very essence of your being. The truth hurts, and I doubt even an alternate universe suicidal Abraham Lincoln would have told his parents the truth.

But I was wondering if the whole act of getting things off our chests could help somewhat. Instead of, "Dad, I feel like killing myself" BANG goes the mental ward doors, maybe, "Life has never been easy for me, I have found happiness in very little indeed, and make neither lasting friends nor acquaintances. I am giving myself two years. If things don't improve, I'm taking my own life.". That's harsh and devastating for any parent, but so too, is a straight-up suicide. So what's worse? Unexplained suicide, or explained suicide (why they don't lock you in a mental hospital in the second case is simply because you can't be kept in one for that long a period of time - not that they won't try). To me, both are pretty horrible, so I'm really waiting it out at the moment for my parents to go first (and trying not to make any close friends, etc.). But as for any of us that simply can't wait for more than a few years or so, it'd be handy I think if they knew which option caused their loved ones the least pain.

My reasoning is simply based on all the nagging, cutting "What-if"s a person gets when a loved one commits suicide. "What if I had done X, what if Y had gone Z way". The Explained Suicide option seeks to eliminate all those concerns, again I say that it's harsh, but it's significantly less harsh in the long term. You are essentially allowing your loved ones some room to play about with things. Ask you bla bla, talk to you about the issue, and eventually let them be comforted by the fact that they were powerless to do anything other than what they did (?).

EXCEPT HEREIN LIES THE PROBLEM: They may actually find this powerlessness even more depressing than the undying guilt of an Unexplained Suicide. All that soul-destroying guilt and longing for the past will instead be replaced by major feelings of inadequacy and uselessness. Unless you explain things in just the right way, and console those people so they specifically DON'T think what they probably will think, Explained Suicide could be just as torturous as Unexplained Suicide. And sadly, I don't think any scientist in their right mind would conduct a study to find out which one on average causes more grief due to problems with sample size, recruiting and general ethical concerns.

Though if you really are set on things, my choice would probably be Explained Suicide. Dying with a 'Why were they born this way?' seems better to me than 'Why did they do it?', and I'd feel better about the whole process - I'd have a 2-year long real-time chat as a suicide note, instead of a scrap of paper found on my corpse. However, there would be a lot of pain involved in that method, and if the suffering of your loved ones remains the same, you are actually increasing the total amount of suffering - IF it remains the same, and I have no evidence to state that it does or doesn't. If you are planning on testing the Explained method, then please do tell me - I'm not justifying your suicide, I'm simply saying, let the world know what causes the least suffering, so that mankind can better itself.

As for the antinatalist tie-in as declared by this being a follow-up to my most successful post to date, I'd hope that anyone explaining wholeheartedly their case to their parents would, in line of being completely honest, put two and two together before their parents do of their own accord, and state that their parents were wrong. If you don't do this, it's possible that they'll be plagued with "Was I right to bring a child into this world?" thoughts, and as with Unexplained Suicide, will never get an honest answer that will set their minds at ease - even though the honest answer, despite being the only answer that can stop questions arising anew, is the most hurtful answer you could possibly give.

As with most of the things I write, I don't know how to end this. So keep on trucking, folks, honk honk.

Wednesday, 8 February 2012

Misery, X and Melodrama

I have referrer spam. Which is weird, because not a lot of people read this blog anyway.

Looking at my stats, I've seen that there are a couple of people (like 10 or so) finding my blog upon looking for misanthropy - and it's only just hit me that I've never really elaborated on that side of me. I've never really expressed my extreme distaste for anyone but a few people (probably for good reason - would YOU like anyone so damn picky?). Well, maybe that's the wrong thing to say, as in, not completely truthful. I don't hate everyone. It's that I hate a lot of people, and the people I do like, I either worship or simply tolerate. Why the misanthropy? It's simply just an outcome of continual social rejection - not that that's really anyone's fault, especially not at such a young age. But to satisfy the needs of those few who want me to be out and open about misanthropy, to express to you that yes, there is someone like you; I'd say that while intellectually I hold that my misanthropy is just a byproduct - toxic waste if you will - of not fitting in and being an outsider, emotionally I generally feel that my personality is not the problem, OTHER PEOPLE are the problem. Other people, the estnihil homunculus says, are unbelievably boring. Shockingly god damn boring. They talk about the weather, and about sports (you can play sport; how the fuck can you talk about it - "this guy he like moved his leg this way then he kicked powerfully and the ball went towards the keeper and he missed but another guy..."), and most of all, they gossip. They gossip constantly. Guys pretend they don't do it publicly, but they do. Everyone does, but a select group of social retards/autists. And there are never enough of these outsiders (interesting people) to form a cohesive group that isn't so damn boring, that bitches so damn much, uncaring as to who is hurt.

