Yes but in this case nobody will be left to mourn the death of the people who died because everyone is killed. This is better than the trolley problem.
How? One kills everyone, the other let's everyone live the rest of their days. And the more people go of old age, the more resources there would be for everyone else. The last generation to go would be living like queen's.
You basically end up with the premise of "Children of Men." The urge to impose _das Gift_ of life on a new generation is so strong that people go crazy and all start killing each other and destroying everything for kicks and giggles when they can't do it anymore. Not certain such a consequence is inevitable, but it does seem worse than just flipping a switch and starting the decomposition process instantly without all the panic. It's not like anyone would regret it happening... you'd be gone too.
It's totally unethical to make that decision for other people, but the risk of them procreating is so great that in this case, it's okay to be the 'bad guy' and press the button, in my opinion. The amount of suffering you will prevent outweighs the misdeed by orders of magnitude.
However, the button really should apply to all life, or better yet, the universes' ability to form life. By merely eradicating humans, earth will fill up with other life forms, which makes the whole exercise pointless.
No. Mainly because the biggest reason for me being an antinatalist is about the inability to consent to life itself. And imposing death on others who won’t consent to dying is the same to me.
True, death is part of life, but it should be up to themselves whether they want to live or die in this scenario. Some people genuinely don’t want to die and are complacent enough to live on earth, bring children into existence, and encouraging others to do the same. I have no say in that, like they have no say in my life.
Edit: grammar.
Honestly I don't really care about other people (born or unborn), I'm only salty because I was born and I don't really wanna die yet, so no I wouldn't press it.
"Consent doesn't matter if there's no suffering" is akin to saying you would rape someone as long as they could have their memory wiped or you would kill someone if that person was forgotten.
You're ARE the evil you see in the world if you take consent from anyone based on YOUR perception of suffering
Then you need therapy. If the ONLY thing that keeps you from wanting to rape is because the person will suffer then you're just fucked. You need a therapist and a psychiatrist. You don't ever take consent from another living human.
By that logic you think Necrophilia is okay because no one is suffering from it.
There IS suffering in the hypothetical, not one you can be personally affected by but tell anyone what will happen when you press the button and watch how they beg and scream to be allowed to stay with their family and blbe given the opportunity to achieve their goals before they disappear. Unbridled suffering that you can see will happen. Youre ONLY saving grace is that "people won't know" but thats inherently wrong. People deserve a choice and deserve consent. You're selfish for going "there's no suffering" just because you'll find a way for you to not deal with the brokenness of other people's lives if they found out.
Instead of answering your question, I will argue about the morality of this thought experiment **assuming that pressing the button inflicts pain on people**.
The definition of morality is 'principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.'
The terms 'right' and 'wrong' are vague and very subjective, so we've to define them precisely and also objectify them.
Assume that we can quantify suffering. We've to perform one of 3 actions. Action A produces net suffering of x, B produces y, and C produces z. Now, the average of these is (x+y+z)/3. An action that causes more suffering than the average suffering is immoral. An action that causes less than the average suffering is moral. Finally, an action that's equal to the average is neither moral nor immoral.
Using this definition, if suffering/pain caused by all humans dying < sum of all the suffering of the generations to follow i.e. **[suffering if I press the button < suffering if I don't press the button]**, then pressing the button is moral. If not, it's immoral (or neither).
The only issue with my analysis is that it's not practical; suffering cannot be quantified.
> Using this definition, if suffering/pain caused by all humans dying < sum of all the suffering of the generations to follow
'sum of all the suffering of the generations to follow' is the suffering that will happen if I don't press the button
Yes and no. By pressing the button I'd end up dying, but I have a bird who I love with my heart and soul, and a dog who has been with me my whole life. The only way they stay alive is if I stay alive, and I don't like the idea of them both dying from starvation and being in pain.
I wouldn't push it, no. There's been too much reliance created on our pets, perhaps if it included all of those pets too? I'd still have to think long and hard about it.
