>repugnant conclusion

I dont think this is as big an issue as some people exaggerated, I mean once you have a good benchmark of what is decent living, you will not lower it dramatically just to accommodate more people, that's ridiculous, people just dont live like this. Humans prefer quality way more over quantity, this is why the birthrate is dropping despite increasing quality of life.

Its a bizarre philosophical thought experiment that assumes people will behave like calculative AI. lol

I agree, Antinatalism, Pro mortalism and Negative utilitarianism have become dogmatic beliefs more than rational arguments.

Their underlying premises dont inform their conclusions about existence.

"Life has some suck in it so we must end all life" is not a convincing argument for most people, lol.

Life having some suck simply doesnt lead to we must end all life, not without some really dogmatic glue to stick them both together.

Well, virtue ethics and deontology are kinda arbitrary so not that great at refuting or supporting such a claim either way.

But I do agree the consequentialist and even positive utilitarian would have much better counter arguments based on the quantity and quality of current existence.

That's the thing, they dont care about the numbers, they will say its not worth it and annihilation is the only moral thing to do, because as long as we cant 100% totally prevent suffering for all living things, then life is not justified.

They dont care about asymmetry, its the perpetual existence of suffering that they focus on, unless we could give them a guarantee that suffering will be eradicated for all living things in the next 10 years or something. lol

1% or 99% makes no difference to them because they want 0% suffering, if they cant get zero, then they will continue to advocate for total annihilation.

Is this philosophy convincing enough for most people's moral intuition and valuation of existence?

The philosophy of TOTAL ANIHILATION to avoid suffering.

According to some variant of Pro-Mortalism, the amount of suffering in this world (statistically and experientially), currently and into the future, is just too much to make existence worth the trouble, so we should totally empathize with these victims of eternal trolley problem and DESTROY all living things to help them not suffer ever again. lol

We should also develop non sentient space machines that would continue to sterilize all life in this universe that could suffer.

Because to avoid suffering, no matter how big or small, is the ONLY thing that matters in this universe.

Is our current (and future) level of suffering so bad that nothing in this reality is worth living for?

If you say there is something worth it, what would that be? What about the victims that didnt ask to be born into their fate? Is consent of the victim to be so critical that we must not birth them in order to avoid this risk?

What say you my fellow Existentialism connoisseurs about this sort of philosophy? lol

Exactly, how can we ever know that we have known everything there is to know about reality?

As long as new things are discovered, it will never be complete.

He assumes that we will reach a point when nothing new will ever be discovered for the rest of time, that's a very big claim. lol

You should study AI brain chip instead, because its the holy grail of making people near omniscience.

We should all be skeptics unless we are omniscience gods, lol.

Nobody can ever know everything there is to know about anything, its just not possible, this means everything people produce will be incomplete (even scientific facts), which is why we should never be absolutist about anything, even for the simplest basic facts.

We know enough to survive and do stuff, that's it, reality is far too vast and complex to be understood in its entirety.

Eh, conscious existence is whatever you want it to be, happiness can mean A LOT of things, its never gonna be the same for everyone, a meaningful life is to first avoid the extreme suffering if you can, because that ruins whatever meaning you want to pursue, then if you luck out, just pursue whatever makes you wanna stay till the end.

Simple aint it?

Not when people complicate it with some insane goal of a perfect life, lol.

You can struggle, you can suffer, but the journey must be worth your stay, the reason will be personal and up to you.

Lol Schopenhauer not serious?

Do you even philosophy friend?

They belong under the umbrella of existentialism, friend.

Suffering VS pleasure

lol, there will always be something to fix, godhood is impossible.

hmmm, I think people are more concerned with actual physical and mental suffering than obsessing over the meaning of life.

This is why we have antinatalism vs pro natalism and absurdism vs pro mortalism.

Most people dont really care about the meaning of life, they just want the positive experience while they are here, as little suffering as possible before they become fertilizer. lol

It means somebody will get crushed, horribly, slowly, painfully and then they die, no reward at the end of the struggle, except the release of death.

Not sure how else to explain it, lol.

As long as people exist, it will happen, so unless they dont exist, then it cant be solved.

So the question is about the morality of letting it happen because we are willing to sacrifice some people in exchange for the good lives of others.

>I’m not convinced that is true.

Would most people trade their lives with these miserable lives? I'm talking about the worst prolonged suffering possible and most ended in agony, most are children, they dont get any "happy ending" for their terrible fate, its terribleness from birth till death, this is statistically undeniable and unpreventable for some.

Would you trade your life with them? If its that valuable?

>it’s possible we were all given a choice,

Eh, what? No offense, but absurd claim requires extraordinary proof.

How can procreation be moral when existence is a huge trolley problem that nobody can agree to before birth?

I mean, its the trolley problem, somebody will suffer from terrible lives due to pure bad luck, its unpreventable, as long as people procreate, some will draw the shortest sticks. lol

So knowing that some will always live terrible lives, how is it moral to keep creating people and risk this?

Does this mean its always morally ok to let the trolley crush unlucky people in exchange for the "decent" lives of others? Is this imposed sacrifice morally coherent with our intuition?

They are philosophical animal. lol

Its not objectively wrong, its only subjectively wrong due to moral consensus of the day.

Just like when people used to own slaves, have human ritual sacrifice, burn witches, not letting women vote, etc.

Just like when atheism is considered wrong by the majority a few hundred years ago.

Just like when Galileo were imprisoned for his teaching about the solar system.

A lot of terrible things used to be subjectively right due to consensus, a lot of good things used to be subjectively wrong due to consensus as well, they gradually change over time.

Thus blowing up earth as a philosophy is only wrong due to subjective consensus, it could become right one day to many people, depends on the amount of suffering that will either increase or decrease in the future.

If morality is subjective, that means world ending philosophy like Antinatalism, Pro mortalism and Benevolent world exploder argument are all valid and it wouldnt be "wrong" for people to pursue the end of all life on earth or beyond.

The only difference between them and other people is the amount of subscribers? lol

So if one day in the future, a small group of them are determined enough to fund and develop a technological doomsday device to sterilize or blow up earth into pieces, they would not be morally "wrong", right?

As said, biology is evolution and evolution is never perfect, its trials and errors, adaptation to survive.

But once it has found a formula that works, it will become universal and spread among the species, becoming its objective foundation, survival of the best biology.

The link is trials and errors with side effects, biological evolution is not a factory made precision machine, lol.

But its still totally mind independent, meaning its objective.

Rape is not fulfilling the need to reproduce, its an unintended side effect of hormones.

Biology is objective, but evolution is not perfect, that doesnt disprove the objectivity of biology and the morality developed based on it.

I think we need to either redefine what equality means or replace the word altogether, because the modern meaning is more confusing than quantum mechanics.

I prefer the phrase "To each their own".

Different people need different things to live a good life, equality is meaningless if you give everyone the same thing but still cant fulfill people's specific needs, it would be a huge waste and inefficient.

Equality has become a buzzword that lazy activists use to demand for vague utopian goals that are detached from reality and they dont wanna do the actual hard work of finding out what specific people actually need.

HAHAHAHHAHA, you are serious? yikes.

The point is so kids dont grow up confused and following in his footstep.

So Hitler was an ok guy?

If I follow this line of thought.