Would you rather never have been born?

@Shostakovich phil,

Shostakovich;99768 wrote:

I'm being at my most cynical in this thread.

I'm hoping/thinking it actually can't be worse, it must be better, because there can't be something worse than now.

Im sorry, but then I heard this I cannot resist saying:

OFF COURSE it can!

=)

Shostakovich;99777 wrote:

It is based entirely on the knowledge/experience we have in this life; and that experience, if it is primarly negative, leads some to think that it would have been better to have no experience whatsoever (had they not been born all the negative experiences would not have been experienced). This is the way I feel about it all.

I dont remember any past lives in order to make a judgment of value between then.

Then I think about the whole "Lets everone not have children" thing, parts of my brain say its a good idea, but even more parts say: "Wait: that would be no fun at all!"

Life has no definite purpose, and im not the kind of person who can settle down thinking "Well, then, if it has no purpose, I will just settle down and enjoy life". I need to have a purpose. So I decided my purpose would be to make humanity survive for as long as possible. And that is not possible if nobody has children, wence I cannot agree with that proposal.

I feel it would be boring if humanity just died out of sheer depression. I wanna see it spread through the universe before coming to and end along with the universe itself.

@manored,

manored;99933 wrote:

Life has no definite purpose, and im not the kind of person who can settle down thinking "Well, then, if it has no purpose, I will just settle down and enjoy life". I need to have a purpose. So I decided my purpose would be to make humanity survive for as long as possible. And that is not possible if nobody has children, wence I cannot agree with that proposal.

Then you are destined to unavoidably fail in your purpose.

You can spend your entire life having children and end up with 100, but that will have no bearing whatsoever on how long humanity survives.

Surely it would be better to set achievable goals?

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;99946 wrote:

Then you are destined to unavoidably fail in your purpose.

You can spend your entire life having children and end up with 100, but that will have no bearing whatsoever on how long humanity survives.

Surely it would be better to set achievable goals?

Who said my plan is to have tons of children? It is not. But, off course, nobody ever having children again would be too much of a good thing.

And, actually, its better to set non-achievable goals. If your goal can be achieved, then you may achieve it, and, if you do, you will face the grief of having achieved your goal and the hardship of creating a new one.

Off course, you can divide your mother goal in sub-goals so you can have the joy of achieving a goal and having another one set straigh away. Its also easier for organization and logistics.

@manored,

manored;99955 wrote:

Who said my plan is to have tons of children?

I don't know. Certainly not me. :confused:

manored;99955 wrote:

And, actually, its better to set non-achievable goals. If your goal can be achieved, then you may achieve it, and, if you do, you will face the grief of having achieved your goal and the hardship of creating a new one.

manored;99955 wrote:

Of course, you can divide your mother goal in sub-goals so you can have the joy of achieving a goal and having another one set straight away. Its also easier for organization and logistics.

What?! Organization and logistics? Does your goal involve the setting up of some sort of courier or haulage firm?

Anyway...

By doing that, you are directly contradicting your previous statement that it is "better to set non-achievable goals."

---------- Post added 10-27-2009 at 01:09 AM ----------

manored;99955 wrote:

But, off course, nobody ever having children again would be too much of a good thing.

I agree with this on one solitary basis; it has taken evolution (it really did happen, god-botherers) 5 billion years for us to be here, so it would be a shame to irreversibly snub out something that has been in process for so long. Call it... respect of nature.

But that is in a generalised, abstract context.

In terms of individuals' day-to-day humdrum, pointless, and far more importantly, enslaved lives... well, being responsible for inflicting that on someone is something that would weigh extremely heavily on me.

I have joy in my life, but I'd still rather never have been born. It might be a totally different proposition if I was completely free to do anything within the laws of physics, but as long as the chances are that that is normally not going to be the case, why inflice it on someone else?

@gojo1978,

Generalize abstract or not gojo,it's the truth.Call it... respect of nature.I think your looking for some kind or reassurance,something to dis-prove your current train of thought so you can get the "go ahead" and find some positive meaning in this life to justify bringing more into it.Gojo,just read your own words,there full of common sense,hope,love(sorta) and intelligence,why wouldn't you want to pass your genetics on...your just goofy,you know that? Brain+hug=im from east texas

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;99968 wrote:

I don't know. Certainly not me. :confused:

It must have been the mischievous globin that has been following me lately then. After him!

gojo1978;99968 wrote:

Well then you build up your whole life pointed towards achieving a certain thing, and then achieve it, suddently all that structure becomes useless and you get lost. thats the "grief" part. The "hardship" part is because its hard to find a goal that feels worth of pursuing. At least, it was for me, took some bloody 16 years =)

gojo1978;99968 wrote:

What?! Organization and logistics? Does your goal involve the setting up of some sort of courier or haulage firm?

Perhaps =)

But I was talking about how tasks become easier if you divide then in smaller tasks.

gojo1978;99968 wrote:

By doing that, you are directly contradicting your previous statement that it is "better to set non-achievable goals."

