Should we be the last generation? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

hiredgun · 06-07-2010, 02:01 PM

The always-provocative Peter Singer asks: is life worth living? What is the moral value of the continuation of our species, and how do we weigh that against the all-but-inevitable suffering of future humans?

Should This Be the Last Generation? - Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com

Quote:

Should This Be the Last Generation?

By PETER SINGER

Have you ever thought about whether to have a child? If so, what factors entered into your decision? Was it whether having children would be good for you, your partner and others close to the possible child, such as children you may already have, or perhaps your parents? For most people contemplating reproduction, those are the dominant questions. Some may also think about the desirability of adding to the strain that the nearly seven billion people already here are putting on our planet’s environment. But very few ask whether coming into existence is a good thing for the child itself. Most of those who consider that question probably do so because they have some reason to fear that the child’s life would be especially difficult — for example, if they have a family history of a devastating illness, physical or mental, that cannot yet be detected prenatally.

All this suggests that we think it is wrong to bring into the world a child whose prospects for a happy, healthy life are poor, but we don’t usually think the fact that a child is likely to have a happy, healthy life is a reason for bringing the child into existence. This has come to be known among philosophers as “the asymmetry” and it is not easy to justify. But rather than go into the explanations usually proffered — and why they fail — I want to raise a related problem. How good does life have to be, to make it reasonable to bring a child into the world? Is the standard of life experienced by most people in developed nations today good enough to make this decision unproblematic, in the absence of specific knowledge that the child will have a severe genetic disease or other problem?

If there were to be no future generations, there would be nothing for us to feel to guilty about. Is there anything wrong with this scenario?
The 19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer held that even the best life possible for humans is one in which we strive for ends that, once achieved, bring only fleeting satisfaction. New desires then lead us on to further futile struggle and the cycle repeats itself.

Schopenhauer’s pessimism has had few defenders over the past two centuries, but one has recently emerged, in the South African philosopher David Benatar, author of a fine book with an arresting title: “Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.” One of Benatar’s arguments trades on something like the asymmetry noted earlier. To bring into existence someone who will suffer is, Benatar argues, to harm that person, but to bring into existence someone who will have a good life is not to benefit him or her. Few of us would think it right to inflict severe suffering on an innocent child, even if that were the only way in which we could bring many other children into the world. Yet everyone will suffer to some extent, and if our species continues to reproduce, we can be sure that some future children will suffer severely. Hence continued reproduction will harm some children severely, and benefit none.

Benatar also argues that human lives are, in general, much less good than we think they are. We spend most of our lives with unfulfilled desires, and the occasional satisfactions that are all most of us can achieve are insufficient to outweigh these prolonged negative states. If we think that this is a tolerable state of affairs it is because we are, in Benatar’s view, victims of the illusion of pollyannaism. This illusion may have evolved because it helped our ancestors survive, but it is an illusion nonetheless. If we could see our lives objectively, we would see that they are not something we should inflict on anyone.

Here is a thought experiment to test our attitudes to this view. Most thoughtful people are extremely concerned about climate change. Some stop eating meat, or flying abroad on vacation, in order to reduce their carbon footprint. But the people who will be most severely harmed by climate change have not yet been conceived. If there were to be no future generations, there would be much less for us to feel to guilty about.

So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required — we could party our way into extinction!

Of course, it would be impossible to get agreement on universal sterilization, but just imagine that we could. Then is there anything wrong with this scenario? Even if we take a less pessimistic view of human existence than Benatar, we could still defend it, because it makes us better off — for one thing, we can get rid of all that guilt about what we are doing to future generations — and it doesn’t make anyone worse off, because there won’t be anyone else to be worse off.

Is a world with people in it better than one without? Put aside what we do to other species — that’s a different issue. Let’s assume that the choice is between a world like ours and one with no sentient beings in it at all. And assume, too — here we have to get fictitious, as philosophers often do — that if we choose to bring about the world with no sentient beings at all, everyone will agree to do that. No one’s rights will be violated — at least, not the rights of any existing people. Can non-existent people have a right to come into existence?

I do think it would be wrong to choose the non-sentient universe. In my judgment, for most people, life is worth living. Even if that is not yet the case, I am enough of an optimist to believe that, should humans survive for another century or two, we will learn from our past mistakes and bring about a world in which there is far less suffering than there is now. But justifying that choice forces us to reconsider the deep issues with which I began. Is life worth living? Are the interests of a future child a reason for bringing that child into existence? And is the continuance of our species justifiable in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings?

I find this question fascinating, if only because it forces me to re-examine an assumption that I ordinarily take for granted.

