It is better to have never been

Thank you, Con. I am going to summarise each of the contentions. P1: The Context – A brief history Con has conceded every point I originally made here about: - The Big Bang - 13 Billion year old universe - Evolution and reproduction - Evolution and the nervous system This means that there is no intrinsic value to life, due to The Big Bang being the explanation Con conceded – there is nothing that divinely mandates human existence. This also means that there is no intrinsic regard for life, via an evolutionary point of view. All that is regarded is the chance of survival, and anything else is a result of trying to increase survival (including humans caring about the welfare state of humans). P2: Discomfort is bad Discomfort exists My opponent did not contest whether discomfort is real – it is a given. Discomfort is less preferable than a neutral state Under this contention, the (eventual) winning argument for me is that if we consider a neutral state, and one in discomfort, people are going to choose the neutral state. It is obvious, when you consider the example I gave: “the tennis player, who works insanely hard to achieve a goal, and never achieves it, would probably prefer that, if given the option of not going through such discomfort, to not struggle through all of that discomfort, and instead choose a neutral state. This shows that discomfort is bad.” I had to repeat this argument a second time before Con responded to it, with counter-examples that miss the mark, as again, there are other discomfort values in play (i.e. being a professional, winning professional matches etc.). My example was specific in its dichotomy, in that there was a player trying to achieve a singular goal, meaning that there is only one discomfort in play (I am trying to indicate the value of discomfort, and so I need to eliminate variables). Note that in the first round of arguments, I specifically qualified my last paragraph with “without any context…” My opponent’s appeals to over-simplicity extend from his overly complex examples, wherein it is not possible to determine value. Again, I repeat this point because it is integral: we are trying to determine the value of discomfort. We DO NOT want more than one variable in examples, otherwise we will not be able to determine the value of one, and therefore the real value. Having more than 1 discomfort/comfort in play (e.g. needing to buy a house, plus trying to physically appear aesthetically pleasing) is the reason why my opponent is confused. My boredom argument accounts for Con’s objection; it is not designed to indicate the value of discomfort, but rather why people are encouraged to make themselves discomfortable. So: 1. Discomfort exists 2. Discomfort is less preferable than a neutral state C. Therefore, discomfort is bad A1: Unintelligent Design Con’s arguments seem to struggle to contend with subjective meaning, which is objective in the sense that all humans hold these values. All humans naturally have the discomfort/comfort mechanism at play. Real purpose is generated in trying to generate real value, which is maintaining the welfare of the sentient state. Even if this does not exist independent of the human mind, the human mind generates this real value. This is addressed further under A2. Anyway, what this contention ACTUALLY tried to argue was this: that we’re just heroin addicts that are chasing heroin (consumption). One we get some heroin, we become addicted to it (addiction). Since the world is finite, we have to take the heroin from others things (cannibalism). Once we have aged enough, we crave a specific type of heroin that will create something else that will become addicted to heroin (reproduction). This is the function of sentient life, as simple as it can get. Why do we need to produce heroin addicts? A2: What is of real value In the end, this contention was virtually dropped by Con, or at least not addressed in full. From this contention, it is important to understand that what we actually do with of lives is not of real value, that it is simply consumption, cannibalism, reproduction and addiction taking place, in that regard. However, what is important, if discomfort and comfort have value, is the welfare state. This is all we are trying to do: satisfy the welfare state. The nice cars, fancy clothes and all of that, are perceptual value. However, maintaining the welfare of humans is of real value. Furthermore, there is an absolute moral/ethical sense, in trying to make what is of real value. The example I gave: “…it would be logical to try to have as many people lying in a snug bed, rather than trying to do the latter for everyone on the off chance that someone enjoys it, because the vast majority are going to enjoy the former. There is absolutely a qualitative difference between the two.” Applied to discomfort: “ALL sentient creatures would prefer comfort over discomfort. So, we can construct a moral/ethical framework that reflects