Fed up with the 'you must have children' propaganda

[Kulindahr]

His conclusion demonstrates net harm in existence in spite of your objection.

Bullshit. All it demonstrates is that he's good at fooling people.

Speaking of mind games, this^ is certainly one. We prize all sorts of harmful things for being absent: cancer, murder, genocide, suicide, rape, slavery, on and on and on. We prize it when there is not a rape; we may also prize it when conditions don't give rise to rape.

No, we don't -- we prize what that absence means. We prize health, life, peace... all the things that make existence prized.

Whether or not people inflict existence on children without intending to do them harm, the result is always the same in the case of every human life: there is still suffering.

There is still joy.

That he is wrong is easily demonstrated by the fact that the proportion of people who suicide is small. Thus existence is a positive value -- otherwise we wouldn't cling to it.

The suggestion that I should harm myself because I don't want to inflict harm on others, is illogical.

Again, there is no harm done to non-existent people by not inflicting existence on them. But, in suicide, there would be harm done to me.

But existence means suffering. Your existence is a bad thing, because it means suffering. Suicide would end the suffering.

If the argument is valid at all, it's valid regardless of whether the person exists yet or not. If non-existence is better than existence, then any rational individual should end his existence. If bringing someone into existence is negative, then continuing in existence is negative.

More broadly, consider this: the end I'm arguing for right now is the extinction of the human species. That may be achieved through different means. The means I'm advocating is one which wouldn't harm anyone.

Of course it harms people --you contradictorily maintain that people now living should remain alive. But they would reduce suffering by terminating their lives.

 

[Kulindahr]

^we're already there and people are already doing this and have been doing this for years.

Really? I don't know anyone who's gotten genetic counseling. Who provides it, and why are all those people ignoring it? What are the standards?

this below statement however, is implying something you have mentioned more blatantly before elsewhere on this board many times and I find what you are implying incredibly disturbing.

It's only disturbing if you find medical treatment of any kind disturbing. Shall we do away with doctors?

You were saying...?

I was saying that you're making a totally invalid comparison.

 

[Kulindahr]

You would be happy if I killed myself.^

You would force me to kill myself if you had the power.^

What's wrong with you?

To be consistent, you should be happy to kill yourself. If "there is net harm in existence", that includes yours.

 

[The Fly]

Soooooo who's got a bun in the oven???

 

[Kulindahr]

Only the medical profession is relevant?

Of course only the medical profession is relevant -- it's a medical question. You don't ask a carpenter or an accountatn about genetic defects, you ask a doctor.

Yes, big pharma has only our best interests at heart.

Don't try changing the subject.

Science can't even cure the common cold, and you'd trust them to mess around with human DNA?

So because there's one thing they can't do, you don't want them to do things they can? This is like saying that because engineers can't send people to the moon in a couple of hours, we should stop building trains and planes.

Wow. We don't even fight regular disease now, only manage it.

What century do you think this is? Have you ever heard of vaccines? antibiotics? joint replacement? Are you aware of the eradication of smallpox?

Remember, there is no $$ in curing disease. Why would they want to eradicate their livelihood?

"No $$ in curing disease". Gee, I hadn't noticed all the poverty-stricken doctors living in shacks, and the homeless nurses and medical technicians.

If there were no dollars in curing disease, then there would be no one in the medical professions. In reality, there's lots of money in curing disease: the longer people live, the more often they'll come back to see a doctor, and the more often the doctors get to bill them. The older people get, the more frequently they see doctors, so by curing diseases doctors are ensuring themselves an ongoing supply of patients.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes....this conversation is QUITE disturbing.

Compassion disturbs you.

Bizarre.

 

[Kulindahr]

If if if... You are comparing reparative surgery on one individual to altering human DNA clear down the line, hardly the same thing. But thanks for answering my other points though.

Point of information: no one is talking about altering human DNA at all, let alone "all down the line". We're talking about replacing bad human DNA with good human DNA.

If you're serious, I have to conclude that you oppose child immunization programs and flu vaccines.

 

[Kulindahr]

Soooooo who's got a bun in the oven???

You always want the buzz.

 

[Kulindahr]

Soooooo who's got a bun in the oven???

BTW, that particular euphemism has always troubled me: when a bun comes out of the oven, we eat it.....