I'm curious what you all think. In particular, I'm curious whether the continuation of human life is worthwhile irrespective of the actual state of the world - in other words, if you believe that our species ought to continue, is this belief contingent on the expected quality of future human life, or would your belief remain unchanged even if the expected future were unmistakably bleak?

SecretMethod70 · 06-07-2010, 02:21 PM

I read that article earlier today. Thing is, I decided awhile ago that it's not really worth the effort to try and rationalize biological imperatives.

Hektore · 06-07-2010, 02:54 PM

Where to begin...
How do we measure happiness and suffering to know which way the scale is tipping?
Is happiness something that can exist without suffering?
Since when is non-existence is superior to suffering?
A happy life is not beneficial to the person having it?
How can happiness not be beneficial while suffering is detrimental; suffering has consequences but happiness does not?

That's one of the biggest loads of bull I've heard in a while. And I've been seeing some pretty large loads of bull lately...

Even it we took it as truth at face value there isn't any good reason to not let the suffering decide for themselves. Once they decide that non-existence is superior to their suffering they won't be around to lament their suffering any longer.

filtherton · 06-07-2010, 02:55 PM

To be perfectly honest, my first child wasn't the result of sweaty, grunty philosophical cogitation. She was an accident, but one that was embraced. The second kid was a conscious choice because the first kid was a net awesome.

While I do have no small amount of fear that the world will collapse into chaos during the lives of my children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, it isn't a limiting factor in my decision making. The world has always been a cruel place and if humanity ever gets to a place where it is collectively afraid to reproduce because the world is too cruel, then it will justifiably die out.

On top of that, I believe that suffering is relative, and happiness is generally fleeting, regardless of circumstance. So that the calculus involved with predicting the net lifetime emotional satisfaction of potential offspring is not only intractable, but also a misguided endeavor.

Willravel · 06-07-2010, 03:26 PM

If you're worried about the world being shitty for your kids, perhaps instead of giving up you should work harder. The worst thing that happens is you devote some of your life to making the world a better place, teaching your children to do the same.

Seaver · 06-07-2010, 03:47 PM

Quote:

That's one of the biggest loads of bull I've heard in a while. And I've been seeing some pretty large loads of bull lately...

Read more: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...#ixzz0qDL8VF1R

Quoted for truth.

Cynthetiq · 06-07-2010, 04:26 PM

I had always thought I had to have kids since I was a kid. It was a natural part of the culture I grew up in. It wasn't until I learned I had actual choices that it became apparent to me that I could and would chose a childfree life.

It has nothing to do with guilt, or future generations but for me to enjoy the life, city, and income that I have now. Maybe it's just as selfish, but I don't have to share my wife with any children. I don't have to agonize over illness and strife over acceptance to schools. I don't have to worry about any child coming home late from a party. I don't worry about if they are or will be a good person.

I live my life for me and my wife. And that's the end of my line in my family tree.

ring · 06-07-2010, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Thing is, I decided awhile ago that it's not really worth the effort to try and rationalize biological imperatives.

Agreed.

This somewhat reminds me of these folks:

VHEMT

Baraka_Guru · 06-07-2010, 05:31 PM

The best response I have to this comes directly from Buddhism:

The Four Noble Truths

1. Life means suffering.
2. The origin of suffering is attachment.
3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.
4. There is a path to the cessation of suffering.

QED

The Eightfold Path

(Wisdom)
1. Right View
2. Right Intention

(Ethical Conduct)
3. Right Speech
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood

(Mental Development)
6. Right Effort
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Concentration

aberkok · 06-07-2010, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

I had always thought I had to have kids since I was a kid. It was a natural part of the culture I grew up in. It wasn't until I learned I had actual choices that it became apparent to me that I could and would chose a childfree life.

It has nothing to do with guilt, or future generations but for me to enjoy the life, city, and income that I have now. Maybe it's just as selfish, but I don't have to share my wife with any children. I don't have to agonize over illness and strife over acceptance to schools. I don't have to worry about any child coming home late from a party. I don't worry about if they are or will be a good person.

I live my life for me and my wife. And that's the end of my line in my family tree.

Cyn my wife and I are on the same page, but a different paragraph. We have thought about adopting in order to help a child who has already been made.

I wish I could say guilt over the earth we are leaving for the next generation was not a factor in the decision not to make our own to add to the stock.

Pearl Trade · 06-07-2010, 07:52 PM

Doesn't every generation say their generation was worse than the last? Each individual makes their own happiness. No one can truly know how bad the time was before they were born. "Oh, hey, Hitler and Stalin killed millions." While that does provoke a certain amount of emotion, the people who lived then are the only ones to actually feel it.

