Venting no rational being would choose to come alive in a world without the option to end their life

[Darkover]

Life, by its nature, involves suffering—physical, emotional, or psychological. While moments of happiness or contentment exist, they are often fleeting and uncertain. Suffering, however, is a near-certainty. From a rational perspective, one might conclude that the potential for extreme suffering outweighs the possibility of occasional pleasure. Without the assurance of an option to end life should suffering become unbearable, a rational being might feel trapped in an inescapable situation, forced to endure without recourse.

Even with the best of intentions, it's impossible to predict what the future holds. Chronic illness, mental health crises, or unforeseen circumstances could lead to a quality of life so diminished that existence becomes unbearable. The lack of a reliable means to exit this existence, should one find themselves in such a state, could be seen as an unreasonable risk to take—especially when compared to the certainty of death, which is inevitable for all.

A rational being would likely value their autonomy and ability to control their own fate. The inability to make the choice to end one's life in extreme circumstances could be seen as a form of subjugation—being bound to the whims of life, subject to forces beyond one's control. Without an escape, the individual may feel like a prisoner of their own body or mind. Rationality demands that we have the right to make decisions about our own existence, especially when suffering becomes overwhelming and irredeemable.

Rational beings who are aware of their own mortality may come to realize the brevity and potential pointlessness of life. If life holds the possibility of endless suffering or degradation without a guaranteed way out, choosing existence in the first place could be seen as illogical. A rational mind might prefer the peace and certainty of non-existence, where suffering is absent and no further harm can be inflicted. The question then becomes, why take the risk of enduring a life filled with suffering when one can face the certainty of nothingness, which would offer freedom from all pain?

From a rational standpoint, one might question the ethics of forcing a being into existence without offering the means to end it when necessary. It could be argued that bringing a being into existence without considering the full range of potential suffering they may experience is ethically irresponsible. If society values autonomy and personal choice, then a rational being would likely expect that, should they ever find themselves in unbearable circumstances, they should have the right to opt out without facing legal or medical barriers.

In essence, the rational argument for no being coming into existence without the means to end it if needed hinges on the acknowledgment that life is fraught with uncertainties and suffering, and that any intelligent, autonomous being would not rationally accept such a fate without having some form of control over their exit. To be forced into life without recourse to death could be seen as the ultimate lack of freedom—a form of existence dictated by chance rather than choice.

 

[Forever Sleep]

It's not that I don't agree with you- I'm antinatilist myself but, why do you suppose so many do choose to reproduce? Because they don't think rationally? I think some do. A friend of mine thought through at least some of the implications of having a child. But, they still chose to do it. So far, they seem to be ok (thankfully.) Both the child and them.

I can't really comment because, I haven't had a very strong desire to have children or, been in the position to have them so- I'm not sure of the thought process really.

It would be interesting to hear from parents here but, I doubt they'd necessarily want to reveal themselves or their motivations for having children. I think parents get a lot of hate here.

The most curious one for me is when the parent suffered themselves. Especially if it's an illness- physical or mental that is heredity. Aren't they worried the child might suffer the same? I expect some though, that have suffered due to difficult childhoods have children with the intention of giving them all the love and support they never received. I imagine most believe that life can be good under the right circumstances. I don't actually believe people bring children here intending for them to suffer. Do you?

 

[Darkover]

It's not that I don't agree with you- I'm antinatilist myself but, why do you suppose so many do choose to reproduce? Because they don't think rationally? I think some do. A friend of mine thought through at least some of the implications of having a child. But, they still chose to do it. So far, they seem to be ok (thankfully.) Both the child and them.

Do you think if having children required the explicit, informed agreement of both parents, it's likely there would be a decrease in the number of babies born, i think there would be a 15-25% decrease in the number of births globally if explicit mutual agreement was required and culturally enforced. This is a broad estimate and would vary by region and societal conditions.

I don't actually believe people bring children here intending for them to suffer. Do you?

No, I don't believe most people bring children into the world with the intention of them suffering.
but there are some sick people out there a few at least if not 1000s could be 10,000s each year

 

[Forever Sleep]

Do you think if having children required the explicit, informed agreement of both parents, it's likely there would be a decrease in the number of babies born, i think there would be a 15-25% decrease in the number of births globally if explicit mutual agreement was required and culturally enforced. This is a broad estimate and would vary by region and societal conditions.

