Insufficient data. Ask me when I’m dead.
I for one believe you. But that does not mean you do not suffer cruelty. It does not surprise me at all — in fact I would assume — that you have the strength of character to bend adversity into advantage and suffering into achievement. But another man might look at your life and opine, “Better thee than me.”
I’m going to agree.
This is a thought thats come to me in some of my more depressive hours. But it’s one I can’t shake.
Life is an awesome amount of…responsibility. You have to provide for yourself. The rest of your days will be dedicated to procuring food and shelter. Humans, above all, work. Beyond that, chances are you are going to have some kind of potential to fulfill, and you and everyone around you is going to hold you responsible for these. You also have to be good to others and at the least not actively hurt them. This means cutting out early isn’t a great option.
And this goes on for a lifetime. Life never lets up. Few people get time to truly relax. Some people find happiness, some people don’t. But there is very, very little peace to be found. The huge potential for suffering and the inevitability of the death of yourself and everyone you know and love is secondary to the fact that you’ve become tremendously accountable for something you had no say in.
Is this still true, if the person also views him/herself as insignificant as well?
In order to have *anything * relevant to any discussion, you need to have humans (or at least sentient beings) in the first place. That’s a total non-answer.
Your contention is that life is not worth the pain that accompanies it? I would contend that pain is, like joy, a natural condition of being human, and moreover, you’d not know the one without the other. Given the trivial ease of ending one’s life, I can say that humanity’s low suicide rate is testament that life can be sweet whatever your station in life.
I also tend to think that it depends on what you bring to the table, and the level of control you demand of you life. It’s a truism, but you are really the only one that can make yourself happy.
And, btw- despite your snarky response to me, I do appreciate some fleshing out of your position, even if I find myself diametrically opposed to it.
That modern society is less violent and has better medical care than in the past ?
Hmmm. I’d have to say that consciously holding a person back from reaching their potential is pretty damn cruel.
That and force-feeding asparagus.
Agreed, but another 5 billion of his fellows might say “You know what? I’m very, or at least quite happy, too!”
I agree with the OP. While life has the potential for happiness, it also has the potential for sadness and horror. Just because some people, even a majority of people, enjoy their lives, doesn’t negate that. When you bring a child into the world you’re gambling that they’re going to have a positive experience, when in fact they might not. You might have a well-adjusted person, or even a saint, or you might have a serial killer or chronic depressive. When you don’t bring a life into the world, there are no great debts for or against you. You haven’t made positive life an option for someone, but you haven’t made negative life an option either. You’re morally clean.
As for the Buddhist thing: nirvana is defined as a state of nonexistence; it is neither happy or sad. By bringing someone into the world you condemn them to a life of ups and downs, karmic debts, etc. Isn’t the peace and serenity of nonexistence better than the gamble of existence?
Apart from the practical economic matter of you not contributing a share of the future workforce necessary to pay the pensions of the aging population, of course.
The answer appears to be “yes” only for 13 out of every 100,000 people.
To be, or not to be?
Is that your question?
What is your answer?
What do you THINK?
Or are you too afraid to say?
How many of the rest would have offed themselves if they had the guts? How many thought about it? How many wished they could do it, but just couldn’t? The survival instinct is a powerful force. In the case of humans, it boils down to pure egotism, but it’s very powerful.
We fear death, because none of us really knows what comes afterword.
Sounds to me like your issue isn’t with life, but death. Why live if we all must die? Well really what else you gonna do .
Seriuosly Life is a good thing, most people really want to be here. The few who don’t, find a way to rectify that situation. Sure it is not all peaches and cream but as a father of 2 I feel I have not inflicted any horrible crime against my boys. They seem to enjoying the experience too.
The Cruelest thing people can do is willingly deprive people of that which gives them life or a good quality of life, especially if they know that will cause suffering. Whether it is Stalin starving the Ukraine, Hitler sending people to death camps designed to strip them of pride, dignity, family, hope and then life, or someone taking a child from another person just to hurt them it is all cruel.
Giving life when you intend to give that person all the chances and love you can muster in your life is not cruel despite your bleak world view.
It was a typo. You’ll notice that the Y and T keys on right next to one another on the QWERTY keyboard. Also, I thought SentientMeat’s little joke was funny.
Wow, you really are cynical. Oddly enough what you read in newspapers isn’t necessarily the end all be all of the human condition. I acknowledge that people suffer, some more than others, but I do not believe that is the default mode for human beings. The world certainly has its share of problems but I don’t think it is a rotten place.
Marc
I choose to be. Life ain’t all that painful. It’s got it’s ups and downs and the majority of the time I’m either content or pretty satisfied.
Bringing a child into the world isn’t cruel, it’s bringing one into the world and not giving it any love.
Nothingness is annihilation, not peace and serenity. There’s no “you” to be anything at all.
I don’t agree but some people who lived in medieval southern France (i.e., the Cathars) might.
In case you don’t want to read the entire article, here’s a relevant passage:
(Boldness added.)
Do we have a moral imperative to keep society going in this fashion? I think anyone who is so down on society that they choose not to reproduce for this reason wouldn’t care if it crashed and burned because of a population inequality. Anyway, the idea of being just a cog to keep an old person clothed and fed is loathsome to me; it makes me nothing more than a slave to the older generation. I mean, I know that young people technically ARE here just to keep the wheels of society turning, but I don’t like it.
And that isn’t peaceful? You don’t have a mind crammed with questions that keep you up at night. You don’t have a body that needs to be sustained with food and pleased with sex. No worries, no responsibilities, no bills to pay. I’d call that heaven right there.
Exactly. Children’s TV is designed specifically, by offending adults, to convince the poor, little bastards (and themselves) that, “Hey! Life isn’t as bad as it seems, as it’s dawning on you little by little with every passing day! All children are sweet little children, and all adults are sweet little children, too, just all grown up! King Friday will make things right, as he always does!“
No. If i did a children’s program it would focus on the fact that your parents are creeps who resent the fact that 15 minutes of relative pleasure produced YOU, fucking up their lives by your mere existence. The rest of the adult world are scumbags whose greatest talent is the refinement of their abilities in scumbaggery against everyone else in the world. That’s what I’d say.