If you have a kid, that kid will not know anything beyond what happns in the life he lives.

Idyllic · 06-08-2010, 03:49 AM

Born in 1946, Peter Singer is arriving at THAT age, the age where mortality (health is deteriorating) is licking at his feet. Go to any nursing home and you will bump into those who can not stand to see the world progress without them, who would prefer to believe the world will end when they do. End of times and end of humanity are repeated prophecies over and over, though one day it will happen, who cares when and or if it does, life is for the living and those who wish to thrive within it. Let the youth be young and live a life filled with dreams of their future, they deserved it just as we did, I can't stand older people who talk of end times, to me it is indicative of their own fear being pushed off on others, I don't care for that thinking, if you want to live negativity personified, live it quietly and allow the world to find it's own future without your demise rhetoric. I look forward to the peace of eternal rest, but before it comes I will live until I literally can't stand life (my body betrays my mind) and then die to the best of my abilities without drowning the world in my sorrow of an unfulfilled life, or a life I still want to fulfill as my mind is healthy and my body ages beyond its workings.

Quote:

And is the continuance of our species justifiable in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings?

Life is suffering, but lack of life is nothing, nothing at all, no joy, no peace, no happiness, no wisdom, no love, no friendship, no pain, no excitement, no art, no beauty, no fun, no matter what each generation thinks as the end arrives before them, the world will continue to embrace the next generation, and the generations after that, who are any of us to decide now the fate of our children or our children’s children or generations beyond our sight, who are we to stop the potential of mankind in its great discoveries that could lay just around the proverbial corner. I would love to see around that corner, but alas I will only know the answers if we turn them in my lifetime, though I see many answers from corners already maneuvered. Life is such a blessing, death is merely a release from an aged body and it will always be scary if you have loved living, but to look back and feel that the miseries of life have out-weighted the beauty of a late death, after 70 years of being in the world with your fellow humans experiencing breathing, then don’t fuck it up for the young people, just keep your mouth shut if you can’t spread hope of a great future resplendent with peace and harmony. What will it matter when your dead anyways, why be a harbinger of despair (there are plenty of those already), the end will come or it won’t, walk a peaceful and blessed path and hope mankind will follow, die happy and hope you children will know the same spirituality of peace, happiness is a state of mind, mind you state and bring the children with you, happiness is a state of being, being happy makes a life worth living, live happy, die happier that you were blessed to even experience life and the world will follow your lead.

Peace lives on the currents of movements, death resides in stagnancy, and how can humanity move forward if we universally choose stagnation, “end of times” talk reeks rotten to me.

Ourcrazymodern? · 06-08-2010, 11:00 AM

When I look at myself, I think probably, but when I look at my offspring, I think probably not. There's not unusual selfishness in living for yourself, but there's less in living for others.
Imagining an ability to choose to be last strikes me as absurd.

Jetée · 06-08-2010, 11:17 AM

I have been thinking about this very same premise in two differing ways for quite a while.

The first way is the evil way: I'd love it, if, by some way, happenstance, or random natural accident, half (or more) of the world's current population were to just "vanish" tomorrow (substitute whichever word synonomous with annul you'd prefer) ; and by "love", I mean I wouldn't be outraged or hysterical about it, and by "tomorrow", I mean a gradual process of a period of decay, whether it be weeks, months, years or decades that has our population equalize to a sub-de-limited state of current conditions.

second part is the "sad pondering" cultural way: of where I am beginning to wonder why and how this generation now, and those that are still being sprung forth tirelessly into the future, can compare to the knowledge of what the average normal person knows today? It's a mind-boggling premise to eloquently state or even begin to expand upon, but for starters, culturally, now and forever, is lost unto what we already hold within ourselves as "must-experiences", such as King-Kong, The Beatles, Michael Jordan, Hop on Pop, etc. and whatever else you, personally might supplant. It doesn't get any richer than right now, for those of us born from the decades of the 1940s onwards, to as late as 1991, in terms of "equalized", and fundamental, rudimentary, and above all, trivial knowledge. Kids today can't comprehend our dying commentary of the times. And because of that, I'm sure of, the Sunday NYTimes crossword puzzle acumen of the layperson will become either comical, or bordering on the teeterings of a new way to measure a modern-day savant.

Plan9 · 06-08-2010, 12:15 PM

I know the following is all common sense, but I tell ya, man is one peculiar creature. It constantly amazes me. We have a profound need for purpose in our lives and yet the only way to generate such purpose, as a collective, is to make it for ourselves. From trying to understand ourselves to trying to find god, we're always busy with our prying little fingers and curious little minds. Aside from satisfying the basic needs of life as every other creature seems to spend it entire existence doing (food, space, reproduction, rinse, repeat), we have all this "free time" to contemplate the universe.