 

[mikey3000]

Point of information: no one is talking about altering human DNA at all, let alone "all down the line". We're talking about replacing bad human DNA with good human DNA.

If you're serious, I have to conclude that you oppose child immunization programs and flu vaccines.

Conclude what you like, but immunization and vaccines shouldn't be altering the child's DNA. What you are referring to is genetic engineering, the manipulation of the genetic code, not unlike what is happening to our food supply. Aren't scientists creating genetically altered, disease resistant foods now? See that? The jump from altering the food supply to altering the human supply is so small, what's to stop the next jump, to selective genetic "guidelines". Do you really think that science will stop evolving at curative measures? I think not, but that is just my opinion.

 

[zoltanspawn]

To be consistent, you should be happy to kill yourself. If "there is net harm in existence", that includes yours.

Kulindahr, rather than belabor this thread re-correcting the many points on Benetar's argument you've misunderstood, I'll simply look at this one example to characterize the rest of your faulty logic.

It's a non sequitur.

It does not follow that people who believe that there is a net harm in existing (over non-existence) should kill themselves.

That creates more harm.

Can you imagine any other logical courses of action?

That, for example, people in a harmful world should find ways to cope with the painful aspects of their existence that are less harmful? Perhaps they could, oh, I don't know, take up the guitar? Or give encouragement to others? Practice medicine? Try to make the world a more pleasurable place? Advocate for compassionate policies? Feed hungry people? So on and so forth?

Think hard, now. Suicide is not the only option.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Conclude what you like, but immunization and vaccines shouldn't be altering the child's DNA. What you are referring to is genetic engineering, the manipulation of the genetic code, not unlike what is happening to our food supply. Aren't scientists creating genetically altered, disease resistant foods now? See that? The jump from altering the food supply to altering the human supply is so small, what's to stop the next jump, to selective genetic "guidelines". Do you really think that science will stop evolving at curative measures? I think not, but that is just my opinion.

There is no "cure" for a disease that originates in your genetics. You can't take a pill to cure it. If there were such a pill it would be one that is either correcting something in your DNA or suppressing something in your DNA from manifesting. Either way, it's "manipulation."

What you haven't even bothered to even explain is why this is something inherently bad if the alternative is a lifelong illness.

 

[Kulindahr]

Conclude what you like, but immunization and vaccines shouldn't be altering the child's DNA. What you are referring to is genetic engineering, the manipulation of the genetic code, not unlike what is happening to our food supply. Aren't scientists creating genetically altered, disease resistant foods now? See that? The jump from altering the food supply to altering the human supply is so small, what's to stop the next jump, to selective genetic "guidelines". Do you really think that science will stop evolving at curative measures? I think not, but that is just my opinion.

So because something can be misused, we shouldn't do it?

That would cover most of human technology.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr, rather than belabor this thread re-correcting the many points on Benetar's argument you've misunderstood, I'll simply look at this one example to characterize the rest of your faulty logic.

It's a non sequitur.

It does not follow that people who believe that there is a net harm in existing (over non-existence) should kill themselves.

That creates more harm.

Can you imagine any other logical courses of action?

That, for example, people in a harmful world should find ways to cope with the painful aspects of their existence that are less harmful? Perhaps they could, oh, I don't know, take up the guitar? Or give encouragement to others? Practice medicine? Try to make the world a more pleasurable place? Advocate for compassionate policies? Feed hungry people? So on and so forth?

Think hard, now. Suicide is not the only option.

Your premise is that existence = harm. So by ending existence, you're reducing harm.

You can't have it both ways.

If it's better to "advocate compassionate policies" for those already in existence, it's also better to adopt them for those not (yet) in existence.

 

[Kulindahr]

There is no "cure" for a disease that originates in your genetics. You can't take a pill to cure it. If there were such a pill it would be one that is either correcting something in your DNA or suppressing something in your DNA from manifesting. Either way, it's "manipulation."

What you haven't even bothered to even explain is why this is something inherently bad if the alternative is a lifelong illness.

Or why replacing bad human DNA with good human DNA is a bad thing. It's not like advocating for adding, say, clam DNA into humans to "improve" them. We're not talking about improvement at all, just about correcting defects.

