The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

[Hobbes' Choice]

Glad I won't be around to see the day where bodies are stacked in tubes, playing out their lives. It's quite an obscene scenario.

It's obscene to you because you are adapted to the environment of your childhood. Change by definition does not suit older generations.

People will do all of these "obscene" things in the future because they want to.

This seems an excessively naive statement to make. Do you think that the change from free moving hunting and gathering to the slavery of agriculture was because the slaves voluntarily signed away their freedoms?
Do you think, when the Scots were thrown off their ancestral lands during the "Clearances" that they chose to end their livestyles?

[Dalek Prime]

Whoopsy. Dub post.

[Dalek Prime]

Glad I won't be around to see the day where bodies are stacked in tubes, playing out their lives. It's quite an obscene scenario.

It's obscene to you because you are adapted to the environment of your childhood. Change by definition does not suit older generations.

People will do all of these "obscene" things in the future because they want to. You often point out the problematic nature of life so surely it's preferable to explore a much kinder and gentler immersive and connected VR environment than to struggle around an increasingly overcrowded, polluted and sterile real world?*

Yet, this is just an extension on what we're already doing. Why are we communicating remotely while staring at a screen at this moment rather than "getting out there and embracing real life"? Perhaps because the real life options are currently less attractive to us than chinwagging online. Many trends point to those real life options will continue to be less attractive as home communication and entertainment systems become ever more versatile, useful and powerful.


* The analogy with The Matrix's red pill/blue pill scenario is too strong for me to resist, but it only deserves the footnote

I was thinking of The Matrix when I wrote that.

Anyways, why resort to this, instead of conscientiously trying to control our breeding habits so we don't resort to extremes? What's the difference between unreality, and drug use as escapism? Between having to care for bodies in tubes, and bodies in opium dens? The argument you gave me in the first paragraph is the argument I give for why people don't comprehend antinatalism; that they have been conditioned to existence by their very existence, and can't fathom the alternative. So, which is better? Stacking bodies to care for, or not creating the problem at all?

This reminds me of a scene in Neil Gaiman's The Sandman, where Morpheus's misplaced dream dust is found and misused by a young woman, who has dreamt her life away, and is given one last sweet dream before she is gently put down. Quite a poignant scene.

[Greta]

Glad I won't be around to see the day where bodies are stacked in tubes, playing out their lives. It's quite an obscene scenario.

It's obscene to you because you are adapted to the environment of your childhood. Change by definition does not suit older generations.

People will do all of these "obscene" things in the future because they want to.

This seems an excessively naive statement to make. Do you think that the change from free moving hunting and gathering to the slavery of agriculture was because the slaves voluntarily signed away their freedoms?
Do you think, when the Scots were thrown off their ancestral lands during the "Clearances" that they chose to end their livestyles?

I'm not referring to invasions. I'm talking about long term behavioural changes. People in varying degrees are prepared to sacrifice freedoms for the safety and security of the herd. It would seem that societies with highly obedient and ordered citizenry are amongst the most powerful in the world.

I'm just speaking as an observer, not an advocate of anything aside from a vague romantic favouring of underdogs.

[Greta]

People will do all of these "obscene" things in the future because they want to. You often point out the problematic nature of life so surely it's preferable to explore a much kinder and gentler immersive and connected VR environment than to struggle around an increasingly overcrowded, polluted and sterile real world?*

Yet, this is just an extension on what we're already doing. Why are we communicating remotely while staring at a screen at this moment rather than "getting out there and embracing real life"? Perhaps because the real life options are currently less attractive to us than chinwagging online. Many trends point to those real life options will continue to be less attractive as home communication and entertainment systems become ever more versatile, useful and powerful.

... why resort to this, instead of conscientiously trying to control our breeding habits so we don't resort to extremes? What's the difference between unreality, and drug use as escapism? Between having to care for bodies in tubes, and bodies in opium dens? The argument you gave me in the first paragraph is the argument I give for why people don't comprehend antinatalism; that they have been conditioned to existence by their very existence, and can't fathom the alternative. So, which is better? Stacking bodies to care for, or not creating the problem at all?

This reminds me of a scene in Neil Gaiman's The Sandman, where Morpheus's misplaced dream dust is found and misused by a young woman, who has dreamt her life away, and is given one last sweet dream before she is gently put down. Quite a poignant scene.

Humanity seems likely to be subject to natural population controls in the near future. The tragedy of the commons ensures that there would always come a time when humans would breed and consume to the point of unsustainability. The reckoning appears to be approaching.