I don't think this generation should be the last. I wanna leave it all to Bachmanesque chance. I want nuclear fire to consume the Earth due to some fanatic's dream or a giant space rock to smash us like the fist of an angry god. I'd feel like that's a better way to go than consuming all our natural resources while poisoning the planet with our waste products and offspring. Crabs in a barrel. What did Kurt Cobain's suicide note say? Yeah, that.

The point above about how absurd it is to assume any one generation is the last given the driving force of human life is good. We're stomping, clawing our way into the future with every heartbeat. Our technology, our willpower, our sense of self, and our sheer numbers keep the human furnace hot.

...

And to close, let's cue up this cheery little tune:

Don't Open Till Doomsday

raeanna74 · 06-09-2010, 11:22 AM

Unless we could institute universal sterilization or even limit the number of children born to each adult/couple then I certainly am not going to stop having children JUST to control the population. I'm increasingly aware of large poor families (due to the additional government help gained for each new child), and large numbers od stupid people. My theory is that the stupid people who don't even care about birth control, caring for children, and working hard will end up overpopulating the earth and the intelligent, careful, hard working and amibitious people will limit their numbers by using birth control responsibly. This could eventually leave the responsible, intelligent people in the minority.

On a side note - I truely believe that a law should be made to force sterilization after an individuals SECOND abortion. I've seen too many welfare recipients relying on abortions for birth control. It's irresponsible and shows a lack of forethough or even intelligence.

boink · 06-12-2010, 12:59 PM

I'm more than ok with being the last generation,mainly because humanity is so destructive to the planet as a whole. We do share it with tons of other life forms who, to me are born with th same right to live here regardless of their size or preceived intelligence.
We are a selfish cruel horror and we deserve to die so the flora and fauna can continue in relative peace.
Just mho.

Plan9 · 06-12-2010, 01:06 PM

I think evolution would simply create another entity to fill our destructive shoes.

Humanity is the most powerful force of nature, the pinnacle of bull-in-china-shop.

FuglyStick · 06-12-2010, 01:48 PM

Newsflash--Earth will be here long after we are gone.

I wonder if the dinosaurs had this discussion as well.

boink · 06-12-2010, 01:49 PM

bull's in china shops are actually quite graceful and don't do much damage at all. -see Mythbusters epp.

humanity is powerful but not the most powerful. we sure have the power to wreck everything for all life on earth though, but we don't have the power to fix it all.

we are most likely destroying the gulf right now and that oil will more then likely destroy vast amounts of ecosystems far beyond the gulf for decades to come with no real way to clean it up or restore it. nature will eventually come back but but we really fucked it in the ass this time. all so we can drive our little plastic cars to the market and buy our little plastic crap.

people whining about the devastation of the gulf economy...fuck the humans living in the gulf ! what about the sea life ? how'd you like to be a whale swimming around filtering plankton and get a mouth full of crude oil ? maybe you'd just die cause your baleen is all clogged and fucked up with oil ? animal life gets shit on everywhere and all humans worry about is their god damned economy. fuck humans.

Ourcrazymodern? · 06-12-2010, 02:05 PM

boink, ranting about some of our failings doesn't really address the question. Yes, we don't take responsibility for some of the rights we've assumed, but that doesn't give us the right to abandon ourselves to oblivion. Aside from the fact that that's not going to happen in this generation nor at anytime soon, striving for betterment is something people do & we can't do it if we just give up.

boink · 06-12-2010, 02:17 PM

agreed

Idyllic · 06-12-2010, 03:14 PM

Hey boink, did you hear that tree fall?

Or let me ask this, did you ever see anything more beautiful in your life than the outstretched wings of an eagle as it takes flight with the body of a ruddy salmon struggling in its steely talons?

Do the words of history bring images of anything other than death and despair to ones mind, if not, then maybe we should all try reading some other books that don't feed into the worse miseries of life, and actually believing them. Living is so much more beautiful than we seem to give it credit, sorrow is cheap my friend, it costs effort to find happiness, but when happiness is achieved it is truly priceless, and yes, all to often fleeting, so it is easier to dwell in sorrow that to strive for happiness daily, but no one likes a cheap-scape.