If you accomplish a sub-goal you still have a goal to guide you in the creation of the next sub-goal, its not a contradiction, but a complement. Achieving goals is awesome, but what matters to your feelings is the now, so achieving goals is both awesome and terrible. But the terrible part is avoided if you have unlimited goals ahead! =)

gojo1978;99968 wrote:

I agree with this on one solitary basis; it has taken evolution (it really did happen, god-botherers) 5 billion years for us to be here, so it would be a shame to irreversibly snub out something that has been in process for so long. Call it... respect of nature.

I would call the opposite of it stupidity. Off course, evolving into something capable of suffering is stupid, but destroying yourself because you evolved into something capable of suffering is even more =)

gojo1978;99968 wrote:

I have joy in my life, but I'd still rather never have been born. It might be a totally different proposition if I was completely free to do anything within the laws of physics, but as long as the chances are that that is normally not going to be the case, why inflice it on someone else?

I suppose the main reason would be because we have no means of knowing if we cause existence or are just an possible tap for it.

Kind like, Imagine that ever time a human is born, its mind is not created, its taken from somewhere else and, had it not been taken by humans, it would be taken by something else.

manfred;100060 wrote:

Generalize abstract or not gojo,it's the truth.Call it... respect of nature.I think your looking for some kind or reassurance,something to dis-prove your current train of thought so you can get the "go ahead" and find some positive meaning in this life to justify bringing more into it.Gojo,just read your own words,there full of common sense,hope,love(sorta) and intelligence,why wouldn't you want to pass your genetics on...your just goofy,you know that? Brain+hug=im from east texas

That is very well possible, his survival and gene-forward passing instincs are probally pulling the lever the othey way with all their might.

No brain hugging though, it causes severe brain damage.

@gojo1978,

Podcast....,,,..............

@richrf,

richrf;95936 wrote:

Seeing as I am not committing suicide, this would be strongly confirming that I am glad I decided to be born.

Rich

You don't have to be glad that you were born to actually still be living life. I, for one, am apathetic about being born. I'm not committing suicide. Living is easy. You keep breathing, eating, sleeping, meeting other people. You go to your job, and you do your work. You get your paycheck and buy something nice. It's like a routine, and you just wait it out until the end comes.

@kimmycub13,

kimmycub13;100240 wrote:

You don't have to be glad that you were born to actually still be living life. I, for one, am apathetic about being born. I'm not committing suicide. Living is easy. You keep breathing, eating, sleeping, meeting other people. You go to your job, and you do your work. You get your paycheck and buy something nice. It's like a routine, and you just wait it out until the end comes.

I concur.

Last thing I bought: A vinyl record of Bozz Skaggs. There's one song on the record that made life worth living for the moment I was listening to it.

The same thing happens now and then when I listen to Tom Waits, at his best.

Those moments are too few and too far between. Most of the time, I'm slaving at a job to pay relentless bills; but a Guinness and a gypsy salami sandwich for lunch brings back another moment of content.

@Shostakovich phil,

Shostakovich;100242 wrote:

I concur.

Last thing I bought: A vinyl record of Bozz Skaggs. There's one song on the record that made life worth living for the moment I was listening to it.

The same thing happens now and then when I listen to Tom Waits, at his best.

Those moments are too few and too far between. Most of the time, I'm slaving at a job to pay relentless bills; but a Guinness and a gypsy salami sandwich for lunch brings back another moment of content.

it all depends on when you are asked the question i guess. at this moment i would rather never have been born...and i can confidently predict that in the future at any moment that i would be typing on this keyboard i will feel exactly the same way...

@salima,

salima;100251 wrote:

it all depends on when you are asked the question i guess. at this moment i would rather never have been born...and i can confidently predict that in the future at any moment that i would be typing on this keyboard i will feel exactly the same way...

Maybe we should all start another thread, and entitle it: Give your reasons for being happy you were born.

Are we all being too negative.

Maybe there is a master plan in the mind of some god but it does not include being happy in this miserable life.

Wishful thinking?

Doesn't it say somewhere in the bible (one of the gospels) that 'he who gains his life in this world will lose his life in the next world, and he who loses his life in this world will gain his life in the next world.'

Is there a law in the universe something to the effect that: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction ... and can this apply to the experiences we have in this life. If good in this life then bad in the next, if bad in this life then good in the next?

I would like to think so. Sure ... just wishful thinking. Grabbing at another phantom to justify all the misery in this life.

@Shostakovich phil,

Shostakovich;100242 wrote:

Those moments are too few and too far between. Most of the time, I'm slaving at a job to pay relentless bills; but a Guinness and a gypsy salami sandwich for lunch brings back another moment of content.

I think you need to either:

A)Learn to go through your job like a machine

B)Learn to enjoy your job (Also know as going insane)

C)Find another job, probally one involving sandwichs or music

Shostakovich;100334 wrote:

Maybe we should all start another thread, and entitle it: Give your reasons for being happy you were born.