Agreement about what? Like a contract you mean- to provide certain things for the child? Or, that they're fully aware of all the ways their child might suffer? With a big, long list to sign?

The trouble is, even good parenting doesn't guarantee a happy life although- I'm sure it improves their odds.

Or, are you talking about unplanned pregnancies here? Are you imagining women are deliberately getting pregnant without the man's knowledge or, men and women are being careless and the man is sodding off and leaving the woman to either get an abortion or not? Will those resulting children definitely suffer though? I don't think the children of all unplanned pregnancies or single parents necessarily suffer.

Bear in mind that- presumably, the woman is already pregnant I imagine when they are presented with this document. Or- will it be shown to both sexes approaching pubity? In any case, it will be the woman who has to go through an abortion if one or both decide they don't want to subject their child to all this risk. Would you for instance, deny single mothers the option to have their child?

How would you imagine this could be culturally enforced? Under which circumstances would people be allowed to reproduce? If they've read through all the awful things that might happen and agreed to take the risk? Do they need a certain amount in their bank account? Do they need to be screened for heredity illnesses? Does their gene pool need to look likely to produce someone who will find a good job? That feels like it's approaching eugenics. Can they be sued if their child still ends up unhappy? How much onus is put on the child to make their life a success? Especially if they start looking to sue when they have reached adulthood.

Maybe I've misunderstood though. Maybe you just mean people need a wake up call on how shit life is! They may not agree though. Plus, babies come from sex. You'll have even more difficulties preventing people from having sex! Maybe you could scare them into using protection more but people who want children, I imagine will still have them.

Plus, you'd be forcing some women into abortions. Should 'unsuitable' fathers be forced to have versectomies or, is it going to be all down to the women?

I'm curious as to what you'd want to see in this 'agreement'. What could parents practically agree to? It's an interesting idea of course. I've seen other members liken it to a dog license! Makes sense. Surely, having a baby is even more responsibility than a dog. It's a little more complicated with something you don't just go out and buy though. Many cultures I expect view procreation as a human right. Plus- it's more risky for a woman or man to have a medical procedure because they broke the rules than it is to deny a person the purchase of a pet or, confiscate and re-home illegal pets.

 

[ijustwishtodie]

Most people aren't rational though which is why they would always choose to have experience (life) rather than non existence (absence of life)

 

[fkyou]

Look around you..most people are healthy..fed. clothed..they are fine..if you don't have some mental personality disorders you'll live threw anything easily

 

[Darkover]

Agreement about what? Like a contract you mean- to provide certain things for the child? Or, that they're fully aware of all the ways their child might suffer? With a big, long list to sign?

well instead of pregnancy being down to random chance you engineer a better machine existence where both parties agree to the impregnated egg with the sperm with the advent of genetic engineering and "designer" babies

 

[Forever Sleep]

well instead of pregnancy being down to random chance you engineer a better machine existence where both parties agree to the impregnated egg with the sperm with the advent of genetic engineering and "designer" babies

Interesting. So, surrogate parents basically to 'super genes and babies'? Who decides what makes those genes superior? Will we see a rise in sociopaths and narcissists? They seem to do very well in this world. Surely, you'd want competitive genes.

Can't say I'm convinced to be honest. How many mothers would want to go through pregnancy and labour to pop out someone else's baby? With presumably none of their own genes or, their partners? How many men would want to stick around to raise someone else's child? I guess if it became standard practice though, people might accept it. I still have doubts though... Surely, the primary reproductive drive is replicate your own genes, not grow someone else's?

Also- as I understand it, men go through biological changes when they become fathers- designed to make them more paternal. Will they go through those same stages if they weren't the father?

I think a fair few would-be parents don't even like the idea of adopting. They want to raise their own- as it were. This would take it a whole stage further.

Who knows though? I can't really judge because, I've never massively wanted children. I definitely wouldn't want to go through the pain of pregnancy and labour to grow a super race though. That sounds really disturbing to me personally.

I'm not sure how it solves the problem of the dying planet either. Unless, this really is a super brainy race that works out how to fix everything. Interesting though. It would be even better if they could engineer men to be able to carry children too. I think we'd actually see more equality then.