I am happy that the more impoverished people along the gulf may be able to earn some money cleaning up the mess, I am saddened for the environment, deeply saddened, but what has happen has happened, time to clean up now. Reality doesn't change the momentum of life, action does. Many people will be traveling to the gulf states to help in the clean-up, the economy will hopefully thrive off of the environmentally conscience "tourists" who will not only feed the hungry but will feed their own souls in partnering with the locals to clean up the shorelines (buying happiness merely costs a little self-servicing effort). Humans are, in general, good. I will always believe in the intrinsic goodness of mankind, we really just need to work on believing this about ourselves and our lives and living that reality and humanity can be so much more than it presently appears to be. Not to mention more reading and community involvement and less headline news watching.

Kum by ya my friend, kum by ya....... Yeah, I've been drinking again, what about it.....

at least my fingers aren't slurring yet..... I'm a goofy goober yeah, your a goofy goober yeah........ sing louder boys, life is good.

Jetée · 06-27-2010, 01:33 PM

Are we really in a cultural golden age?

excerpt:

Sallust, the Roman historian who made his name by connecting great events to the moral outlook of the people involved in them, said it more than 2,000 years ago: “The golden age is before us, not behind us.” Twenty centuries later, we still don’t seem to have learned his epigrammatic lesson: We—both the critical we and the popular we—spend an inordinate amount of time looking backward and mourning a golden age of culture that is likely irrecoverable, while looking at the present day as either approaching or having already arrived at an utter nadir.

personal commentary:
I've sure been that one guy who thought "things now aren't like they used to be", but then again, I'm still not completely out of that phase. I've just learned to accept it gradually, move on, and approach each day by making the current one I've been afforded slightly better than the ones that have preceded me. It doesn't always work out, but when the ultimate goal is to improve one's self over time, how can that hurt, and who really, can say they failed, save for the ones who didn't try in the first place? The real challenge is to try to impart this simple individualistic philosophy upon others, who do, at times, seem hell-bent to regress to some metaphorical "mean" of their own take on when and where the "golden age" dawned.

Sure, I agree retrospectacles are nice in retriggering those dormant cherished memories, but if looked at too long, they can certainly inhibit personal growth. Then, there's the question of where our futures is headed, and when you over-ananlyze something as fluid and unpredictable as what will happen to me a few minutes from now, a day's length, next week, in the coming year, what will become of the world? - it just gets hectic and chaotic for no good reason.

Heaven gives its glimpses only to those / Not in position to look too close.

wing870 · 06-28-2010, 07:04 AM

I think every generation feels that way at some point.

boink · 06-28-2010, 04:30 PM

Idyllic, yes, I agree about the Eagle, or Lioness and Gazelle or Tree Frogs, or Dung Beetles.

words of history bring all sorts of images to mind, both heroic human history and heh, less than heroic, and also the natural history of the changes of the earth and the non humans that inhabit it and interact on our planet.

but I see what your saying and I do agree. no value to wallowing in self pity and self loathing. I don't really harbour any ill will towards the people who fish and make their living on the gulf, even the oil rigs. but ya know it was and still is a major chunk of the news and you can understand an outburst of disgust for the short sighted plunder that is the way of humans. overall my life is good. I'm not rich but I live cheaply so I have alot of money saved. I feel good about most of my life personally, so I think I'm lucky. but I know tons of people would think my life is dog shit and need 3-4+ times more money to feel good (?) about themselves.

but still, beyond that, is there any good reason for humanity to go on beyond this generation or so ? there was a show on Discovery about Earth after humans, how buildings, roads and bridges deteriorate. how even at Chernobyl is coming back with grass and trees. I dunno, seemed pretty cool to me. I think it'd be pretty hard to get rid of all humans. were too adaptable and resourceful. unless we had a real serious event that would pretty much take out all life on Earth.

Jetee, I don't see it as a "those were the days" kinda thing, I see it more as a problem something like Army Ants using up everything in sight on a small confined area, or how goldfish will just eat till they explode and die. humans don't seem to have any breaks. we all seem to think it's our *god given* right to build the next suburb and then whoops ! hey there's a Bear in my back yard !! but ya know that was the Bears back yard first.

whatever...no point in moaning, just gotta try to enjoy what we have and not add to the problems.

Ourcrazymodern? · 07-15-2010, 03:47 PM

Taking pleasure from our past strikes me as proof we shouldn't wish to deprive those who come after of it.

06-07-2010, 02:21 PM	#2 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	I read that article earlier today. Thing is, I decided awhile ago that it's not really worth the effort to try and rationalize biological imperatives. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

06-07-2010, 02:54 PM	#3 (permalink)
Hektore Junkie Location: Greater Harrisburg Area	Where to begin... How do we measure happiness and suffering to know which way the scale is tipping? Is happiness something that can exist without suffering? Since when is non-existence is superior to suffering? A happy life is not beneficial to the person having it? How can happiness not be beneficial while suffering is detrimental; suffering has consequences but happiness does not? That's one of the biggest loads of bull I've heard in a while. And I've been seeing some pretty large loads of bull lately... Even it we took it as truth at face value there isn't any good reason to not let the suffering decide for themselves. Once they decide that non-existence is superior to their suffering they won't be around to lament their suffering any longer. __________________ The advantage law is the best law in rugby, because it lets you ignore all the others for the good of the game.