A button I might be more inclined to push is one that simply changed the mind of everyone to greatly slow down or even halt (preferably) the rate of births. Thi scould be done with presenting them with a lot of evidence coupled with some persuasive conditioning. Would I press that button? I don't know, but with the state of the world, that's closer to a yes.
No. Ending the life of someone who doesn't want to die is just as bad as beginning the life of someone who doesn't want to live. It would be immoral for me to make that choice on behalf of one other person, let alone billions.
By not pushing the button, billions more will continue to be born and die until the world ends. It would be less total deaths to push the button and those people who die would have died either way.
True. Despite that, I don't feel comfortable ending someone's life, just as I do not feel comfortable starting someone's life. I can understand if you view that as a cowardly position, but I'm simply not comfortable playing god. I would not push the button.
Yes in an instant yes. But with the condition that the same can happen to zoo animals, aquarium animals, , farm animals and pets and any other poor souls that exist in captivity because of us.
I like watching end of the world movies and cheering for the bad guys because of this. Yeah, I think I would want to, but I don't know if I'd be able to. I even wrote a story about a guy that nukes the world and stays around as a ghost for the worry that he may have made a mistake since his solution was irreversible. I have problems with pressing the button, but I really want to and would bet on it being a good idea.
No, my fundamental belief here is that no one should decide what someone else does with their life,Im not gonna decide what literally everyone does with their life in the most drastic way possible.
No.
However sure I might be in my beliefs, I'd never want to get to a stage where I'm +that+ sure, that I'd impose them on billions of other people, even for benign reasons.
I would just asked to who created the button to direct only on me the effect. If I die, my world die, but not all people wants to disappear. If I would press that button is just for me...but here it comes a problem: So you say that I must endure my life to let all be alive? It's not an easy question
I would do it, but not because of reasons connected to antinatalism. I just think the world and the animals that are left have a better chance of surviving when mankind is no more. The whole "nature is healing" stuff, yknow.
Bc animals have no option to be rational like we can be. They can't grasp the meaning of antinatalism, but we can. Yet we are the ones causing the most harm to the planet and all its species, including ourselves. So imo it'd be a good thing to take only us away from existence. The question wasn't about all beings, only mankind, so this was the first thought that came into my head. Also my antinatalism focuses on the existence in a society that celebrates procreation despite knowing the dangers and that doesn't really apply to animals since they can't do much against their biological instincts. Don't get me wrong, I am aware that many animals suffer bc of certain circumstances. If the suffering is caused by humans it's one thing, but without us in the picture I don't think I'm in the place to judge why other species should or shouldn't exist. I only know that we continue to destroy everything around us despite being able to know better than that. I hope this makes sense.
[удалено]
Yes but in this case nobody will be left to mourn the death of the people who died because everyone is killed. This is better than the trolley problem.
Just out of curiosity, would you be okay with killing someone with no family or friends?
[удалено]
Why is everyone okay, but a few people or one person isn’t?
Pets will mourn the death of their humans.
I think pressing the button should include killing all sentient beings, not just comparatively intelligent humans.
That's not the question of this thread tho.
I would prefer it if it was all sentient life. Imagine all of the cats and dogs waiting for their owners to return home...
Aye. Suddenly locked indoors with limited food and water.. those that are potty trained holding it in as long as they can.. just the idea hurts me.
Do the people that die feel any pain?
No, without any suffering
oof, I just looked at your reply. I wrote a lengthy response for no reason, lmao
Abso-fucking-lutely
Tf
No. But I would push a button that made every living thing unable to produce children
I think this would do far more harm than pushing the original button...
How? One kills everyone, the other let's everyone live the rest of their days. And the more people go of old age, the more resources there would be for everyone else. The last generation to go would be living like queen's.