As to whether existence is better than non-existence, I think it depends on the existence. Gallingly, for many in the west it's in our power to significantly influence the quality of our existence, as per Dan Gilbert's well-known TED talk on happiness. All it takes is re-framing and expectation management, which is a whole lot easier said than done. All in all, I prefer my flawed existence to non-existence.

[Hobbes' Choice]

It's obscene to you because you are adapted to the environment of your childhood. Change by definition does not suit older generations.

People will do all of these "obscene" things in the future because they want to.

This seems an excessively naive statement to make. Do you think that the change from free moving hunting and gathering to the slavery of agriculture was because the slaves voluntarily signed away their freedoms?
Do you think, when the Scots were thrown off their ancestral lands during the "Clearances" that they chose to end their livestyles?

I'm not referring to invasions. I'm talking about long term behavioural changes. People in varying degrees are prepared to sacrifice freedoms for the safety and security of the herd. It would seem that societies with highly obedient and ordered citizenry are amongst the most powerful in the world.

I'm just speaking as an observer, not an advocate of anything aside from a vague romantic favouring of underdogs.

I did NOT mention invasions!! Are you sure you want to argue this point?

I told you about changes in subsistence that were gained through people being forced to comply without volunteering. The next generation are born into that slavery and never had the chance to make a choice.

[Dalek Prime]

People will do all of these "obscene" things in the future because they want to. You often point out the problematic nature of life so surely it's preferable to explore a much kinder and gentler immersive and connected VR environment than to struggle around an increasingly overcrowded, polluted and sterile real world?*

Yet, this is just an extension on what we're already doing. Why are we communicating remotely while staring at a screen at this moment rather than "getting out there and embracing real life"? Perhaps because the real life options are currently less attractive to us than chinwagging online. Many trends point to those real life options will continue to be less attractive as home communication and entertainment systems become ever more versatile, useful and powerful.

... why resort to this, instead of conscientiously trying to control our breeding habits so we don't resort to extremes? What's the difference between unreality, and drug use as escapism? Between having to care for bodies in tubes, and bodies in opium dens? The argument you gave me in the first paragraph is the argument I give for why people don't comprehend antinatalism; that they have been conditioned to existence by their very existence, and can't fathom the alternative. So, which is better? Stacking bodies to care for, or not creating the problem at all?

This reminds me of a scene in Neil Gaiman's The Sandman, where Morpheus's misplaced dream dust is found and misused by a young woman, who has dreamt her life away, and is given one last sweet dream before she is gently put down. Quite a poignant scene.

Humanity seems likely to be subject to natural population controls in the near future. The tragedy of the commons ensures that there would always come a time when humans would breed and consume to the point of unsustainability. The reckoning appears to be approaching.

As to whether existence is better than non-existence, I think it depends on the existence. Gallingly, for many in the west it's in our power to significantly influence the quality of our existence, as per Dan Gilbert's well-known TED talk on happiness. All it takes is re-framing and expectation management, which is a whole lot easier said than done. All in all, I prefer my flawed existence to non-existence.

You only prefer existence because of your extant state, and haven't imagined nonexistence from a point of view where you'd not miss the opposite. Once you know of existing, its difficult to imagine otherwise, and I get that.

[Greta]

I told you about changes in subsistence that were gained through people being forced to comply without volunteering. The next generation are born into that slavery and never had the chance to make a choice.

That's a matter of perspective. One person's slavery is another's security. It's a reason why some people move to the country.

I don't think people of the future will be so keen on freedom in the same way as kids today are less interested in playing ball games on roads than my generation. There aren't enough breaks in traffic. People will increasingly stay at home, and want to do so, but to our generation they would appear like victims of Stockholm syndrome.

[Greta]

You only prefer existence because of your extant state, and haven't imagined nonexistence from a point of view where you'd not miss the opposite. Once you know of existing, its difficult to imagine otherwise, and I get that.

If I didn't exist then I wouldn't have a preference, so we'll call that a neutral. Since I do exist and have been lucky enough to not regret it, that's a positive. Positive trumps neutral.

Don't we all know plenty about non-existence? I more of less didn't exist before about 6 months of age. My first memory was sitting in a pram, scribbling big circles on the wall next to the front door. Before that (and a fair bit afterwards) - nothing. In the womb? Oblivion. Before the womb? Oblivion. Maybe.

[Dalek Prime]

You only prefer existence because of your extant state, and haven't imagined nonexistence from a point of view where you'd not miss the opposite. Once you know of existing, its difficult to imagine otherwise, and I get that.

If I didn't exist then I wouldn't have a preference, so we'll call that a neutral. Since I do exist and have been lucky enough to not regret it, that's a positive. Positive trumps neutral.

