I came across a couple articles about it last year but they're usually long, such as this one, and I must admit I didn't read the whole thing. For a more concise explanation I found this video:
It also touches upon some things I mentioned in my previous entry, such as the terror threatened by doG against all who disagree with him. This part is actually new tome in the context of antinatalism, I had assumed antinatalism to be firmly and exclusively founded on atheism/materialism.
Despite this latter assumption, I found myself sympathizing to some extent with antinatalism.
Only to some extent - since there are several reasons for which I could never fully adopt this view for myself.
Only to some extent - since there are several reasons for which I could never fully adopt this view for myself.
Of course, unlike most people who, as the guy mentioned in the video, like sex, I have always been disgusted by even the idea of having sex, and so I naturally won't ever have children.
But the antinatalist view is ultimately grounded on compassion for the suffering of those brought into existence, and by nature I don't care about that, not only in a selfish way where others are concerned, but to some extent even concerning myself. If some suffering is necessary as a means to an end I'm willing to go through it. The hard workouts I do also entail some amount of suffering which I voluntarily choose, because I'm a warrior.
And this is another reason why antinatalism is not for me: It's basically a stance of resignation, and definitely not a way of a warrior. Myself I do believe that I'm in this world for a reason, that I can make a stand here and gain something for myself, and for who and what I stand for - for Satan, for His rebellion which I share, for freedom and lawlessness.
But I'm not opposed to the antinatalist view because under the assumption of materialism, the assumption that there is absolutely nothing to be gained from this life but a return into nonexistence - then this bleak and pessimistic outlook is the only one that makes sense!
In a much earlier entry I posted about a thought experiment - which wasn't my own idea but I was very interested to hear other people's opinions on it. It concerned the hypothetical offer of a free vacation trip to any destination of your choice, no matter how much it costs, with only one hitch: At the end of the journey your memory of it would be completely erased, and you would not be allowed to bring back any photos or other souvenirs.
There are no replies on the blog post itself, but 2 or 3 people commented when I posted the link to my entry on Facebook, and just like myself they said they would rather refuse this offer.
It would in no way enrich our life experiences of the memory of the trip were irretrievably erased thereafter just as if it had never happened, and therefore it would be useless. (Apart from the fact that some said they'd hate the idea of having their memory tampered with.)
But you see, the actual reason why this thought experiment interested me so much was because in the materialist view, our entire lives would be just like this trip!
If we are to simply cease to exist after the death of our bodies then naturally we won't retain any memories of our lives, and it would be as if we had never lived in the first place. This very fact makes life completely pointless from the start, which is why in my opinion, a materialist view can only be accommodated along with the antinatalist view - all else seems complete insanity!
Because if materialism is true then we all were only really born to die, needlessly.
And let's face it, if materialism is true then it's completely delusional to believe that any part of you will live on in your children, grandchildren, and future generations. Some genes, yes - but you also share some genes with mosquitoes, potatoes, and any lifeform on Earth; it all evolved from the same substance and is ultimately made of the same substance. But in order to live in any form you have to experience - consciously. There is no reason to believe that after your physical death you will suddenly to some extent share the consciousness of your children, if that were so then why would this suddenly happen only after your death?
1) While alive you don't experience a shared consciousness with your children. 2) If you have more than one child, your consciousness would have to somehow split up to be distributed among them. 3) And what would that be like for the child...
(My father already died about 10 years ago, and I'm perfectly certain that no part of his consciousness has become part of mine!)
And even if you're into this creepy collectivism - being the ultimate individualist, it's totally creepy to me - and you believe in "contributing your part to humanity as a whole", that would make very little difference since humanity will also eventually cease to exist, and that's absolutely not a question of "if" but only of "when".
Lately I read this article about the probability of finding extraterrestrial life in globular star clusters - there's an English language source article to it, but what interested me more than the article itself were some of the comments under the one in Dutch language.
The article says that in a couple of billions of years, Earth will become too hot to sustain life and that humanity will therefore have to move to a different solar system. A person named "Tom Meijer" is quoting this part and suggesting that such nonsense should not be repeated everywhere.
Someone else correctly points out that with the aging Sun growing hotter over time, Earth will indeed become uninhabitable. Tom Meijer states he knows this but that this is not what he meant: it is the idea that humanity might still exist in billions of years that is absolutely preposterous - and I couldn't agree more with him!!
