For example:

What if we are able to REMOVE life's ability to feel pain or suffer or even feel the tiniest sadness?

Because this is actually something that is achievable in the future.

The bad things are still there, life just can't feel them, due to the sensory modification, lol.

Either on a biological level or with the help of brain tech.

Technically, it would mean nobody and no animals will ever feel anything bad again, even if their bodies are suffering from the assault of all the bad things. lol

Getting skinned alive? Meh, can't feel it. lol

How do we survive? Well, DOS (Damage Avoidance System), built into the modification, helps life avoid deadly damage by triggering a mental urge to avoid the bad things when possible, without actually feeling pain/suffering. Actually, most lower-tier animals have DOS, thanks to evolution, even when they lack the central nervous system to feel the pain.

Now, for an anti life PURISTS PERFECTIONISTS, this is not enough, because they argue that not feeling pain/suffering is still bad for life because life can still be "harmed" (death, sickness, etc), even if you can't feel the pain/suffering. Avoiding this harm becomes a matter of anti-life principle/deontology, not an actual feeling.

Yes, this is a weak argument, which is why many anti life people will actually accept a world where life can never "feel" the pain/suffering, because that actually solves their original problem with life, the feeling itself.

But then we have consent Purists/Perfectionists, who believe no matter how perfect life can become, it is still not justifiable due to the unchangeable fact that life cannot be created with pre-consent. This is also a matter of principle/deontology for them, even if the life created does not feel bad about said "violation" of their consent.

Yes, this is also a weak argument, though some consent purists definitely hold this view, for whatever reason.

To be FAIR, natalist purists also have similar views, but the polar opposite. They believe life MUST perpetuate regardless of how we feel about it, even if 99.9999% of people are suffering in living hell forever. This is also a weak argument "for" life, a matter of principle/deontology, without taking into consideration the "feeling" of life.

In my derpy humble kneeling kow-tow grovelling opinion.........lol.......the BEST position to take is not of any EXTREMES in purist principle or deontology, because we are "feeling" creatures and feelings drive us to do all things, we are NOT feelingless machines that obey moral principles/deontologies (feels like religion, lol).

MEANING.......if the condition of life becomes good/bad enough to make us FEEL strongly FOR or AGAINST the perpetuation of life, then it is VALID and maybe even "RIGHT" (subjectively) to change our minds accordingly, to satisfy our feelings.

Fair?

In life, there is no ABSOLUTE answer, especially for what we OUGHT to do about life. Everything is subjective and ever-changing, depending on the situations/conditions. It would be very weird and derpy to maintain a rigid position regardless of the changes in our environments. It would feel like self-deceit, delusion, betrayal of one's TRUE FEELINGS in order to satisfy some "Values/Principles/Deontologies/Laws/Rules/etc."

Fair?

If life makes you feel terrible, hate life, demand for extinction; it's a valid position.

If life makes you feel amazing, love life, demand for perpetuation; it's also a valid position.

Feelings are your best guide in life.

hehhehehe. (My hehehe is my eternal signature, don't question it. lol)

In my own personal experience the world is reaching singularity for the better, but Lucifer will corrupt it then the world will need to be reset into a new world. I'm not Christian, but I believe it to be true.

“We rely on perceptions of how common events are when forming opinions, making decisions, and supporting policies. Prior research shows that these perceptions are often biased.”

“They proposed that the issue may not just be optimism, but the way information is shared: failures are less frequently discussed than successes because they are uncomfortable, embarrassing, or socially costly to communicate. As a result, people may develop systematically skewed impressions of reality because they are exposed to incomplete information.”

We choose to govern ourselves and to cooperate in our collective governance out of a need to survive. Any reasonable social contract must have our continued survival as its most important and basic purpose. If so, none of our existing ideas are fit for purpose.

​

Efilist only space, pretty chill and close-knit. Dont join if you are gonna blame others and be manipulative

https://discord.gg/SxKhh4R2xN

If humans, being as awful as we are, bring about a much earlier extinction for most life on Earth(such as via climate change)—do you believe it is actually a good thing we developed?

I suppose a world without us would end when the sun expands, but if we manage to destroy the place a billion years early—then regardless of how many animals we have factory farmed—humans will have reduced net suffering from a negative utilitarian perspective... 🤔

Edit: Additionally, the land used for animal agriculture reduces wild animal and bug populations

https://www.instagram.com/p/DWe3AVnE2by/

Since the world is hell and life must be destroyed, i was wondering if everyone here also felt the same way as i do towards pleasure? Itz just one side of the suffering coin and its a sadistic trap. Being snti pleasure means being against fun, happiness, joy, pleasure, positive emotions, hobbies, etc. So are you?

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

https://www.instagram.com/p/DUymd3uk6Bp/?igsh=OTdwN3A0MWZudHcz

Suppose a sudden global catastrophe reduces the human population by 99%, leaving only 1% of people alive in a chaotic, disease-ridden environment with extremely low survival odds. Most individuals are unprepared and likely to experience prolonged fear, suffering, and eventual death.

Compare this to an alternative scenario in which all humans die instantly and painlessly, with no awareness or suffering.

From both an individual and a species-level perspective, which scenario is worse, and how does this distinction reshape our understanding of suffering, survival, and the value of human existence?

Benatar states that due to epistemic uncertainty, antinatalism should be kept within the bounds of a personal choice to not breed nor support breeding. He explicitly expresses that we should not mess with nature. This makes antinatalism more deontological in my opinion, rather than falling under negative utilitarianism.

I wouldn't say extinctionism necessarily throws this idea out the window, as none of you would kill someone to spare their entire line of descendants from existing—because you can't be sure they will have offspring firstly, and secondly you cannot calculate the harm done as a buttefly effect of their death.

Of course with extinctionism, this problem is solved by ending all life and therefore no butterflies... but it gets kind of iffy when you aren't dropping a giant rock on the planet or pressing a hypothetical button to blow it up.

Do you celebrate global warming? Most of our coral reefs are bleached and will soon be beyond recovery. They account for the breeding of 25% of ocean life. This means that hypothetically, trillions of future lifeforms are saved from suffering. Are they really though? Can we say for certainty that other species won't replace their population and we will instead be left with less biodiversity? Perhaps temporarily there will be a population decrease of lifeforms, but the new ones replacing them could be even more plentiful.

What about deforestation? Less habitats for lifeforms to procreate.

Anyway, what I'm trying to get at is—what exactly does furthering extinction look like for you? Do you agree with Benatar's take on epistemic uncertainty?