Happy to be here? I think not!

bradly1101

Diamond Member
May 5, 2013
4,689
294
126
www.bradlygsmith.org
I totally get this, although being light in the loafers makes it easy not to breed. Also every (new) American life represents a 9,441 metric ton carbon footprint.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/persons-of-interest/the-case-for-not-being-born

"David Benatar may be the world’s most pessimistic philosopher. An “anti-natalist,” he believes that life is so bad, so painful, that human beings should stop having children for reasons of compassion. “While good people go to great lengths to spare their children from suffering, few of them seem to notice that the one (and only) guaranteed way to prevent all the suffering of their children is not to bring those children into existence in the first place,” he writes, in a 2006 book called “Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming Into Existence.” In Benatar’s view, reproducing is intrinsically cruel and irresponsible—not just because a horrible fate can befall anyone, but because life itself is “permeated by badness.” In part for this reason, he thinks that the world would be a better place if sentient life disappeared altogether.

For a work of academic philosophy, “Better Never to Have Been” has found an unusually wide audience. It has 3.9 stars on GoodReads, where one reviewer calls it “required reading for folks who believe that procreation is justified.” A few years ago, Nic Pizzolatto, the screenwriter behind “True Detective,” read the book and made Rust Cohle, Matthew McConaughey’s character, a nihilistic anti-natalist. (“I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution,” Cohle says.) When Pizzolatto mentioned the book to the press, Benatar, who sees his own views as more thoughtful and humane than Cohle’s, emerged from an otherwise reclusive life to clarify them in interviews. Now he has published “The Human Predicament: A Candid Guide to Life’s Biggest Questions,” a refinement, expansion, and contextualization of his anti-natalist thinking. The book begins with an epigraph from T. S. Eliot’s “Four Quartets”—“Humankind cannot bear very much reality”—and promises to provide “grim” answers to questions such as “Do our lives have meaning?,” and “Would it be better if we could live forever?”"...
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
30,354
10,880
136
Can't help but feel that perhaps the author would be doing us all a favor if he started by removing himself from the equation.

Like mama used to opin... "if you have nothing good to say, shut your freaking pie-hole!" (ok more of a paraphrase)
 

Red Storm

Lifer
Oct 2, 2005
14,233
234
106
Can't help but feel that perhaps the author would be doing us all a favor if he started by removing himself from the equation.
This. He could save himself from all potential future pain and sadness. I bet you he wouldn't see it that way though, because reasons.
 

madoka

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2004
4,344
712
121
"the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."

Sounds like he read Hobbs.
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,436
1,571
126
"the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."

Sounds like he read Hobbs.
Yet in the last ~200+ years Humans have greatly improved their quality of life in developed countries.
 

deustroop

Golden Member
Dec 12, 2010
1,915
354
136
Yet in the last ~200+ years Humans have greatly improved their quality of life in developed countries.

Right but in the least developed, the premise appears to apply, established as when I see the starving babies used on TV to raise donations,clearly better not to be born.
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,436
1,571
126
Right but in the least developed, the premise appears to apply, established as when I see the starving babies used on TV to raise donations,clearly better not to be born.
And yet there supposedly more then enough food in the world to feed everybody. It is mostly politics and being able to get food to those who need it.