[Discussion] "Who would destroy the world? Omnicidal agents and related phenomena"

LiterallyASoyboy

LiterallyASoyboy

King of Virgins, Lord of LDAR
★★★★★
Joined
May 29, 2018
Posts
9,078
Online
54d 3h 16m
Not sure if this belongs in inceldom discussion or offtopic as it does mention ER, Cho, and others, however this is largely secondary to the point I want to make. Anyway this article seems pretty ironic to me, as it talks about "misguided moral actors", despite the author being an example of exactly that, at least as far as I'm concerned.

In our modern age new technologies are able to generate and channel mass empowerment, allowing small groups and individuals to challenge states and other institutions of traditional authority in ways that used to be the province only of other states.

Consider a few short descriptions of agent subtypes motivated by consequentialist ethical theories. Unlike the other subsections above and below, this discussion is somewhat abstract given that few individuals have openly acknowledged a moral desire to annihilate humanity if doing so were possible, even though this prescription follows directly from certain moral commitments associated with forms of classical utilitarianism and negative utilitarianism.


(ii)Radical negative utilitarians(NUs). As Thaddeus Metz (2012)puts it, radical NUs accept the ethical theory of antinatalism as well as pro-mortalism, the view that it is often prudent for individuals to kill themselves and often right for them to kill others, even without their consent. It pretty clearly has these implications if one can kill oneself or others painlessly, but probably does so even if there would be terror beforehand; for there would be terror regardless of when death comes, and if death were to come sooner rather than later, then additional bads that would have been expected in the course of a life would be nipped in the bud.

So perhaps I've been missing something all along, but how exactly is negative utilitarianism misguided? The fact that it's not emotionally palatable for most people isn't an argument, and you can't use individual consent when the vast majority of humans don't respect this themselves(birth, mutilation of children, child rearing, indoctrination, opposition to suicide, etc), aside from in very specific and ultimately arbitrary contexts (female sexual selection), thereby breaking their own rules.

Secondly what the writer of the above paragraph doesn't seem to get is that while this scenario of ethical killing might make sense conceptually, it very rarely works out that way in reality, perhaps an exception would be the red button scenario, or two people on a hypothetical island. Beyond that you're almost certainly going to cause more suffering that you'd prevent, because the death of a person hurts everyone around them, even if we accept that death isn't a bad thing in and of itself. Not to mention that a particularly bad manner of death might well be worse for some people than letting them experience all other forms pain which await them preceding their natural death. Just because I can prove that pleasure is observably distinct from, and ultimately enslaved to suffering, this doesn't mean that there is a way to measure suffering which isn't entirely subjective. Meaning that while we can say pain/discomfort/suffering is bad, there is no intuitive way for me to discern the true level of suffering experienced by someone outside myself, I can only say for certain that it's something to be avoided, and that it can't be justified by it's intrinsic relationship to existence.

As for the argument that this reasoning suggests that we should commit suicide, well that part is mostly true. However as I was getting at before, your death would likely hurt others, making it less clear whether or not it's truly the right decisions in most contexts. Furthermore this point is largely irrelevant, as most people are incapable of killing themselves at all, and many others would find themselves unable to do so without help. So suggesting that suicide is within the best interest of everyone isn't useful if the vast majority of us lack the capacity to kill ourselves.

TL;DR Those are just some of my thoughts, but what do you think about this article? Personally I find it funny that the author imagines a doomsday device in the hands of ER, as he had trouble overcoming a door.
 
Last edited:
Dionysus

Dionysus

Paragon
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 17, 2019
Posts
19,252
Online
47d 10h 9m
LiterallyASoyboy

LiterallyASoyboy

King of Virgins, Lord of LDAR
★★★★★
Joined
May 29, 2018
Posts
9,078
Online
54d 3h 16m
yeshuallah

yeshuallah

:panties:
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 25, 2019
Posts
12,969
Online
96d 22h 58m
I was scared at first, but Cho wise words inspired me
interesting article in my opinion
 
misanthropekun

misanthropekun

mentalcel, aliencel, hatecel, nonhumancel
★★★★
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Posts
852
Online
14h 45m
Really good to learn about unknown saints like Asahara, that's as far as I am reading for now. I must admit people like him create irritation with their pro suffering cuckety and that added to my poor attention spam and fatigue are forcing me to pause it for now.