 

[ElmosToe]

ugh...

Um, no. Genetic counseling is not eugenics in the Nazi sense at all. Eugenics is imposed, dictating what characteristics are allowed; genetic counseling allows prospective parents to protect against having children with known genetic disorders.

Apparently you don't know what eugenics is....

is the belief and practice of improving the genetic quality of the human population.[2][3] It is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human genetic traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of people with desired traits (positive eugenics), and reduced reproduction of people with less-desired or undesired traits (negative eugenics)

You do realize that "dictating what characteristics are allowed" is the same as "allowing prospective parents to protect against having children with known genetic disorders" right?

What you are advocating is not genetic counseling but genetically engineering human beings under the guise of eliminating genetic disorders. We all know where that will lead...have you learned nothing from Star Trek....?

Also, keep in mind that heterosexuality is a mutation, and the original "normal" behaviour was homosexuality. This all got screwed up when a second gender entered the picture.

^disturbing

More broadly, consider this: the end I'm arguing for right now is the extinction of the human species. That may be achieved through different means. The means I'm advocating is one which wouldn't harm anyone.

^disturbing

Really? I don't know anyone who's gotten genetic counseling. Who provides it, and why are all those people ignoring it? What are the standards?

uuummm.....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_counseling


http://americanpregnancy.org/gettingpregnant/geneticcounseling.html


http://www.nsgc.org/


http://www.genetichealth.com/Resources_What_Is_Genetic_Counseling.shtml


http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/pediatricgenetics/genetic_counseling.html

It's only disturbing if you find medical treatment of any kind disturbing. Shall we do away with doctors?

Kuli,

I have much respect for you, but that is just utterly fucking ridiculous and I call you on your bullshit.

You would be happy if I killed myself.^

You would force me to kill myself if you had the power.^

What's wrong with you?

To be consistent, you should be happy to kill yourself. If "there is net harm in existence", that includes yours.

^disturbing...

Compassion disturbs you.

Bizarre.

The fact that you have diluted yourself to see genetically engineering human beings and are hoping or expecting guidelines to be implemented aka enforced, to make genetically engineering human beings a reality, as compassionate, is disturbing.

Why? Because you're essentially saying you want to do the same things the Nazi scientists did with eugenics, only we won't be doing it under a fascist regime, and instead will use the passive bureaucracy of the U.S. healthcare system to engineer our DNA so then it apparently makes it ok.


Hoping someone will kill themselves even as a joke is disturbing.
Saying humans need to be eradicated from the earth is disturbing.
Advocating genetic engineering of human beings is disturbing.
Not seeing any of this as disturbing, well....






While in theory it sounds wonderful to be able to resolve genetic dysfunction in utero.
The reality of genetic engineering human beings however, when put into practice is entirely something different when you take into account what the implications and consequences will be.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Your premise is that existence = harm. So by ending existence, you're reducing harm.

This is your version of my argument:

Existence is identical to harm.
Ending existence reduces harm.
Therefore you should end existence.

I am saying something different:

There is harm in existence (and no harm in non-existence.)
Causing someone to come into existence entails harm (while causing someone to remain non-existent does not).
Therefore, one shouldn't cause someone to come into existence.

Note, that causing someone to become non-existent does entail harm; and there is no argument being made^ that people should be caused to become non-existent.

That is entirely fabricated on your part.

 

[Disturbance]

You're that guy that used to have the rabbit avatar, aren't you?

But who cares. This is genuinely bizarre^. You are referring to the Biblical Adam, no? Before Eve entered the picture, who was Adam "homosexual" for? That hunk Yahweh?

Why do you bring religion into this? WHY? This is just science. Look at the development of life. Before a second gender appeared, every sexual form of reproduction was homosexual. Bizarre? Only from your point of view. I would say it is quite natural.

You would be happy if I killed myself.^

You would force me to kill myself if you had the power.^

What's wrong with you?

That is a question you should ask yourself. Keep your judgements to yourself if you can't bear to be judged.

 

[The Fly]

I don't care what anyone wants, I'm not having children. (I don't have the hips for it).

 

[desertboi]

I hear people say "when are you going to have kids" it really makes me cringe. As far as I'm concerned, there are enough people out there having kids.