Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence

[Dent]

Or natalism vs antinatalism and various types of utilitarianism


Does phenomenal pain matter in a simulation?

Book Description (Amazon)
Most people believe that they were either benefited or at least not harmed by being brought into existence. Thus, if they ever do reflect on whether they should bring others into existence—-rather than having children without even thinking about whether they should—-they presume that they do them no harm. Better Never to Have Been challenges these assumptions. David Benatar argues that coming into existence is always a serious harm. Although the good things in one's life make one's life go better than it otherwise would have gone, one could not have been deprived by their absence if one had not existed. Those who never exist cannot be deprived. However, by coming into existence one does suffer quite serious harms that could not have befallen one had one not come into existence. Drawing on the relevant psychological literature, the author shows that there are a number of well-documented features of human psychology that explain why people systematically overestimate the quality of their lives and why they are thus resistant to the suggestion that they were seriously harmed by being brought into existence. The author then argues for the 'anti-natal' view—-that it is always wrong to have children—-and he shows that combining the anti-natal view with common pro-choice views about foetal moral status yield a 'pro-death' view about abortion (at the earlier stages of gestation). Anti-natalism also implies that it would be better if humanity became extinct. Although counter-intuitive for many, that implication is defended, not least by showing that it solves many conundrums of moral theory about population.


Quotes :
“A charmed life is so rare that for every one such life there are millions of wretched lives. Some know that their baby will be among the unfortunate. Nobody knows, however, that their baby will be one of the allegedly lucky few. Great suffering could await any person that is brought into existence. Even the most privileged people could give birth to a child that will suffer unbearably, be raped, assaulted, or be murdered brutally. The optimist surely bears the burden of justifying this procreational Russian roulette. Given that there are no real advantages over never existing for those who are brought into existence, it is hard to see how the significant risk of serious harm could be justified. If we count not only the unusually severe harms that anybody could endure, but also the quite routine ones of ordinary human life, then we find that matters are still worse for cheery procreators. It shows that they play Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun—aimed, of course, not at their own heads, but at those of their future offspring.”


“Creating new people, by having babies, is so much a part of human life that it is rarely thought even to require a justification. Indeed, most people do not even think about whether they should or should not make a baby. They just make one. In other words, procreation is usually the consequence of sex rather than the result of a decision to bring people into existence. Those who do indeed decide to have a child might do so for any number of reasons, but among these reasons cannot be the interests of the potential child. One can never have a child for that child’s sake.”

“One particularly poor argument in defence of eating meat is that if humans did not eat animals, those animals would not have been brought into existence in the first place. Humans would simply not have bred them in the numbers they do breed them. The claim is that although these animals are killed, this cost to them is outweighed by the benefit to them of having been brought into existence. This is an appalling argument for many reasons. First, the lives of many of these animals are so bad that even if one rejected my argument one would still have to think that they were harmed by being brought into existence. Secondly, those who advance this argument fail to see that it could apply as readily to human babies that are produced only to be eaten. Here we see quite clearly that being brought into existence only to be killed for food is no benefit. It is only because killing animals is thought to be acceptable that the argument is thought to have any force.”

On immigration
“Moreover, it is curious how democracy favours breeding over immigration. Offspring have a presumed right to citizenship, while potential immigrants do not. Imagine a polarized state consisting of two opposing ethnic groups. One increases its size by breeding and the other by immigration. Depending on who holds power, the group that grows by immigration will either be prevented from growing or it will be accused of colonialism. But why should democracy favour one indigenous group over another merely because one breeds rather than increases by immigration? Why should breeding be unlimited but immigration curtailed where political outcomes are equally sensitive to both ways of enhancing population? Some may seek to answer this question by arguing that a right to procreative freedom is more important than a right to immigrate. That may indeed be an accurate description of the way the law actually works, but we can question whether that is the way it should be. Should somebody’s freedom to create a person be more inviolable than somebody else’s freedom to have a friend or family member immigrate?”

[Ugly Bastard]

Dent you miserable bastard.

[SittinOnDubsWGW]

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

Dent you miserable bastard.

Exactly. I got about 3 sentences in and immediately was thinking, "fuck, I'm not even going to read this."

[Saint DH]

Read the last paragraph and it almost made me sick.

Author confirmed for leftist shill.

Opinion discarded.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

A lot of people shouldn't have children.

[Orgazmo]

Name them.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

Everyone below the current 3rd tax bracket for starters.

[Dent]

Nubblies.net is now hosting a copy of the book!