this.” My opponent only contested whether discomfort was bad, not that all sentient creatures would prefer comfort over discomfort. So, given that this contention was eventually conceded: 1. Perceptual value is not of concern 2. Real value is of concern 3. There is an absolute sense of what is preferable C. Therefore, we should be focused on worrying about real value (i.e. human discomfort/comfort, rather than the things that humans chase). A3: What the real impact is Again: “My actual purpose in making this argument, is that perpetuating sentient life is causing a lot of suffering (extreme discomfort).” My argument here is not an ‘overpopulation argument’, as, one again, falsely attributed by Con, outside of one (unintended) interpretation: that the ideal amount of people living in the world is 0. The fact that he thinks I am making a new argument in the 4th round, shows that he did not understand the purpose of this argument, and despite my clarification, he still does not understand. The ultimate question to take from this contention is: how is this justified? How can you justify all these atrocities? Con’s answer is no less than frightening: “so what?” So what if the Israel-Palestine war continues? So what if hundreds of thousands die in a tsunami? So what if hundreds of millions suffer from depression? Another of my opponent’s points was a bare assertion: “if some people are always going to suffer to an extreme extent which allows for a much, much larger population to live in happiness”. No statistics are given for this. No arguments, outside the bare assertion. On the contrary, I have given extensive documentation and statistics of the world’s sufferings. The other point is mitigation. Notice the term “mitigation”, meaning that we cannot stop these horrible atrocities from happening, but we can lessen them. Even if this could be true, even if we could stop all the wars, the mass exterminations and natural disasters, what kind of carnage would sentient life suffer through until then? As I already suggested, have a look through history. Have a look at the extreme suffering already endured. We can fly to the moon easily, yet we cannot yet stop giving into our territorial instincts and killing people for power. So, to answer the vital question of ‘how is this justified?’ It is not; the problems are ultimately ignored. Remember that discomfort always comes first, and so it must be justified. A4: Life is imposed Con ultimately fails to justify the imposition – he does not even get close to providing arguments for it. This is a serious moral dilemma. Con does not show that there is an argument for birth, and all this shows is that there is no argument to affirm life should be lived. Meanwhile, I fulfil my own burden of proof (for the resolution) by showing the risks involved. As asked elsewhere, what is worth putting 6 million Jews through a Holocaust? What if you gave birth to one of those people? You did not have to subject them to life, and all the risks that come with it. What justifies this? Playing golf on a nice course? Drinking high-tea with your friends? Are all these perceptual pleasure worth the occasional holocausted individual? So: 1. Life is imposed 2. Life can bring excruciating discomfort to certain individuals (A3) 3. Life also brings discomfort to everyone 4. None of this discomfort is consented to C. Therefore, life should not be imposed V. Existential Nihilism This was a red-herring. If my arguments hold, then this argument is negated by default, as explained in the previous round. VI. Future: My point was that the desire mechanism was not talked about in either article. My opponent ignores this, and continues to refer to physical pain and pleasure, which are products of the discomfort/comfort mechanism, rather than the things themselves. The mechanism is the problem, and this argument does not address this problem. Also, even if we were able to rid ourselves of the mechanism, as suggested under A3, what sentient life suffer through until then? Conclusion I firstly want to thank Envisage for this debate. My understanding of Anti-natalism has been furthered mid-debate, and I hope that this was worthwhile for him, too. I also want to thank you, the reader, for reading whatever you did. Philosophy of life is the most intriguing thing in this world, and you are doing everyone a favour by reading this debate, so thank you. Although it is heavily implied, I wish to make it absolutely clear that I am not arguing for suicide or genocide. I am arguing for people not to be born. Lastly, I wish to refer you to this Youtube page (https://www.youtube.com...), and I want to give extra credit to the man running it, because I used a lot of his arguments. He is arguably the best exponent of Anti-natalism/Efilism, and I have really benefited from listening to him. His work makes the complex simple. I will end my arguments with a quote of his: “It’s time to engineer a graceful exit to the game, a graceful exit for life.”