06-07-2010, 04:26 PM	#7 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	I had always thought I had to have kids since I was a kid. It was a natural part of the culture I grew up in. It wasn't until I learned I had actual choices that it became apparent to me that I could and would chose a childfree life. It has nothing to do with guilt, or future generations but for me to enjoy the life, city, and income that I have now. Maybe it's just as selfish, but I don't have to share my wife with any children. I don't have to agonize over illness and strife over acceptance to schools. I don't have to worry about any child coming home late from a party. I don't worry about if they are or will be a good person. I live my life for me and my wife. And that's the end of my line in my family tree. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

06-07-2010, 05:31 PM	#9 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	The best response I have to this comes directly from Buddhism: The Four Noble Truths 1. Life means suffering. 2. The origin of suffering is attachment. 3. The cessation of suffering is attainable. 4. There is a path to the cessation of suffering. QED The Eightfold Path (Wisdom) 1. Right View 2. Right Intention (Ethical Conduct) 3. Right Speech 4. Right Action 5. Right Livelihood (Mental Development) 6. Right Effort 7. Right Mindfulness 8. Right Concentration __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

06-07-2010, 07:52 PM	#11 (permalink)
Pearl Trade Addict Location: Houston, Texas	Doesn't every generation say their generation was worse than the last? Each individual makes their own happiness. No one can truly know how bad the time was before they were born. "Oh, hey, Hitler and Stalin killed millions." While that does provoke a certain amount of emotion, the people who lived then are the only ones to actually feel it. If you have a kid, that kid will not know anything beyond what happns in the life he lives. __________________ Our revenge will be the laughter of our children. Give me convenience or give me death!

06-07-2010, 02:55 PM	#4 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	To be perfectly honest, my first child wasn't the result of sweaty, grunty philosophical cogitation. She was an accident, but one that was embraced. The second kid was a conscious choice because the first kid was a net awesome. While I do have no small amount of fear that the world will collapse into chaos during the lives of my children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, it isn't a limiting factor in my decision making. The world has always been a cruel place and if humanity ever gets to a place where it is collectively afraid to reproduce because the world is too cruel, then it will justifiably die out. On top of that, I believe that suffering is relative, and happiness is generally fleeting, regardless of circumstance. So that the calculus involved with predicting the net lifetime emotional satisfaction of potential offspring is not only intractable, but also a misguided endeavor.

06-07-2010, 03:26 PM	#5 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	If you're worried about the world being shitty for your kids, perhaps instead of giving up you should work harder. The worst thing that happens is you devote some of your life to making the world a better place, teaching your children to do the same.

06-08-2010, 11:00 AM	#13 (permalink)
Ourcrazymodern? still, wondering. Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge	When I look at myself, I think probably, but when I look at my offspring, I think probably not. There's not unusual selfishness in living for yourself, but there's less in living for others. Imagining an ability to choose to be last strikes me as absurd. __________________ BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

06-08-2010, 11:17 AM	#14 (permalink)
Jetée The Reforms Location: Rarely, if ever, here or there, but always in transition	I have been thinking about this very same premise in two differing ways for quite a while. The first way is the evil way: I'd love it, if, by some way, happenstance, or random natural accident, half (or more) of the world's current population were to just "vanish" tomorrow (substitute whichever word synonomous with annul you'd prefer) ; and by "love", I mean I wouldn't be outraged or hysterical about it, and by "tomorrow", I mean a gradual process of a period of decay, whether it be weeks, months, years or decades that has our population equalize to a sub-de-limited state of current conditions. second part is the "sad pondering" cultural way: of where I am beginning to wonder why and how this generation now, and those that are still being sprung forth tirelessly into the future, can compare to the knowledge of what the average normal person knows today? It's a mind-boggling premise to eloquently state or even begin to expand upon, but for starters, culturally, now and forever, is lost unto what we already hold within ourselves as "must-experiences", such as King-Kong, The Beatles, Michael Jordan, Hop on Pop, etc. and whatever else you, personally might supplant. It doesn't get any richer than right now, for those of us born from the decades of the 1940s onwards, to as late as 1991, in terms of "equalized", and fundamental, rudimentary, and above all, trivial knowledge. Kids today can't comprehend our dying commentary of the times. And because of that, I'm sure of, the Sunday NYTimes crossword puzzle acumen of the layperson will become either comical, or bordering on the teeterings of a new way to measure a modern-day savant. __________________ As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world (that is the myth of the Atomic Age) as in being able to remake ourselves. —Mohandas K. Gandhi

