RomeoStevens comments on Group Rationality Diary, April 5-14 - Less Wrong

4 Post author: therufs 05 April 2013 03:21PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (63)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: VCavallo 05 April 2013 05:05:20PM *  2 points [-]

I'll kick it off:

I've begun to seriously consider the anti-natalist views of philosophers like David Benatar. My two sisters recently each had their first child and while I've given thought to the idea of having my own children in the past, closely seeing the process play out from beginning to end has somehow updated my thoughts on the topic. I haven't read much yet (I'm about a quarter through Better To Have Never Been and would relish some suggestions from LWers on the matter.

Currently my thinking is that as much as I would like the experience of raising a child who shares my own DNA, I am becoming more and more convinced that I can't feel like I am making a morally-correct decision by bringing a new human into existence. If I had never been born I necessarily wouldn't have been harmed in any way by not existing - and now that I am here I can enjoy life as much as possible (which is a lot, don't get me wrong), but I still must endure some measure of suffering and I also must face mortality.

I was never interested in the idea of adopting children before, but in light of my updated viewpoint on conception I can see the benefit of adopting an already-born person.

Another part of it I think about: As far as utility to society goes, I already know that I have certain inclinations or aspirations towards rationality and a general motivation to attempt to better society in some small way if I can. There's no guarantee that a new person I create will match or exceed the possible positive impacts on society that I make. That uncertainty-for-positive-change along with the fact that a new person will necessarily impose some negatives on society also makes me wonder how I could justify the decision to make a new person.

As I'm sure it is clear, I'm in the early stages of considering these topics and haven't done much research at all into writings and analysis of the issues I'm raising. I am open to any and all suggestions of avenues of research.

Comment author: RomeoStevens 05 April 2013 09:55:04PM 2 points [-]

which is a lot, don't get me wrong

that everyone feels the need to add this caveat when discussing topics like this, regardless of whether they are actually doing okay, always bothers me a lot. What if you're not okay? To be cliche, why is it not okay for someone to not be okay? To paraphrase Bostrom: many people are walking around quietly leading desperately unhappy lives, and much of the improvements they could make don't get talked about because it is low status to admit you are unhappy.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 06 April 2013 05:08:39AM *  0 points [-]

To paraphrase Bostrom: many people are walking around quietly leading desperately unhappy lives, and much of the improvements they could make don't get talked about because it is low status to admit you are unhappy.

On the other hand, there do exist people with depression diagnoses who try to do something about it. Some folks are willing to ① admit that they are markedly unhappy, ② seek independent verification in the form of a depression diagnosis, and ③ attempt to stop being depressed through various forms of therapy, drugs, etc.

So even if it were "low status to admit you are unhappy," that doesn't stop some people.

Moreover, as regards status: "it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied" (J. S. Mill); having high standards but being unhappy may be higher-status than having low standards and being happy.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 08 April 2013 03:30:29AM *  1 point [-]

Moreover, as regards status: "it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied" (J. S. Mill); having high standards but being unhappy may be higher-status than having low standards and being happy.

Mill was talking about utility, not status.

Comment author: VCavallo 05 April 2013 11:07:09PM 0 points [-]

My reasoning for adding the caveat in this particular instance was to fully disclose my stance. I'm inviting questions, and discussion is only aided when people have a better understanding of each other. If I had said that I am completely miserable and the negatives of being alive once already alive don't outweigh the positives, I'd be of a completely different stance and I'd be understood completely differently.

I don't think it lowers someone's status to say they are not ok and I'm sorry that adding the above caveat bothered you. Clearly my comment was innocent and by more fully explaining my feelings I am I'm no way intentionally reinforcing anyone else's lack of confidence.

Comment author: RomeoStevens 06 April 2013 01:31:03AM 1 point [-]

I don't think it lowers someone's status to say they are not ok

Are you saying you don't personally believe this or that it is a general rule that it does not?

Comment author: VCavallo 06 April 2013 10:56:05PM *  0 points [-]

Sorry - personally.

And it's a shame that as a general rule it does.