I both agree and disagree with this. Our current implementation of society makes our population a larger tax on the planet. If you took those 8 billion people, and spread them equally across the globe and each locality consumed only those resources that were available to them, and moreover gave back to the earth in that exchange, I doubt population would be that big a deal. Our population is currently a burden because of the way we consume those resources.
Going all the way back to prehistory, humanity has had a massive impact on ecosystems. This is despite the population being only a small fraction of what it is today. Consuming only local resources would not be a solution, as those resources would still be rapidly depleted unless resource usage was collectively decided based upon environmental impact. Even then, the sheer level of destruction required for basic things such as agriculture and materials collection would remain astounding.
Feed lots for example, cause more green house gases than any amount of fossil fuel use. "Cow farts" was attacked in the 80's and dismissed as a silly proposition, but agriculture is actually the worst effect we currently have on the planet.
Absolutely. When typing that out, I had initially included a clause about elimination of meat production, but decided that it was covered under "cut consumption to a minimum."
All deaths are needed. Imagine a planet where nobody died. Fun for a century, boring forever.
This is in no way my point. The existence of life is inherently needless. Thus, death, an intrinsic part of life, can also be considered needless.
Continuing my magnet analogy; A life exists on a continuum from one polar opposite to the other. Along there, you have all sorts of life types. Those who exist to mitigate suffering, to those who's entire life is pleasure despite periods of perceived suffering.
You seem to view the presence of suffering as an attitude. I consider it to be universal. One's outlook regarding their personal experience of suffering can differ, but it does not preclude them from experiencing it and being driven by it.
From what I can tell though; It's all on our heads. Why is it that two people going skydiving, one is in a state of near euphoria and the second is ready to defecate themselves? Because of how they perceive the circumstance. It's the exact same circumstance, but one person sees the magic in it, the other sees the fear painted all over it.
See above.
No doubt many live in a dream state. They fail to see some of the harsh realities that plague our existence. I would contend however, that often times the negatives are considered far outside the context to which they belong. Atrocities are committed every day, but those atrocities account for a fraction of interactions, and a fraction of time. Our memories work in such a way though that emotion is the strongest tie to memory.
Seeking reasons for outrage seems to be an intrinsic part of human nature. The western news media is a particularly visible example of this phenomenon.
On a more personal level, my concerns seem to primarily be based on direct effects upon myself or things which I perceive as near-universal to the human condition. To be honest, the type of philosophical discussion we are having right now is more a result of a strong academic interest in ethics than anything emotionally affective. For example, my disgust with human reproduction is on exactly the same emotional level as how I feel about the proliferation of nonstandard bottom brackets within the bicycle industry.
Those things which make us angry, sad, depressed are remember much more easily than everyday interactions. Combine that with a society in which you're constantly chasing happiness (even though it's always right in front of you), and sure, your memory starts to get a bit bias from the overload of negativity pounding us from every direction... but that's not all inclusive.
While I cannot fairly apply this experience to anybody else, my reality is such that there is little enjoyment to be found in outside experiences. The "everyday interactions" you use as an example are simply unpleasant to me, as is perception in general-- a result of extreme hypersensitivity.
For example, as I type this, I am hyper-aware of all of the following: a high-frequency electrical noise of unknown origin; the sound of the fan in my computer; the visible flicker of the monitor's backlight; the noise of cars in the distance; birds calling each other; my own breathing; blink rate; the air temperature; my body position; slight bodily sensations such as allergies; distracting lights, textures, and objects in my peripheral vision; and physical contact with other body parts, the floor, my clothing, the laptop, the blanket under which I am sitting, and my hair
This is despite my best attempts at creating a comfortable environment. Being in an environment upon which I have no control is absolutely overwhelming and leads to severely negative emotions for which I have no name. Simply being in the presence of other humans is highly unpleasant, for reasons beyond, but not exclusive of, anxiety.
I'll ask for some data around this sometime in the next week. I wasn't trying to link them together in all circumstances, and the more I recall that conversation, the I believe she was speaking of domestic violence victims more than anything. The environment is what is taught and sought after, therefore the victim and criminal in that context are just trying to produce an environment they're comfortable in, one in which domestic violence exists. So the role they play in that environment is regardless to the individual, as long as the environment is reproduced.
That certainly does make sense in the context of domestic violence. While it is completely unfair to blame the victim in any way, the reality is that certain personality types do subconsciously seek out abusive situations. I have personally witnessed this with my mother and, through her stories, several of her friends.
Understand that in no way was I saying your gender/sexuality/personal inclinations were "wrong"... just operating under the assumption that perhaps a lack of experience was reinforcing a view. That's all. Kind of like me saying I'd never try sushi-mi because it's freaking gross and who eats raw fish? Then I tried some and wow.... so many years I've been missing out.
Assuming you're heterosexual, does this mean that you have actively sought out sexual experiences with other men just so you can be sure that you would not enjoy it? If this is not the case, I could apply the exact same logic to your situation and say that lack of experience could perhaps be reinforcing the view that you are heterosexual.
EDIT: Re: All life is needless
This is a needless statement. You can ponder over why you're here or what it's all about until the day you die and never get a good answer. The fact remains though that here you are. Here life is. How it came to this is irrelevant. Why this is here is irrelevant. It's here and you have the opportunity to experience it in all it's glory and disgust.
Yes and no. While pondering the purpose of my own coming into existence is ultimately meaningless, it is still very much possible to prevent others from being placed into the same situation. It is from this perspective that I am operating.
See through the illusion and it's really not that bad. Do you feel bad for the NPC's you kill in Skyrim? Probably not because at some level you understand their pain is illusory. So is ours! It sure feels real, but it's as real as the NPC in Skyrim getting hit with an arrow.
I realize you may not mean it that way, but this is among the worst possible advice you could give to someone who lacks emotional empathy.
My best kind of woman? The kind that waited for me for about nine months patiently and lovingly suffer pain and inconvenience.
Bless you, mother.
Guys, no matter what or how mothers are, those nine month can never be repaid to them, not even in the slightest.
Reproduction was my mother's decision, made more to satisfy her own egotism and selfish desires than any altruistic motives. I did not ask to be brought into existence, nor did I consent to it. Had she not chosen to reproduce, "I" would remain in the same state of nonexistence as with the infinite number of theoretical potential humans who could have been brought into existence by a very slight variation in circumstance, but ultimately were not. This would in no way be of concern to anybody, in exactly the same way as theoretical nonexistent people are of no concern to anybody. Thus, no problems were solved by my conception; they were only created. Why should I be thankful?
(I had extreme difficulty putting this thought into language, so I hope it comes off as comprehensible.)
Just for the sake of clarification, I will say that I do not hate my mother. I simply don't see a reason to be thankful to her for my existence. For what it's worth, she seems to recognize her mistake as well. She has actually told me that, should I choose to commit suicide, she would be supportive of that decision.