His comment is drawing mighty flak, including name calling ("lulkoek" roughly translates as "dick cookie"), which more often than not speaks for a lack of any valid points of argumentation.
"How dare you say that our precious, noble race [LOL] might be anything but immortal among the stars?!"
But the truth is, absolutely nothing in this physical universe is meant to last, even the stars burn out, and the formation of new ones likely will eventually cease.
Species of lifeforms are even much shorter lived, without exception they either change or disappear over geological time spans. Even my beloved familiars, the sharks, who are at over 400 million years among the oldest of all higher species of life of Earth - which means, for comparison, they had already existed for about 200 million years at the time the very first dinosaurs appeared - have not remained the same over time. In the deep sea there are still some very archaic species like the frilled shark enduring to this day; on the other hand more modern families like the mackerel sharks, members of which include swift and highly intelligent species like the mako and great white sharks, appeared only later, and the greatest predator the oceans have ever seen, the mighty Megalodon, sadly is no longer among us.
The same goes for humans; in the unlikely case that they won't have long died out in a few millions (NOT billions) of years it is doubtful whether they could still appropriately be regarded as humans because their nature and appearance would likely be vastly different from what is familiar to us now.
In conclusion, the most likely explanation for the Fermi Paradox may be indeed that intelligent species capable of building space-faring civilizations usually are only very short lived.
Because if materialism is true then we all were only really born to die, needlessly.
And let's face it, if materialism is true then it's completely delusional to believe that any part of you will live on in your children, grandchildren, and future generations. Some genes, yes - but you also share some genes with mosquitoes, potatoes, and any lifeform on Earth; it all evolved from the same substance and is ultimately made of the same substance. But in order to live in any form you have to experience - consciously. There is no reason to believe that after your physical death you will suddenly to some extent share the consciousness of your children, if that were so then why would this suddenly happen only after your death?
1) While alive you don't experience a shared consciousness with your children. 2) If you have more than one child, your consciousness would have to somehow split up to be distributed among them. 3) And what would that be like for the child...
(My father already died about 10 years ago, and I'm perfectly certain that no part of his consciousness has become part of mine!)
And even if you're into this creepy collectivism - being the ultimate individualist, it's totally creepy to me - and you believe in "contributing your part to humanity as a whole", that would make very little difference since humanity will also eventually cease to exist, and that's absolutely not a question of "if" but only of "when".
Lately I read this article about the probability of finding extraterrestrial life in globular star clusters - there's an English language source article to it, but what interested me more than the article itself were some of the comments under the one in Dutch language.
The article says that in a couple of billions of years, Earth will become too hot to sustain life and that humanity will therefore have to move to a different solar system. A person named "Tom Meijer" is quoting this part and suggesting that such nonsense should not be repeated everywhere.
Someone else correctly points out that with the aging Sun growing hotter over time, Earth will indeed become uninhabitable. Tom Meijer states he knows this but that this is not what he meant: it is the idea that humanity might still exist in billions of years that is absolutely preposterous - and I couldn't agree more with him!!
His comment is drawing mighty flak, including name calling ("lulkoek" roughly translates as "dick cookie"), which more often than not speaks for a lack of any valid points of argumentation.
"How dare you say that our precious, noble race [LOL] might be anything but immortal among the stars?!"
But the truth is, absolutely nothing in this physical universe is meant to last, even the stars burn out, and the formation of new ones likely will eventually cease.
Species of lifeforms are even much shorter lived, without exception they either change or disappear over geological time spans. Even my beloved familiars, the sharks, who are at over 400 million years among the oldest of all higher species of life of Earth - which means, for comparison, they had already existed for about 200 million years at the time the very first dinosaurs appeared - have not remained the same over time. In the deep sea there are still some very archaic species like the frilled shark enduring to this day; on the other hand more modern families like the mackerel sharks, members of which include swift and highly intelligent species like the mako and great white sharks, appeared only later, and the greatest predator the oceans have ever seen, the mighty Megalodon, sadly is no longer among us.
The same goes for humans; in the unlikely case that they won't have long died out in a few millions (NOT billions) of years it is doubtful whether they could still appropriately be regarded as humans because their nature and appearance would likely be vastly different from what is familiar to us now.
In conclusion, the most likely explanation for the Fermi Paradox may be indeed that intelligent species capable of building space-faring civilizations usually are only very short lived.
