Likewise. And so, as nature, I press the button.
Almost like Thanos snapping his fingers twice.
It appears to be, at bare minimum, dependent on having a nervous system or an analogue to one. Otherwise we need to define nearly everything as suffering–when a rock erodes, when water evaporates, when paper covers rock.
If you’ve got some cool way to define and detect suffering in entities lacking a nervous system, I’d love to hear it.
I can’t figure out yours.
You started by saying “Suffering is not dependent on sentience.” But suffering by its very definition is a subjective experience requiring sentience.
A gnat can react to external stimulus but it is not doing so out of a conscious reaction. A nervous stimulation can cause a gnat to recoil from that stimulus. However, the gnat does not have sufficient brain function to experience that negative stimulus as suffering. An gnat is not sentient.
Then you said, “Only if you define ‘suffering’ as purely psychological, and I’m not sure why you would.” I’m not sure why you wouldn’t. Suffering is not reacting to negative nervous stimulation. Suffering is the conscious experience of negative nervous stimulus causing a psychological response.
You guys are concentrating on the microbes killed by breathing and ignoring the animals killed by eating. According the OP, pushing the button causes infinite more suffering than joy, hence anyone who would do so is some kind of psychopath. Even without the button, though, just existing can involve inflicting lots of suffering. I’m a little surprised the OP’s “thought experiment” hasn’t yet slippery-sloped into asking if we blame the someone or something that “pushed the button” on our behalf.
God is a psychopath. QED.
…to the tune of “Love is a Battlefield”
Just read some of the OP’s other threads.
I have, hence my surprise. I’m wondering how many different variations on the “life is pointless and cruel, who’s with me, and if you’re not, there’s something wrong with you” concept he has stored up.
I’ve never killed an animal by eating it. Have you?
So replace “by” with “for” and try again.
I haven’t killed an animal for eating since fishing and a couple of chickens 35 years ago when I was a kid.
Me neither. It’s much better to pay a professional to do it.
I probably press the button - but I am neither accountable for the painful outcomes, nor can I claim to be the author of the lovely outcomes - pressing a button is too banal an action to render me Creator God.
If you are truly curious and not just fishing for perspectives for your philosophy class. I suggest you look into Buddhism.
“life is suffering”
You lose a lot in translation but the dichotomy between life and nothing is examined.
I reject any argument that pays attention to bad things but deliberately ignores good things to be flawed. I consider such arguments to be biased, stupid, and deserving only of scorn, ridicule, and summary rejection - honestly we can and should consider such arguments not to exist at all.
So far in this thread I see no arguments whatsoever for not pushing the button. None at all. There have been absolutely zero arguments made against pushing the button - just biased nonsense garbage where an argument should be. Which is pretty odd since the OP seems to think that pushing the button is bad. If so, why doesn’t he construct the argument that he would require to support such a claim - an objective and comprehensive analysis of all attributes of the creation, alongside an objective and unbiased value system somehow capable of comparing apples and oranges and the infinitude of other fruits of creation.
So I’ve been given no reason not to push the button. But then again, I also haven’t been given a reasons to push it. Even if somebody were to construct an argument that existence is a good thing overall (which I would be inclined to accept - relatively few people people and very few inanimate objects commit suicide, after all), there is still the question of whether MORE reality is better than the current amount of reality. I’m not sure that’s as easy to prove as it is to prove that the current amount of reality is better than no reality.
Oh, and it also hasn’t been shown I’m benevolent. Given my behavior when play the Sims, I think it might be possible to prove that I’m actually malevolent. In which case my answer to this might be wildly different than the OP intends - do I have any particular reason no to consider this newly created world a sandbox simulation that exists so I can remove the pool ladders and watch uncounted people drown? If I consider these people fake (and I did just create them by pushing a button) then morality takes a hard left turn.
I don’t think that “I don’t want to be responsible for billions of people suffering” is biased nonsense garbage.
Same guy who’s ultimately accountable for your actions here : yourself.
Yes, it does mean that moral, self-aware types get to suffer a lot more than immoral cunts. Whoever said life had to be *fair *?
Keyer point : is there a sign next to the button that says “DO NOT PUSH, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE” ?
It’s half an argument. It’s sort of like saying “driving a car is totally pointless because cars can’t fly” - it’s a position that focuses entirely on the negatives of something while conspicuously failing to account for the positives.
There are a few different ways to assess whether life is ‘worth it’. Some are interesting, some are dumb. Assuming your conclusion is one of the dumb ones. If you want me to accept the conclusion that suffering outweighs utility over the entire scope of human life and history, you’re going to have to earn that conclusion. Especially since the fact that the vast, vast majority of persons throughout history have not chosen to end their lives, despite it being relatively easy to do so - a fact which on the face of it would appear to disprove the notion that most people would prefer not to exist.
Humans are a tiny percentage of the sentient biomass on earth. Also we currently live in an age of radical progress, for much of our existence life was much harder and more painful. The hardships people faced were far more common before the industrial revolution.
Luckily the vast majority of earth’s biomass is not capable of either sentience or suffering. But unless we are moving towards something better, I’m not sure if I’d press the button.
A planet full of microbes, insects and plants? Sure, fine. Maybe even a planet full of reptiles. But I don’t know if I’d want to create a planet full of mammals.