I want to believe that technology will bring an end to all this chaos but in a sadly far far away future of this Earth, which many have tried to bring ultimate serenity to but lacked the support of the mass of perdition to fulfill
 
Joelossus

Joelossus

high T af, and a psychopath
★★★★★
Joined
Mar 25, 2019
Posts
10,720
Online
36d 5h 52m
I'm too low iq too respond to this thread, so i just gonna bump it.
 
D

D.R.

Recruit
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Posts
14
Online
9h 11m
I'm a supporter of antinatalism based on utilitarian ethics and/or antifrustrationism. Simply put, I don't think it can be an efficient endeavor to create desire, by creating sentient life you always create suffering, deprivation – hunger, thirst, constipation, sexual frustration, fatigue, risk to worse to suffering like addiction, lifelong loneliness and cancer, and the goods are all just a relief of pre-existing conditions of suffering, not required until the suffering is created.

No hunger – no need for food.

No wound – no need for a bandaid.

If desire already exists, it can be good to fulfill it to prevent an unfulfilled desire, but there is nothing good about creating unfulfilled desire to begin with, similar to how it's good to give someone with a broken leg a painkiller, but it's not good to give them a broken leg in the first place just for the good of then giving them a painkiller afterwards.

I wrote about the topic of promortalism and the red button experiment before, since it's late right now and it gets tiring to write the same information again and again, I'll just post parts of the text here and if anyone is interested they can read more about this whole topic here.

Promortalism:

Upon being faced with this type of argument/realization, a common question or objection is:

  • ”If life is so bad, aren’t we all just better off dead then, doesn’t this justify killing everyone?”

The answer is in principle – yes, in practice – no.

  • In principle:

As long as a sentient organism lives, it experiences suffering, that is bad.

If causing harm by causing life is bad, then so is ending harm by ending life good. Once you live, you are arguably better off dead, because all goods in life you’re going to chase after just serve to reduce your suffering, so if the goal is to get rid of suffering, it would be better for you to no longer exist, it’s the best way to achieve said goal.

Because the good is just an alleviation of the suffering, i.e the food is only needed as long as the organism experiences hunger, the organism will clearly no longer need food once it is dead. Eating food achieves absence of hunger, but being killed painlessly does so even more efficiently.

So as long as the dying process is entirely suffering-free, let’s say in your deepest sleep, I simply painlessly lethally inject you with a substance that of course also causes no distress in any way, then there’s no intrinsic harm.

Your departure was painless, I prevented all future suffering, you are not going to wake up later on as a ghost in non-existence and lament that you still needed to do x (just like you didn’t before coming into existence), but now you are being deprived of life because you are dead, believing in the badness of death itself ”because it deprives the person of future wellbeing” essentially requires some sort of non-sensical belief in an afterlife.

Dying may be bad, but death, non-existence is the absence of all badness, the absence of all needs that even demand to be fulfilled, the thing we call wellbeing is no longer needed once you’re dead, so you can’t conclude rationally that death is bad because it lacks wellbeing. The axiology is antifrustrationism, and from that follows both global antinatalism and promortalism.

  • In practice:

There are some factors that complicate just killing yourself or someone else:

  • By killing yourself, you may cause more suffering to yourself or others than you would experience from staying alive.
  • By killing someone else painlessly in their sleep, you may cause more suffering to others than you would prevent by ending their existence.

I would not be too sure that it does always cause more suffering to end life though, right now, even terminally ill individuals are denied the right to die to maintain the delusion of religious idiots that life is always good even when you’re being tortured 24/7, because it’s life, so it must be good.

Equally, many do nothing but cause harm to others, you’d likely save a million farmed animals from being tortured by euthanizing some people painlessly, so I don’t particularly always trust their evaluations of how horrible it would be to end a life.