06-09-2010, 11:22 AM	#16 (permalink)
raeanna74 I'm not a blonde! I'm knot! I'm knot! I'm knot! Location: Upper Michigan	Unless we could institute universal sterilization or even limit the number of children born to each adult/couple then I certainly am not going to stop having children JUST to control the population. I'm increasingly aware of large poor families (due to the additional government help gained for each new child), and large numbers od stupid people. My theory is that the stupid people who don't even care about birth control, caring for children, and working hard will end up overpopulating the earth and the intelligent, careful, hard working and amibitious people will limit their numbers by using birth control responsibly. This could eventually leave the responsible, intelligent people in the minority. On a side note - I truely believe that a law should be made to force sterilization after an individuals SECOND abortion. I've seen too many welfare recipients relying on abortions for birth control. It's irresponsible and shows a lack of forethough or even intelligence. __________________ "Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

06-12-2010, 12:59 PM	#17 (permalink)
boink Addict Location: Seattle	I'm more than ok with being the last generation,mainly because humanity is so destructive to the planet as a whole. We do share it with tons of other life forms who, to me are born with th same right to live here regardless of their size or preceived intelligence. We are a selfish cruel horror and we deserve to die so the flora and fauna can continue in relative peace. Just mho. __________________ when you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer. Superstition ain't the way.

06-12-2010, 01:06 PM	#18 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	I think evolution would simply create another entity to fill our destructive shoes. Humanity is the most powerful force of nature, the pinnacle of bull-in-china-shop. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

06-12-2010, 01:48 PM	#19 (permalink)
FuglyStick WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE! Location: Southern Illinois	Newsflash--Earth will be here long after we are gone. I wonder if the dinosaurs had this discussion as well.

06-12-2010, 01:49 PM	#20 (permalink)
boink Addict Location: Seattle	bull's in china shops are actually quite graceful and don't do much damage at all. -see Mythbusters epp. humanity is powerful but not the most powerful. we sure have the power to wreck everything for all life on earth though, but we don't have the power to fix it all. we are most likely destroying the gulf right now and that oil will more then likely destroy vast amounts of ecosystems far beyond the gulf for decades to come with no real way to clean it up or restore it. nature will eventually come back but but we really fucked it in the ass this time. all so we can drive our little plastic cars to the market and buy our little plastic crap. people whining about the devastation of the gulf economy...fuck the humans living in the gulf ! what about the sea life ? how'd you like to be a whale swimming around filtering plankton and get a mouth full of crude oil ? maybe you'd just die cause your baleen is all clogged and fucked up with oil ? animal life gets shit on everywhere and all humans worry about is their god damned economy. fuck humans. __________________ when you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer. Superstition ain't the way.

06-12-2010, 02:05 PM	#21 (permalink)
Ourcrazymodern? still, wondering. Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge	boink, ranting about some of our failings doesn't really address the question. Yes, we don't take responsibility for some of the rights we've assumed, but that doesn't give us the right to abandon ourselves to oblivion. Aside from the fact that that's not going to happen in this generation nor at anytime soon, striving for betterment is something people do & we can't do it if we just give up. __________________ BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

06-12-2010, 02:17 PM	#22 (permalink)
boink Addict Location: Seattle	agreed __________________ when you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer. Superstition ain't the way.

06-12-2010, 03:14 PM	#23 (permalink)
Idyllic Psycho Location: My House	Hey boink, did you hear that tree fall? Or let me ask this, did you ever see anything more beautiful in your life than the outstretched wings of an eagle as it takes flight with the body of a ruddy salmon struggling in its steely talons? Do the words of history bring images of anything other than death and despair to ones mind, if not, then maybe we should all try reading some other books that don't feed into the worse miseries of life, and actually believing them. Living is so much more beautiful than we seem to give it credit, sorrow is cheap my friend, it costs effort to find happiness, but when happiness is achieved it is truly priceless, and yes, all to often fleeting, so it is easier to dwell in sorrow that to strive for happiness daily, but no one likes a cheap-scape. I am happy that the more impoverished people along the gulf may be able to earn some money cleaning up the mess, I am saddened for the environment, deeply saddened, but what has happen has happened, time to clean up now. Reality doesn't change the momentum of life, action does. Many people will be traveling to the gulf states to help in the clean-up, the economy will hopefully thrive off of the environmentally conscience "tourists" who will not only feed the hungry but will feed their own souls in partnering with the locals to clean up the shorelines (buying happiness merely costs a little self-servicing effort). Humans are, in general, good. I will always believe in the intrinsic goodness of mankind, we really just need to work on believing this about ourselves and our lives and living that reality and humanity can be so much more than it presently appears to be. Not to mention more reading and community involvement and less headline news watching. Kum by ya my friend, kum by ya....... Yeah, I've been drinking again, what about it..... at least my fingers aren't slurring yet..... I'm a goofy goober yeah, your a goofy goober yeah........ sing louder boys, life is good. __________________ you can tell them all you want but it won't matter until they think it does p.s. I contradict my contradictions, with or without intention, sometimes.