Benatar doesn't want his face shown, you can read all about the mystery here.
David Benatar mystery
camera guy fucks up and pans right too much.
Is it possible that Orgazmo is David Benatar as well as Rodney Atkins?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMjtk3jeRUU 8:53


should have worn a burkha with such a sloppy camera man

[Orgazmo]

Guilty as charged.

[Mr. Blonde]

Dent have you seen this? Church of Euthanasia

[Dent]

No but i'll watch it, I don't know if it will have anything to do with the Benatar's view though.

Ok I read a little bit of that site and it's retarded.

[Mr. Blonde]

agreed, but it is funny.

[Dent]

Lost my post.. motherfucker, i'm just posting links.
The philosophy section of reddit are discussing the book this week. (I stumbled upon it by accident, honestly guyz)
[Weekly Discussion] Benatar's Argument for Anti-Natalism : philosophy

Child: Exists Pain (-), Exists Pleasure (+)
No Child: No Pain (+), No Pleasure (0)
There is also
Child: Exists Pain (-), No Pleasure (0)

Pearce reviewed the book and finds its weak point.

Originally Posted by Review: Better Never to have been

Benatar's policy prescription is untenable. Anti-natalism will fail because any predisposition to share that bias - or rather, to share the veridical perception of Darwinian life's harmfulness - will be weeded out of the population. Anti-natalist ethics is self-defeating: there will always be selection pressure against its practitioners.Review: Better Never To Have Been: the harm of coming into existence by David Benatar

If the HI comes to pass there will only be
Child: No Pain (+), Exists Pleasure (+)

But is it moral to have children in the meantime, if you take the best current measures to avoid the child suffering? what if xyz happens that we can't currently predict or control?
This is about the best anyone could do, it's not very good.
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis
the upcoming CRISPR
a roof and stocked fridge etc.
I guess you could wirehead your child, but again what if xyz.

Voluntary human extinction is a terrible selfish idea if you consider suffering in the universe as something we have a moral obligation to, It may take 5 million years or more until marsupials get to take a shot at the problem.Convergent evolution

[Dent]

[Dent]

thread purpose changed to most miserable title in the world contest.

Entry #2

"Sometimes I get lucky and forget" Depression, memory and negative bias

[Dent]

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/pe...being-born/amp

[Dent]

David Benatar was the latest person on the Sam Harris podcast, being a Nubblite gives you the freshest philosophy three years before it goes mainstream!
I think he did a shit job here... sounds like a baby throwing a tantrum and doesn't mention selection pressure.
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/it...y-worth-living

Neways, every cradle is a grave!

Mistro - Every Cradle (Mirror) - YouTube

Mistro - Every Cradle (Mirror) - YouTube

[Dent]

Even though the next few generations are better never to have been, it's better to have a child who can improve the state of things instead of not breeding and letting the lions have their way.

I predict that in the next thousand years The Chosen One will be born who doesn't experience any pain from birth to death.

[Dent]

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

Dent you miserable bastard.

I wish this was UB's last post here but it wasn't. Hope it contributed to him fucking off.

Lots of smarties think that negative utilitarianism is the most dangerous idea out there.

[Dent]

Quotes :
“A charmed life is so rare that for every one such life there are millions of wretched lives. Some know that their baby will be among the unfortunate. Nobody knows, however, that their baby will be one of the allegedly lucky few. Great suffering could await any person that is brought into existence. Even the most privileged people could give birth to a child that will suffer unbearably, be raped, assaulted, or be murdered brutally. The optimist surely bears the burden of justifying this procreational Russian roulette. Given that there are no real advantages over never existing for those who are brought into existence, it is hard to see how the significant risk of serious harm could be justified. If we count not only the unusually severe harms that anybody could endure, but also the quite routine ones of ordinary human life, then we find that matters are still worse for cheery procreators. It shows that they play Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun—aimed, of course, not at their own heads, but at those of their future offspring.”


Chances are your kids are going to get gangraped by a gang of illegals lol doesn't matter how rich you are or how well you prepare.

[Dent]

I have learned nothing in the last decade, is this typical?

[Orgazmo]

I hope so.

[Saint DH]

Originally Posted by Dent

I have learned nothing in the last decade, is this typical?

Everything I have learned, I have forgotten. The internet has made it unnecessary to learn or know anything. And now we have shit like chatgpt which makes even less necessary to remember any knowledge. I’m not sure this is a good thing for society but it is what it is.