Arguably, the strongest argument against just ending life is that once a sentient organism exists, there is the potential for them to reduce and most importantly prevent suffering for other sentient organisms. So whilst being alive is worse than not being alive, it is currently instrumental to achieving the reduction or prevention of suffering, we have extrinsic value to that goal.

This is why parents are judged harder even by pro-natalists and pro-lifers themselves for committing suicide, because they created a child that suffers needs, wants, desires, deprivations, and the alleviation of those needs is heavily dependent on the procreator that threw the child into the pit of lifelong desire chasing.

The cessation of anyone’s, of any suffering, negative sensation whatsoever is obviously a good thing, but in our current world, being alive is instrumental to convincing others of the fact that life is fundamentally flawed, so you can try to prevent more suffering than by just preventing your suffering by killing yourself, it would be even better than just ending your suffering.

Whilst you are alive, you can convince others to stop breeding humans or other animals, to stop standing in the way of suffering-reducing activities like abortion or euthanasia, to start acknowledging the intensity of animal suffering in the wild, making them notice that there is a problem, which is instrumental to ultimately solving the problem.

If we were already all convinced that life is a failure, we’ve already managed to sterilize or painlessly euthanize the other animals, then indeed it would be questionable why we should stay alive, at that point I’d simply say it depends, will committing suicide cause you more suffering in a single instant than you will experience from staying alive and needing, desiring, wanting until dead?

You being dead certainly wouldn’t be a problem anymore, if everything is fixed, there needs to be no problem fixer anymore, because there is no problem left, except you. So if I could painlessly evaporate all life by snapping fingers on my left hand and my life by snapping fingers on my right hand, there’d be no reason not to snap the fingers on my right hand after I’ve snapped fingers on my left hand.

Red/doomsday button experiment:

  • The painless genocide/benevolent world exploder button.

If you had a button you could push to painlessly end all sentient life in an instant, it would be the best thing to do, you’d have to take that option. This is supposed to make you feel instinctively repulsed and then say ”oh no how horrible, this is like Adolf Hitler!!!”, failing to take into account that they didn’t actually establish any kind of coherent argument against pressing such a button.

Yes, of course, if every good in life is just the relief of suffering, which it is, then it is the best possible thing you could ever do to press this button, whether you like to admit that or not, that doesn’t change the facts of the reality and its value relations we occupy.

If I press this button, I will end all suffering, I will also end all pleasure, but that is completely irrelevant, because the pleasure is just a relief of the suffering, if I have already extinguished all hunger and starvation from this universe, then there by default can’t be any problem with there being no more food to enjoy either, the need for it no longer exists, but no one who has no access to food is starving either.

I solved all suffering, the lack of pleasure isn’t a problem, that’s called a win win situation, no way around it.

If anything, it’s absurd to be opposed to pushing such a button based on the fact that it will deplete future wellbeing, it’s like lamenting that if we cut a cancer tumor out, there is no point in going through chemotherapy anymore.

The reason why you want to go through chemotherapy is to get rid of the cancer, so if we cut the cancer tumor out, we’ve already achieved the goal efficiently. The reason why you want fulfilled desire, wellbeing, is to get rid of unfulfilled desire, suffering, so if we push the big red button resulting in eradication of all unfulfilled desire, we’ve already achieved the goal efficiently, you don’t need to have a relief from suffering if suffering doesn’t even exist.

  • Cancer tumor – unfulfilled desire.
  • Chemotherapy – desire fulfillment.
  • Cancer tumor excision – painless death resulting in depletion of unfulfilled desire.

This of course equally applies to the question of euthanizing others painlessly. If I still want to do x, and you euthanize me in my deep sleep painlessly, then I’m not going to wake up in the thereafter non-existence and lament that I still needed to do x, but now I can’t because you just painlessly euthanized me.

Death is not an intrinsic harm, it can only be an extrinsic harm, i.e family members and acquaintances might miss the person, if we legalized this act, it would scare others they might be next, perhaps you prevented someone who was interested in reducing suffering in other sentient organisms from doing so.

But there is nothing inherently harmful about you simply not being there anymore, this might be offensive, but is true nonetheless, no matter how repulsive you find that fact.
 
Top