06-27-2010, 01:33 PM	#24 (permalink)
Jetée The Reforms Location: Rarely, if ever, here or there, but always in transition	Are we really in a cultural golden age? excerpt: Sallust, the Roman historian who made his name by connecting great events to the moral outlook of the people involved in them, said it more than 2,000 years ago: “The golden age is before us, not behind us.” Twenty centuries later, we still don’t seem to have learned his epigrammatic lesson: We—both the critical we and the popular we—spend an inordinate amount of time looking backward and mourning a golden age of culture that is likely irrecoverable, while looking at the present day as either approaching or having already arrived at an utter nadir. personal commentary: I've sure been that one guy who thought "things now aren't like they used to be", but then again, I'm still not completely out of that phase. I've just learned to accept it gradually, move on, and approach each day by making the current one I've been afforded slightly better than the ones that have preceded me. It doesn't always work out, but when the ultimate goal is to improve one's self over time, how can that hurt, and who really, can say they failed, save for the ones who didn't try in the first place? The real challenge is to try to impart this simple individualistic philosophy upon others, who do, at times, seem hell-bent to regress to some metaphorical "mean" of their own take on when and where the "golden age" dawned. Sure, I agree retrospectacles are nice in retriggering those dormant cherished memories, but if looked at too long, they can certainly inhibit personal growth. Then, there's the question of where our futures is headed, and when you over-ananlyze something as fluid and unpredictable as what will happen to me a few minutes from now, a day's length, next week, in the coming year, what will become of the world? - it just gets hectic and chaotic for no good reason. Heaven gives its glimpses only to those / Not in position to look too close. __________________ As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world (that is the myth of the Atomic Age) as in being able to remake ourselves. —Mohandas K. Gandhi Last edited by Jetée; 06-27-2010 at 01:40 PM..

06-28-2010, 07:04 AM	#25 (permalink)
wing870 Upright	I think every generation feels that way at some point.

06-28-2010, 04:30 PM	#26 (permalink)
boink Addict Location: Seattle	Idyllic, yes, I agree about the Eagle, or Lioness and Gazelle or Tree Frogs, or Dung Beetles. words of history bring all sorts of images to mind, both heroic human history and heh, less than heroic, and also the natural history of the changes of the earth and the non humans that inhabit it and interact on our planet. but I see what your saying and I do agree. no value to wallowing in self pity and self loathing. I don't really harbour any ill will towards the people who fish and make their living on the gulf, even the oil rigs. but ya know it was and still is a major chunk of the news and you can understand an outburst of disgust for the short sighted plunder that is the way of humans. overall my life is good. I'm not rich but I live cheaply so I have alot of money saved. I feel good about most of my life personally, so I think I'm lucky. but I know tons of people would think my life is dog shit and need 3-4+ times more money to feel good (?) about themselves. but still, beyond that, is there any good reason for humanity to go on beyond this generation or so ? there was a show on Discovery about Earth after humans, how buildings, roads and bridges deteriorate. how even at Chernobyl is coming back with grass and trees. I dunno, seemed pretty cool to me. I think it'd be pretty hard to get rid of all humans. were too adaptable and resourceful. unless we had a real serious event that would pretty much take out all life on Earth. Jetee, I don't see it as a "those were the days" kinda thing, I see it more as a problem something like Army Ants using up everything in sight on a small confined area, or how goldfish will just eat till they explode and die. humans don't seem to have any breaks. we all seem to think it's our god given right to build the next suburb and then whoops ! hey there's a Bear in my back yard !! but ya know that was the Bears back yard first. whatever...no point in moaning, just gotta try to enjoy what we have and not add to the problems. __________________ when you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer. Superstition ain't the way.

07-15-2010, 03:47 PM	#27 (permalink)
Ourcrazymodern? still, wondering. Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge	Taking pleasure from our past strikes me as proof we shouldn't wish to deprive those who come after of it. __________________ BE JUST AND FEAR NOT