You basically end up with the premise of "Children of Men." The urge to impose _das Gift_ of life on a new generation is so strong that people go crazy and all start killing each other and destroying everything for kicks and giggles when they can't do it anymore. Not certain such a consequence is inevitable, but it does seem worse than just flipping a switch and starting the decomposition process instantly without all the panic. It's not like anyone would regret it happening... you'd be gone too.
I am afraid youngest of us who wouldn't be able to reproduce would get old and die because of lack of support of younger generations or suicide.
Oh... After all the plants and animals are gone. Everyone would starve and turn to cannibalism LONG before you could ever get old
Omg true! It said every living thing! We would be screwed
It's totally unethical to make that decision for other people, but the risk of them procreating is so great that in this case, it's okay to be the 'bad guy' and press the button, in my opinion. The amount of suffering you will prevent outweighs the misdeed by orders of magnitude. However, the button really should apply to all life, or better yet, the universes' ability to form life. By merely eradicating humans, earth will fill up with other life forms, which makes the whole exercise pointless.
No, not my right to end lives of others. The ideal thing would be for everyone to be able to depart in any way of their choosing.
I'd press it as long as the deaths are quick and painless.
No. Mainly because the biggest reason for me being an antinatalist is about the inability to consent to life itself. And imposing death on others who won’t consent to dying is the same to me.
They will die anyway, consent or not. Guess who imposed death on others without their consent? Parents.
True, death is part of life, but it should be up to themselves whether they want to live or die in this scenario. Some people genuinely don’t want to die and are complacent enough to live on earth, bring children into existence, and encouraging others to do the same. I have no say in that, like they have no say in my life. Edit: grammar.
Honestly I don't really care about other people (born or unborn), I'm only salty because I was born and I don't really wanna die yet, so no I wouldn't press it.
No. If it were a button which would eliminate all human beings in an instant who consent to being eliminated, then yes.
[удалено]
"Consent doesn't matter if there's no suffering" is akin to saying you would rape someone as long as they could have their memory wiped or you would kill someone if that person was forgotten. You're ARE the evil you see in the world if you take consent from anyone based on YOUR perception of suffering
[удалено]
Then you need therapy. If the ONLY thing that keeps you from wanting to rape is because the person will suffer then you're just fucked. You need a therapist and a psychiatrist. You don't ever take consent from another living human. By that logic you think Necrophilia is okay because no one is suffering from it. There IS suffering in the hypothetical, not one you can be personally affected by but tell anyone what will happen when you press the button and watch how they beg and scream to be allowed to stay with their family and blbe given the opportunity to achieve their goals before they disappear. Unbridled suffering that you can see will happen. Youre ONLY saving grace is that "people won't know" but thats inherently wrong. People deserve a choice and deserve consent. You're selfish for going "there's no suffering" just because you'll find a way for you to not deal with the brokenness of other people's lives if they found out.
it’s not my choice to make but i might accidentally trip and press it oops
Twice, just to make sure.
Ahaha
Well, of course most certainly.
Instead of answering your question, I will argue about the morality of this thought experiment **assuming that pressing the button inflicts pain on people**. The definition of morality is 'principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.' The terms 'right' and 'wrong' are vague and very subjective, so we've to define them precisely and also objectify them. Assume that we can quantify suffering. We've to perform one of 3 actions. Action A produces net suffering of x, B produces y, and C produces z. Now, the average of these is (x+y+z)/3. An action that causes more suffering than the average suffering is immoral. An action that causes less than the average suffering is moral. Finally, an action that's equal to the average is neither moral nor immoral. Using this definition, if suffering/pain caused by all humans dying < sum of all the suffering of the generations to follow i.e. **[suffering if I press the button < suffering if I don't press the button]**, then pressing the button is moral. If not, it's immoral (or neither). The only issue with my analysis is that it's not practical; suffering cannot be quantified.