Don't we all know plenty about non-existence? I more of less didn't exist before about 6 months of age. My first memory was sitting in a pram, scribbling big circles on the wall next to the front door. Before that (and a fair bit afterwards) - nothing. In the womb? Oblivion. Before the womb? Oblivion. Maybe.

Actually, it doesn't quite come out that way at all. Look up David Benatar's asymmetry. And no, I don't think people do understand nonexistence, otherwise they wouldn't confuse it as a bad thing compared to existence. But I do see that you are at least thinking about it more than most, so I definitely give kudos.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I told you about changes in subsistence that were gained through people being forced to comply without volunteering. The next generation are born into that slavery and never had the chance to make a choice.

That's a matter of perspective. One person's slavery is another's security. It's a reason why some people move to the country..

You have the illusion of choice. The vast majority of change of this sort never included it, and still does not.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Nothingness is impossible for ever because nothing is nothing.
It has no voice, and cannot express possibility in any sense.
That really wraps it up for the whole thread

[Greta]

You only prefer existence because of your extant state, and haven't imagined nonexistence from a point of view where you'd not miss the opposite. Once you know of existing, its difficult to imagine otherwise, and I get that.

If I didn't exist then I wouldn't have a preference, so we'll call that a neutral. Since I do exist and have been lucky enough to not regret it, that's a positive. Positive trumps neutral.

Don't we all know plenty about non-existence? I more of less didn't exist before about 6 months of age. My first memory was sitting in a pram, scribbling big circles on the wall next to the front door. Before that (and a fair bit afterwards) - nothing. In the womb? Oblivion. Before the womb? Oblivion. Maybe.

Actually, it doesn't quite come out that way at all. Look up David Benatar's asymmetry. And no, I don't think people do understand nonexistence, otherwise they wouldn't confuse it as a bad thing compared to existence. But I do see that you are at least thinking about it more than most, so I definitely give kudos.

Thanks for the ref. Just checked out this: https://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/ ... asymmetry/

3)The absence of pain is good even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone,
whereas
4)The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom that absence is a deprivation.

The objection is that in 3, something is declared good independently of being enjoyed by anyone, while in 4, something is declared not bad on the basis that no one is being harmed by it.

Can't deny the logic. Biology's negativity bias has a similar asymmetry to Benatar's. No matter how positive a potential resource or mate, it doesn't compare with the threat of death. So we tend to focus more on threats than opportunities. Defensive positioning.

Still, there is still much muddiness in the situation. Why do people who come close to death routinely tend to speak about how they'd previously taken their lives for granted and wax lyrical about how good life is? If reality is ultimately slanted negatively, you'd expect those who are close to death to get a glimpse of that, as opposed to an overpowering sense of love and bliss.

[Greta]

I told you about changes in subsistence that were gained through people being forced to comply without volunteering. The next generation are born into that slavery and never had the chance to make a choice.

That's a matter of perspective. One person's slavery is another's security. It's a reason why some people move to the country..

You have the illusion of choice. The vast majority of change of this sort never included it, and still does not.

Exactly right. Ants could theoretically escape the "tyranny" of the nest but their fate would be similar to humans who live wild - short lifespan.

It seems to me that the human journey is echoing that of the mitochondria - once-free organisms leading a nondescript microbial existence that, as captives, have come to rule the world.

[Dalek Prime]

Can't deny the logic. Biology's negativity bias has a similar asymmetry to Benatar's. No matter how positive a potential resource or mate, it doesn't compare with the threat of death. So we tend to focus more on threats than opportunities. Defensive positioning.

Still, there is still much muddiness in the situation. Why do people who come close to death routinely tend to speak about how they'd previously taken their lives for granted and wax lyrical about how good life is? If reality is ultimately slanted negatively, you'd expect those who are close to death to get a glimpse of that, as opposed to an overpowering sense of love and bliss.

Not really. Again, we are conditioned by our very existence to fear that which isn't existence, or doesn't lead to its continuation. Fear always trumps reason in the end. Though, if we are prepared without fear, or in pain, it's a welcome relief.

Francois is an online friend. I comment on his blog often, under another name, and sometimes share an email or two. Good fellow. He's writing a book on the subject at the moment. As you can agine, the antinatalist community is smallish.

And thank you again for having an open mind, that you'd actually take the time, look, and consider the subject, instead of just dismissing it as counterintuitive to existence. It's refreshing. All I ever ask of anyone is to recognize the reasoning behind it, even if they can't get past the strangness of arguing for nonexistence.