I couldnt answer that question, because I never experienced not being born =)

Shostakovich;100334 wrote:

Is there a law in the universe something to the effect that: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction ... and can this apply to the experiences we have in this life. If good in this life then bad in the next, if bad in this life then good in the next?

I would like to think so. Sure ... just wishful thinking. Grabbing at another phantom to justify all the misery in this life.

Yeah, I think that is all just wishfull thinking. There would be no sense into the universe being quasi-randow rather than randow.

@manored,

manored;100360 wrote:

I couldnt answer that question, because I never experienced not being born.

Yes you have. Either that or you're god.

Which is it?

---------- Post added 10-28-2009 at 09:29 PM ----------

manored;100151 wrote:

Imagine that ever time a human is born, its mind is not created, its taken from somewhere else and, had it not been taken by humans, it would be taken by something else.

Is there any rational reason at all for thinking such a thing?

Even if there was, let it be "taken by something else". Who cares?

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;100388 wrote:

Yes you have. Either that or you're god.

I was sure you needed to have sensorial capabilities in order to experience things!

(And exist too, probally)

gojo1978;100388 wrote:

Is there any rational reason at all for thinking such a thing?

Its a possibility, thats the only reason there is as far as I know.

Its like thinking that then you throw a dice, you might get 6.

gojo1978;100388 wrote:

Even if there was, let it be "taken by something else". Who cares?

If you dont care about it being taken by something else, then why do you care about it being taken by us? There is no reason to believe whatever is previous to our know existance is better than our know existance itself.

@manored,

manored;100494 wrote:

I was sure you needed to have sensorial capabilities in order to experience things!

(And exist too, probally)

I doubt that single cell organisms have sensory capabilities.

And I know for a fact that boulders don't. They exist.

manored;100494 wrote:

Its a possibility, thats the only reason there is as far as I know.

Its like thinking that then you throw a dice, you might get 6.

Well, hardly.

There are infinite possibilities; because something is a remote (and, based on your reason, completely random) possibility is not a very good reason for thinking it.

Rolling a die and getting a 6 is a 5-1 shot.

manored;100494 wrote:

If you dont care about it being taken by something else, then why do you care about it being taken by us? There is no reason to believe whatever is previous to our know existance is better than our know existance itself.

Well, I'm not sure I understood you correctly, but if I did, and you meant 'the mind' would be taken by a cat or a donkey or whatever, then it would be devoid of self-awareness, and so unaware of its plight. A human would not have that luxury. Unless, of course, it was braindead; either way, I contend that non-existence is a better option than existence.

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;100578 wrote:

I doubt that single cell organisms have sensory capabilities.

And I know for a fact that boulders don't. They exist.

I meant to experience things. The unexistent cannot experience.

gojo1978;100578 wrote:

Well, hardly.

There are infinite possibilities; because something is a remote (and, based on your reason, completely random) possibility is not a very good reason for thinking it.

Rolling a die and getting a 6 is a 5-1 shot.

It is not a remote possibility, we do not know any variables to say so.

gojo1978;100578 wrote:

Well, I'm not sure I understood you correctly, but if I did, and you meant 'the mind' would be taken by a cat or a donkey or whatever, then it would be devoid of self-awareness, and so unaware of its plight.

Thats not what I meant, if it was devoid of self-awareness, it would be the same as not existing. (talking about the mind, not the monkey)

gojo1978;100578 wrote:

A human would not have that luxury. Unless, of course, it was braindead; either way, I contend that non-existence is a better option than existence.

I agree. My point is that there is no reason to believe that by not having children we are sparing people from existance. We are only sparing then of being people.

@gojo1978,

gojo1978 wrote:

Yes you have. Either that or you're god.

Which is it?

You've experienced not being born?

Please tell us about it.

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;95907 wrote:

Being alive now, conscious and capable of thought, all things considered, would you rather never have been born?

Discuss...

Since I suffer from a few mental illnesses myself in a way I would rather say that I'd not want to have been born. But to answer your question yes I would rather be born. The great thing about our sort of existence is that we are able to have feelings and emotions. And these feelings and emotions influence our thought. To be able to have thought or the ability to think I'd say is better than not being able to think or have thought.

@manored,

manored;100673 wrote:

I agree. My point is that there is no reason to believe that by not having children we are sparing people from existance. We are only sparing them of being people.

So you say... where are you getting that from though?

There is every reason to believe that. Every reason. There is NO reason to believe anything contrary to that.

---------- Post added 10-31-2009 at 01:48 AM ----------

Zetherin;100677 wrote:

You've experienced not being born?

Please tell us about it.

Oblivion. The negation of everything you know.

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;95907 wrote:

Being alive now, conscious and capable of thought, all things considered, would you rather never have been born?

Discuss...

No, I like being alive.

Philosophy Forum

Would you rather never have been born?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know