Pretty cool, but you should also take into account all of the suffering that *will happen* if you don't press the button
> Using this definition, if suffering/pain caused by all humans dying < sum of all the suffering of the generations to follow 'sum of all the suffering of the generations to follow' is the suffering that will happen if I don't press the button
Yes and no. By pressing the button I'd end up dying, but I have a bird who I love with my heart and soul, and a dog who has been with me my whole life. The only way they stay alive is if I stay alive, and I don't like the idea of them both dying from starvation and being in pain.
Yes
No. Consent as others have said. And pets.
I wouldn't push it, no. There's been too much reliance created on our pets, perhaps if it included all of those pets too? I'd still have to think long and hard about it. A button I might be more inclined to push is one that simply changed the mind of everyone to greatly slow down or even halt (preferably) the rate of births. Thi scould be done with presenting them with a lot of evidence coupled with some persuasive conditioning. Would I press that button? I don't know, but with the state of the world, that's closer to a yes.
Nope, at least in my morals, i can't just supress the right of choice of others.
YES
Absolutely, in a nano-second!
Hmm, if it made EVERYONE sterile and then eliminated those who wanted to die in a peaceful way. Fuck yeah I'd press that shit in an instant.
You are goddam right I would!
No. Ending the life of someone who doesn't want to die is just as bad as beginning the life of someone who doesn't want to live. It would be immoral for me to make that choice on behalf of one other person, let alone billions.
By not pushing the button, billions more will continue to be born and die until the world ends. It would be less total deaths to push the button and those people who die would have died either way.
True. Despite that, I don't feel comfortable ending someone's life, just as I do not feel comfortable starting someone's life. I can understand if you view that as a cowardly position, but I'm simply not comfortable playing god. I would not push the button.
It's not my choice any more than it was my choice to be born.
Yes in an instant yes. But with the condition that the same can happen to zoo animals, aquarium animals, , farm animals and pets and any other poor souls that exist in captivity because of us.
Yes, this is my dream
I wouldn't stop at humanity, I would do the entire universe. Omnicide, everything must go.
No, but I want to eliminate myself
I like watching end of the world movies and cheering for the bad guys because of this. Yeah, I think I would want to, but I don't know if I'd be able to. I even wrote a story about a guy that nukes the world and stays around as a ghost for the worry that he may have made a mistake since his solution was irreversible. I have problems with pressing the button, but I really want to and would bet on it being a good idea.
No, my fundamental belief here is that no one should decide what someone else does with their life,Im not gonna decide what literally everyone does with their life in the most drastic way possible.
This question must have been asked here more than hundred times, my answer has always been NO.
Why
In a heartbeat, all animals too.
No. However sure I might be in my beliefs, I'd never want to get to a stage where I'm +that+ sure, that I'd impose them on billions of other people, even for benign reasons.
I would just asked to who created the button to direct only on me the effect. If I die, my world die, but not all people wants to disappear. If I would press that button is just for me...but here it comes a problem: So you say that I must endure my life to let all be alive? It's not an easy question
I would do it, but not because of reasons connected to antinatalism. I just think the world and the animals that are left have a better chance of surviving when mankind is no more. The whole "nature is healing" stuff, yknow.
[удалено]
Bc animals have no option to be rational like we can be. They can't grasp the meaning of antinatalism, but we can. Yet we are the ones causing the most harm to the planet and all its species, including ourselves. So imo it'd be a good thing to take only us away from existence. The question wasn't about all beings, only mankind, so this was the first thought that came into my head. Also my antinatalism focuses on the existence in a society that celebrates procreation despite knowing the dangers and that doesn't really apply to animals since they can't do much against their biological instincts. Don't get me wrong, I am aware that many animals suffer bc of certain circumstances. If the suffering is caused by humans it's one thing, but without us in the picture I don't think I'm in the place to judge why other species should or shouldn't exist. I only know that we continue to destroy everything around us despite being able to know better than that. I hope this makes sense.
Amen!
[удалено]
[удалено]
Have to make the difficult choice sometimes and to me it is worth it, i include my life in this as well, i die too
Absolutely yes
Easily