The emotional lump of my brain isn't finished yet. Not only are other people boring, they are also not very nice at all. The few that don't judge have been judged so much in their lifetime that they realise how sickening and evil it is. Evolutionarily speaking, it's a good way to rise to a higher social status, and fuck like chimpanzees and make good DNA yadda yadda, but when you actually feel the stares boring into your skin when you do or say something not socially allowed, you feel as if you're being slowly boiled alive for the amusement of everyone around you. Here is the set mould for you. Don't like it? Tough, stay away from everyone, or even better, become a dancing monkey for us. Haha look at that weird guy, he'll do anything. Anything for a bit of recognition as a human being.

Finally, to top off my list of (emotional) reasons why I am misanthropic, people do not like to learn. They aren't stupid, they just have an aversion to everything to do with learning. Guitar, fashion, sports history, how to apply make-up. These are socially acceptable things for you to learn. Everything else can be flushed down the proverbial toilet. If someone enjoys using their brain, isolate them. They are diseased! No one may learn what is not socially acceptable, no one may talk about what is not socially acceptable, no one may do what is not socially acceptable. The vast majority of humans believe they are somehow above animals. Yet the vast majority also behave entirely like animals. Reason for misanthropy #4: most people are hypocrites.

(But again, I probably would come to like people if I happened to fit into the social mould. I don't, hence why I am misanthropic. It's not anyone's fault. No one is to blame. But for those of you looking for something to ease the pain of feeling "I'm the only one!", here's a post just for you. Don't comment saying, "People aren't like that!", because I know I'm probably wrong about most of what I've said here, since my emotional brain hasn't yet caught up to my logical brain. Again, this should serve as a token of support for all those struggling with some degree of misanthropy.)

Tuesday, 7 February 2012

Antinatalism is not yet illegal

Antinatalists are pure evil. Whereas abortionists kill beautiful babies just when they have been given this glorious gift of life, antinatalists kill thousands of babies every year before they have even been formed in the womb, and sometimes even before they have been formed in the brains of their parents. No more! All antinatalists on this sublime and amazing planet must be put to death! (I'm thinking a cocktail of barbituates, loved ones' memories erased, and a Good Job! You figured out how reality works! sticker on our foreheads).

Espousing antinatalism hasn't really become a crime yet. Mainly because it is, as Jim says, a pretty damn big taboo. Such a taboo in fact, that few people even know it's possible to think of. Talking about antinatalism is the same as talking about buttered hippos flying into onion rings. It IS intelligible, but most people think it's just plain silly. But if things were different, and we had a sizeable chunk of the population not replacing themselves every year, then, at least in some of the less modernised sections of the world, there is something of a chance that it could become a de facto crime, like having too many children in China. You probably wouldn't go to jail for it, but you may get punished some way or another for it. Think of all that social stigma back in the day against 'barren' women (note how back in those times men generally weren't thought of as having the potential to be infertile, as far as I know). Quite a lot of people just don't think you can be a complete, living breathing person without having spun the roulette wheel of misfortune and gambled on someone else's life.

While antinatalism doesn't really seem to be growing substantially as far as I can see (well, I can't really tell to be honest), being childfree definitely seems to be. Google has failed me once again: I can't find any articles on subsidies for producing more harm, I mean children, but I THINK I have read somewhere about that some countries with falling birth rates and hence populations (Japan I think, definitely) are starting to incentivise evil, I mean breeding. And while that may not seem so bad, where is that money coming from, do you think? Governing people is a zero-sum game. If you incentivise one thing, you're taking something away from someone else - sort of. So there is something of a de facto punishment occurring to the childfree (besides flexible workdays not being offered and such).

Will we actually see anything happening on this front in our lifetime? Things HAVE changed a lot, philosophically and technologically over the past century or so, so it's not too much to think that maybe our world is heading, once again, towards the morally permissible option. Except the real problem with antinatalism is that those who are harmed by not following its ideals aren't the most vocal - in fact, unlike those victims of racism or heteronormativity, most victims of natalism will actually defend the same flawed ideology that got them there in the first place. So I don't really know if I should be stocking up on popcorn in the coming years.

Another rambling post. This is again, a result of that slight high I've been having. Things will start getting a bit more coherent again by the time it's over, and trust me, it will be over soon.